Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Tasks

The following backlogs require the attention of one or more editors.
NPOV disputes, Images on Commons, Overpopulated categories and Copyright Problems.

General

Arbitration

Geoff_NoNick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new editor, he keeps deleting factually correct information from the List of conflicts in Canada article. I discussed the matter with him at the articles user talk page. He disagrees with the reverts and has posted me as a sock puppet of someone named WritersCramp Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WritersCramp. Would you please remove my name from the request page and speak this person about proper etiquette at Wikipedia. If you believe I am a sockpuppet of this editor please close my wiki account. I will move on to another hobby. Thank you SirIsaacBrock 19:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, is anyone looking into this matter? I have not heard anything yet. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 12:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask for a checkuser request to try to prove you and WritersCramp are different editors (assuming you are). I am unable to perform this check for you. Superm401 - Talk 03:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a check user and they said "Inconclusive" so I need a third party to remove my name from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WritersCramp. I cannot do it myself, it has to be an admin, thank you SirIsaacBrock 09:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is nobody looking into this matter?? SirIsaacBrock 12:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RFCU was inconclusive, please feel free to post to that effect on the RFC. RFCs cannot take binding action against editors, so it will not mitigate against you. Stifle (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy/anonymizing IP

Please, add the following proxy IP to your banned IP list: 65.19.174.35. According to http://cqcounter.com/whois/, this IP is that of the email anonymizing company Primedius (http://www.primedius.com).

E-mail aonymizing, therefore not a open web proxy. Mike _{(T C)}

01:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an open proxy, true, but still a proxy. People can hide behind such proxy IP, vandalize Wikipedia, act irresponsibly under cover of anonimity. It should therefore be banned along with all open proxies.

If it doesn't proxy HTTP traffic (and it apparently doesn't), it's not an issue for us. If you find evidence it does proxy HTTP, let us know. Superm401 - Talk 03:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish we could allow anonymous proxies. Maybe it'd be a good idea to disable non-logged-in editing and enable open proxies. I think that'd be better. cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 17:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be better in terms of promoting the posting of content which is illegal. Whether than would improve Wikipedia is another question entirely. Often illegal material is an improvement, I admit, but more often it is a disimprovement. Moreover, the majority of uses of anonymity have more to do with offensive behaviour than with unlawful behaviour. A wiki version of rotten.com might have a use, but I would prefer not to go there myself.Aminorex 14:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive internal spamming?

Please have a look at Special:Contributions/Rgulerdem, for a long list of user pages that have been visited to leave a message about Wikipedia:Wikiethics. Is this allowed? --KimvdLinde 00:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger loose

Looks like there's a tiger named Rgulerdem (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) loose in the natural history museum and he's performing WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming.

Resid appears to have spammed upwards of one hundred (if not more) user's talk pages.

The following is just a sample of it. See some of the rest here and here (do note the blind alphabetical order he's following).

spam 01 User talk:Borincano75
spam 02 User talk:BonsaiViking
spam 03 User talk:Blarneytherinosaur
spam 04 User talk:Benzai
spam 05 User talk:Ben davison
spam 06 User talk:Beau99
spam 07 User User talk:Bcat
spam 08 User talk:Banes
spam 09 User talk:Awcolley
spam 10 User talk:Averykrouse
spam 11 User talk:Archola
spam 12 User talk:Andrewski
spam 13 User talk:Andrewa
spam 14 User talk:Zjhafeez
spam 15 User talk:Zereshk

Might be worthy of a bit of admin attention... but I could be wrong of course.

Netscott 00:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:Rgulerdem has been notified of this report. Netscott 00:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Wikiethics. I am inviting people to the discussion. More input from the community will help better. Resid Gulerdem

01:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Rgulerdem has managed to even spam User:Guettarda the admin who blocked him yesterday for 3RR violation.... seems to be rather blind spamming. Netscott 01:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has been blocked for 31 hours for talk page spamming. I will unblock (or will not contest another admin's unblock) if he apologizes and promises not to do it again. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily I'd tend to agree about the unblock after apology... but you might want to be aware of this 3RR report from yesterday that will put his spamming in perspective. Also perhaps take note of the bad faith and false 'revenge' 3RR report he filed against me. Netscott 01:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Despite my constant banging the drum that we warn and then block only as a preventative measure, Kelly's block is quite fair in this case. That's a karmafist-worthy list of talk page contributions he's made. - brenneman^{L} 01:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read those above from the bottom up, they are in alphabetical order. -Splash^talk 01:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was part of why I blocked. It seemed obvious to me that he would have continued all the way to "Z" if not stopped. He's still demanding a reference to the rule against spamming; I'm not yet willing to unblock. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well durable block or apology/unblock... good admining on the part of Kelly Martin, thanks. ;-) Netscott 01:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General consensus after the User:Ram-Man duel lisence thing was that spaming is bad however as WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming we never put together any solid rules. The problem is in defineing spam and the like. For example putting the same message on a large number of userpages appears to have become ingrained in WP:RFA culture. Bulk bot produced unserlictored messages are a key part of our anti copyvio stratergy (or at least a key part of minimiseing complaints about it). So yes the user is correct that there is no rule agaist spaming. If we look at WP:BLOCK the cloest policy to being aplicable is Users who exhaust the community's patience. However that is mostly meant to be for permablocks.Geni 02:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still learning about WikiPedia and I'm not familiar with how WP:RFA works, are mass WP:RFA User_talk page postings done absolutely blindly? Netscott 02:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in that case the people spammed are the people that actually bothered to vote, not some random number of people you've never met. —Ruud 02:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ruud for the response, but what you are describing doesn't sound too blind to me... if they voted then it sounds a bit more "Opt-in". Netscott 02:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Rgulerdem is using a list from somewhere.Geni 02:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, some users are identified as either muslim or christian, the groups that most likely would be in favour of some censorship at wikipedia. KimvdLinde 02:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. The groups most likely to be in favor of censorship are the various people with strong political opinions. Of course they won't help his particular case. The old Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency might once have been a logical place to start if it hadn't collapsed into a rather messy VDF.Geni 03:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guys seem to mix up something. Wikipedia:Wikiethics is not pro-Censorship. Wikipedia:Wikiethics is pro-Ethics. Censorship would mean, that an admin blocks your content because he finds it unsuitable. Ethics rather means, that the editor himself thinks about what and what not to write. That's a big difference, if you make an effort to think about it. Raphael1 04:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(removing indent)

He also sent out spams on the 10th and 12th of March. On that occasion his spamlist was partly composed of users who voted object on the censorship policy poll. I suggest someone request him to share the origins of his spamlist on his talk page. It might be a good criteria for unblocking. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 03:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty obvious he used Category:Christian Wikipedians for the A's and B's and Category:Muslim Wikipedians for the Z's. —Ruud 04:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a polite conversation with User:Rgulerdem where he indicated to my satisfaction that he intends to continue talk page spamming. I have therefore extended his block by 72 hours. Nandesuka 12:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sometimes we don't need hard and fast rules, we just need to do what is right. Asking for specific rules that prohibit a disruptive action is wikilawyering and not helpful. The block is covered under disruption. And finally the spamming is more likely to make people vote against the proposal anyway, but that's not an excuse to allow it. - Taxman ^Talk 13:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Although I made an explanation above, my account is blocked, unfortunately. I would like to repeat my response to this accusation again. I hope that I can find some democrat admins here to listen what I am saying. Misbehaving users are no good for Wiki but admins misusing their previliges is even worse and may lead to chaos.

Admins should use their privilages wisely and consciously. Only then it may help to keep the place safe. Warning before blocking is not a luxury, it is a standard. Asking about the reasons for an editor's actions, if not well understood by an admin, is not a luxury, it is so wise. Asking and warning doesnt take more than 5 min and doesn't make Wiki a volnerable place. It rather creates a better and friendly atmosphere. There is no need for strong formality if and only if admins following well-established ethics and standards. The definitions of acceptible and unacceptable should not vary from one admin to another. If there is unclearity on an issue, they need to use extra caution. In a civil environment the standards are not only for poor ordinary users, but also for admins. An admin who is not so careful in his decisions distrup Wiki from functioning as well as a user who do not care about it. Unfairly blocked users are a good exapmle of disruption.

What I was doing was not spamming. I was just letting a selected group of people who might not be aware of the proposal and who might want to know about it. (Babylon - spamming: simultaneous sending of an irrelevant message to a large number of discussion groups on the Internet). I my case I am blocked without a prior warning, and blocked for 31 hours, and blocked on subjective decision of an admin which is extended subjective decision of another. 'Assumeing good faith' should not be just a link for the admins to color their talks, when talking to ordinary users.

I am expecting an apology from the admins involved for their poor behaviour against me and a promise regarding that they won't misuse their priviliges anymore towards anyone. I should add that I would like to see this incident as a mistake which should not be generelized for all actions of the admins involved, neither to the community of admins. I am sure and in fact I know that there are many who are doing their jobs as good as possible.

I checked my account and it was unblocked. I am signing my name as you see here. I hope some admins here won't ask me pay for the flaw in the system, if there is. Thanks. Resid Gulerdem 21:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Based on the explanations above, I would like to keep informing a selected group of people who might want to know about the proposal and who might be interested. I would like to make it clear with you that there is no problem with that. Please let me know what do you think about it. I believe informing a group of people is nothing to do with spam and should be welcomed in Wiki. Thanks... Resid Gulerdem 21:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not innocent "informing a group of people" so much as astroturfing. It is not kosher to attempt to radically shape polls in the way you have. I don't personally have an opinion as to if you should've been blocked for it, but it is certainly something you should not have done and should not do in the future. --Improv 19:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a reasonable question. I'm afraid I think the block was technically an abuse of admin powers, but I don't think there's any point in taking this further. It would be different if any of the recipients of the message had complained, but there's been no evidence presented of this. And, at the very least, IMO a warning should have been given before the block.

The root cause of the problem seems to be an attempt to gag this user by calling a poll on a policy proposal for the express purpose of getting it rejected. The opponents of this draft policy have declared that, assuming the poll fails (as is IMO certain, the proposal is not nearly ready to be a guideline, let alone a policy) that the proposed policy will then instantly become a failed proposal. What this means is unclear, but unfortunately an admin has suggested (I hope in jest) that they would then be willing to just delete the proposal. IMO the tactic of calling such negative polls is to be discouraged. As far as I can see it does not violate any policy or guideline except perhaps WP:POINT, but it seems a pure waste of time. Assuming that this poll is rejected, that does not IMO prevent the proposers from working further on it, and calling a new poll when they are ready to do so. However the proposer is relatively new, and I think it is understandable that they should be worried about this apparent attempt to delete their work.

Even if all the allegations against this user were true, that would then make it even more important for admins to follow procedures and guidelines, and to encourage others to do so too. See Wikipedia talk:Wikiethics. Please note, I'm not defending the unfortunate and IMO misguided spate of "Christian" activism, advocacy and trolling on Wikipedia of which this proposal may be part. Rather, I am saying that it is important not to descend to their level. Andrewa 12:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not innocent "informing a group of people" so much as astroturfing. It is not kosher to attempt to radically shape polls in the way you have. I don't personally have an opinion as to if you should've been blocked for it, but it is certainly something you should not have done and should not do in the future. --Improv 19:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improv, you made some assesments but I can not see any retionale behind your conclusions. Can I get your reasoning for your statements like: This is not innocent and something you should not have done and should not do in the future. Besides being impolite, 'it is not innocent' statement seems to be contradicting 'assume good faith' approach. I cannot see any policy, guideline or regulation to disourage this kind of informing procedure. I think it is totally unfair and unacceptable to think that with a single message all Wikipedians will go for the vote as I suggested. As the poll indicated, just a few users voted after my message. The message is clear, and my position in this dispute clearly stated in it. I am not pushing anyone to vote (it is simply impossible), neither hiding my position by using some flowery words to misguide the users. It is natural that my message reflects my perspective. I am ready to follow a consensus (and only consensus) among the admins, but please note that independent from the case, a consensus against this kind of informing procedure will highly restrict users' freedom of speach in Wiki IMO. If it is decided so, than some objective norms will be needed such as 'informing how many users will be considered as unacceptible'. Please note that, existing no-spam guideline is not applicaple to this case. Resid Gulerdem 00:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resid's line above, "I think it is totally unfair and unacceptable to think that with a single message all Wikipedians will go for the vote as I suggested" seems so disingenuous when one reads his last edit before going on this WP/AN reported "spampage": "I am leaving the decision about you and your actions to the community here. Resid Gulerdem 00:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)". Obviously Resid, you expected to have some impact. Can we stop the spin now? Netscott 01:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see your point Netscott, where is the insincerity? If you really want to see insincerety, spin and some cheap tactics you can check this diff. Resid Gulerdem 11:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Rgulerdem does anything resembling spamming in future, I intend to block him. This is one of the most egregious, bare-faced and unrepentant cases I have ever encountered. --Tony Sidaway 04:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't 'anything resembling spamming' a little vague? Can I get your reasoning for calling it 'the most egregious, bare-faced and unrepentant cases I have ever encountered'? Please note that discretionary actions are not acceptible. If there is an administrative consensus on the issue, I would follow that. I cannot see a consensus so far. If there is, it would be better if the consensus is mentioned in some policies. Resid Gulerdem 04:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion on the admins page WP:AN and there is no admin consensus on this being spamming. I have been blocked for this before and I hope people do not want to repeat the same mistake. Resid Gulerdem 04:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The above quote from Resid's talk page in reply to a warning from Thebainer. NSL E _(T+C) at 04:46 UTC (2006-04-07)

Long blocks on shared IPs

I noticed that a number of long(more than 24 hour) blocks have been put on IPs that have been marked as being shared among multiple users. AFAIK, this is a Bad Thing. I have removed a number of these placed by User:Hall Monitor. I am posting here for further consideration and discussion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with nice long blocks to vandal schools personally (long blocks to other shared IPS is different). If the IP has been a consistent vandal and has produced nothing but vandalism and the students can still use the site for research and education but simply cannot edit, I fail to see the harm. I personally feel it's better to miss out on the one good edit that will likely not come out of that IP then to put up with their nonsense, because we want them to be able to continue to edit and vandalise. The site is still available to them as an encyclopedia and it likely more than one idiot who is vandalsiing if it happenign that often so a one hour or three houtr block ain't gonna do it. I mean, look at the vandalism history...it ain't working! I say well done HallMonitor, we need more vandal fighters like you. My opinion.Gator (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2nded. I have given a few long blocks to school ips as well, and shortened them if/when someone emailed me with an objection. My assumption of good faith doesn't go so far as to believe that there will be a single good edit waiting in the ether, and it will make up for the time that the vandal fighters take away from actually building an encyclopedia to remove vandalism. BTW did you (JesseW) try to discuss this first with Hall Monitor before removing the blocks and bringing it here? --Syrthiss 15:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked and didn't see anything...Gator (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note however that I do quite frequently have to unblock my own school IPs when i want to edit from work. Schools do frequently have hundreds of people sharing the IP. Slapping a 1 hour block takes half a minute at most. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above, I can't see it as a huge problem when the IP is primarily used for vandalism (bug 550 would help too), people can contact the blocker if they have an issue and I see no reason to believe that Hall Monitor is not receptive to this. Similarly the long blocks tend to invite a system admin to contact Hall Monitor. This seems to be a good way of trying to deal with the problem, see if the school/whoever is willing to try and work with us, rather than just saying it's a WP problem (or rather an RC Patrol problem). I wish people would do the same with AOL, AOL User blocked complain to AOL see if they are willing to help, enough do it maybe they will... --pgk^(talk) 17:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well said.Gator (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very affected by long term school blocks. I just had a 2 week block instituted on my school IP (Which was unblocked by request), however after one case of vandalism, the IP was once again blocked for 48 hours. It's a major inconvinence when I want to edit from school, but am unable to due to some vandal. My school IP is shared throughout the entire school, and possibly the entire school district. Just wanted it to be known that there are good editors at school :P --lightdarkness^(talk) 19:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do think a named conributor with a history of good edits requesting an unblock on such a block should be given a fair weight. --pgk^(talk) 19:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I have yet to have that happen to me though, but would be willing to unblock in that case. Very rare though.Gator (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have this problem too; a school network I often edit from had a 1 month block plonked on it, and it can be frustrating if I've just spent half an hour working on an image, only hit upload file and get a "You have been blocked by user:JoeAdmin". smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 23:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I asked here. I ought to have asked Hall Monitor before unblocking, sorry about that. It seems like blocking school IPs for long periods is accepted, but blocking non-school shared IPs is not. Can someone update the blocking policy to reflect this, please? Also, it would be good to have a distinguishing template color for shared school IPs from non-school ones. JesseW, the juggling janitor 11:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You want to to update the blocking policy bases on what a handful of admins stated despite the fact that several people have stated that there is in fact very real collateral damage? I think there needs to be a fair bit more discussion before we start changing policy! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly familiar with the handling of blocks, so I personally don't have a strong opinion on this. My understanding of the above comments was what led me to the suggestion to correct the policy to be in line with what appears to be current practice. I'd be delighted for whatever further discussion anyone wants to do. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Fear not, for Raul has already proposed a solution to this problem (Comment #13). I'm now prodding Rob Church to impliment it. Raul654 03:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt's team, 'Wikipedia Watch'

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

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

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

User talk:Nlu

I find it rather worrying that an admin should semi-protect his page, unless he intends never to interact with anons via blocks, warnings, etc. Do other admins agree? If so, could Nlu be advised to unprotect it? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its only been sprotected for a day, right? I've had to do that before when I was getting slammed with Iain Lee vandals. People can still email Nlu through his email link in the meantime. I wouldn't think it was a good idea if he forever left it semiprotected, but a day or so isn't something that I would be too worried about. --Syrthiss 18:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained already -- check out the page history of my talk page as well as WP:RCU to see why. The last few days, PoolGuy (talk · contribs)'s sockpuppets have been thoroughly spammy. --Nlu (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Sometimes we all get hit with socky goodness. :/ --Syrthiss 18:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I find it disturbing that I already explained this to Mel yesterday and he still acts as if he didn't see my explanation. I am going to assume good faith once more and assume that he has good faith basis to bring this here, but otherwise it becomes suspicious whether he is simply trying to pick a fight with me over the User:Croatian historian situation. --Nlu (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you supply the diff, as I didn't see any explanation? (By the way, if you're going to assume good faith, do so — don't say you're going to do it and then make it clear that in fact you're not.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is lame. Nlu, feel free to semi protect your user talk apge to keep vandalising IPs away fro as long as you like. I for one see NO problem with it. Good for you. Mel: stop trolling and do something more productive with your time, please. Wow.Gator (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My explanation is still right there on User talk:Nlu. Feel free to read it there. If you mean what I was combatting, see [1], [2], and [3]. Again, see the entire history on WP:RCU as well. I fail to see what's so difficult to comprehend. It's not a case of vandalizing IPs; it's a case of vandalizing new sockpuppets, which are also generally blocked by semi-protections. (And, thanks, Gator.) --Nlu (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nlu has not had vandalism on his page. If you read WP:VANDAL and the three references above, the posts were not vandalism. Nlu has protected his page simply to erase questions from an inquiring user that he blocked, and avoiding answering a legitimate question to the basis of his block. Unless vandalism has actually occurred, Nlu should not have his talk page protected, especially as an Admin responsible for inquiries from users. Nlu is stating that he is following policy, however just reading the WP:VANDAL page any novice can see that his page was not vandalized. AvoidingAvoidance 06:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not asking a legitimate question -- which has been answered many times, by me and other admins. --Nlu (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Semi-protecting your talk page so as not be bothered with questions from annoying sockpuppets isn't really kosher. Nlu, please unprotect it. Angr (talk • contribs) 06:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was only protected for a short duration. Of course, Mel Etitis's making it sound like I've been protecting it forever. Check the protection log. --Nlu (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After unprotection, harassment by PoolGuy's sockpuppets resumed. See [4]. Happy now, Mel? (No, I am not reprotecting at this point, but I am not going to be asking your permission to do so.) --Nlu (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I assume you are reading this, PoolGuy (or whatever your name is going to be next); pursuant to WP:SOCK, each time you use a new sockpuppet, your 1-week block will be reset, so if you actually do want your block to be lifted (as you claimed you did), wait it out. --Nlu (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nlu, you are being asked a legitimate question which you refuse to answer. You refuse to answer because you are wrong in your position. If you are right in your position you will cite the reason for the block. As demonstrated at your latest Check User Request there is no reason for a Check User to be completed, because there is no violation of policy. Your block states it is done because of a sockpuppet. Sockpuppets are not a violation of wikipedia policy, and can not be the basis for a block.

When questioned on PoolGuy's Talk Page you succumbed to the fact that your reason for a block was off base. You then stated the block was imposed because "You violated WP:3RR, WP:NPA, and WP:POINT, at least." Those you have not and can not cite. So when you were asked to prove those violations occurred you got embarassed because you couldn't do it. So what you do is you delete the very legitimate question for you to explain where the violation occurred from your talk page [5] [6] [7] [8]. I suppose it is embarrassing to leave a question you can't answer on your talk page. You also protect the talk page of the user you inappropriately blocked cutting off their communication and their means to request an unblock. You are acting nervous because you are unable to cite this 3RR and NPA and Point that have been violated that caused you to block the account.

I don't know why another admin has not tried to help you, and find the violation that occurred. Perhaps others have looked but could not find it. I don't know why you don't cite these violations and show everyone the edits that caused the violation so heinous that you had to block an account (probably because it doesn't exist).

I am sorry if you think you are harrassed. I think it is harrassing to take administrative action against a user when you can not even justify it with a policy violation. Perhaps you have been working so hard to make this issue go away because you can not justify your action. Other admins on Wikipedia justify their action all the time. They simply cite the edit that demonstrated the violation. I don't understand why you refuse to, except maybe, because the violation does not exist. Absent the violation you can't seem to find, please unblock and unprotect the accounts. Thank you. YouDontGetIt 07:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you're refusing to read the citation doesn't mean that policies weren't cited. --Nlu (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many times to I have to explain to you the reason you continue to be blocked is because you create sockpuppets to evade a block. How many times do I have to tell you that GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs) was blocked for spamming people to support you on Pet peeve, (even those who say didn't edit the article) something an ArbCom member even told you that was disruptive, yet you argued with him about it? How many times do I have to tell you to sit it out, and do whatever you have to do after the block? How many times do we have to tell you that for each sock you make means your timer resets (as your userpage says)? I've already asked Bauder to look into this, so please let him do what he has to do. Also, out of curiosity, what are you going to do with all the socks you created during your block? I don't see what anybody can do with so many sockpuppets, especially one which reads User:YouDontGetIt. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 22:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone help Nlu?

In the topic above Nlu has been unable to find the violation of policy. Perhaps someone can help Nlu and actually find the three policies he stated were violated. Just cite the edits to help out Nlu. I have looked and I can't find them. Maybe someone else would have better luck. If Nlu can't even find the violations that he said occurred, I don't know how anyone can. Perhaps the accounts should be unblocked and the pages unprotected since those actions appear to be baseless.

Thanks for trying to help Nlu fulfill his Admin responsibilities. Sorry he can't find the violations on his own. GreatTerriffic 07:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A possible end to Squidward vandalism

Over the last few weeks, while I was supposed to be on break :) , I have been receiving multiple e-mails from Squidward. After many messages back and forth (the current total is 50), we have come to some terms (I have not promised him anything, before you think I've been pretending to act on wikipedia's behalf.) He has stated that if his name was removed from the vandalism in progress page, as well as the links to other sites (he claims that we have implicated other people, "The Indianna Chess Club" for example) that all the attacks will cease. We could, alternately, delete the whole page, this is something he has been asking for which I thought a bit much, what do you think? I've also been receiving some angry e-mails from other parties whose sites have been implicated here. Apparently the names on this page, have particularly incited him, and I have his word (a vandals word yes, but I am inclined to believe him) that the attacks will stop.

From the e-mail exchange I've come to understand a bit about the background of his vandalist contributions. He started out as a 'normal' editor, but was branded as a vandal from the start. He saw himself as mistreated, and over-reacted to this by becoming what we know as the Squidward vandal.

In my humble opinion, those terms are reasonable and we have little to lose, however, it may be viewed as "giving in". What does everybody think? Banez 22:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protect the encyclopedia. If the vandalism stops its worth removing it, if not it isn't. (usual not an admin disclaimer) Prodego ^talk 23:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't think it really matters. His vandal attacks stop within seconds; the vandalism is reverted within a minute nowadays. But I suppose that's a reason in itself to take him of WP:LTA. --Rory096 23:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't think you would take it off WP:LTA as long as the subject still attempts to vandalize. i.e. WOW is still on WP:LTA but he is usually blocked in seconds Prodego ^talk 23:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the user stops vandalising, there's no need for an Long term abuse page at all. I see no reason not to delete it in that case. We welcome all contributors, so helping them join the project isn't "giving in". :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 23:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. —Prodego ^talk 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(4-time edit conflicted) Wikipedia should not "give in" to anybody, espically a vandal. Perhaps after six months of non-activity it could be archived. But for now, if the vandalism continues, there is no reason to remove the entry. The more open proxies that we get, the better. These attacks, while a nuisance, are easy to clean up and give us many IP addresses to block that could have been used for other types of vandalism. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well a show of good faith is always helpful, if Squidward continues, we just put it back. Prodego ^talk 23:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isnt so much deleting the page (that was an option), he actually wants the name and links removed. Banez 23:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Six months is far too long, in my opinion; that'd be a significant fraction of Wikipedia's entire history. Perhaps delete after three weeks of inactivity, and remove the offending information immediately? We're not "giving in" by doing so; the LTA page is intended only to track vandalism. At the point vandalism stops, the page becomes useless. As Prodego says, assume good faith. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 23:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I was just throwing out a number, the time really doesn't matter, just as long as it stopped. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to wait and see what happens, but Squidward does appear to have grown tired of it all, and wants an end. Banez 23:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a fresh Squidward attack today. -- Curps 17:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be so sure of that, your bot has, shall we say... issues--64.12.116.200 02:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do not negotiate with vandals and trolls, that being said if he's willing to stop then I'd suggest blanking and protecting the page which I think is a fair compromise and is also more GFDL sound since deleting things on request would if nothing else violate the GFDL and is a bad precedent. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 23:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just went ahead and blanked it, on the assumption that he is going to stop. (Can't hurt to try.) If he attacks again, restore it. Ashibaka tock 23:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since there was just another attack, I'm going to go ahead and restore it.--Shanel 19:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squidward claims that his IP is huge and shared by many, and that he hasnt done any further attacks...Oh well, who knows... Banez 19:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That statement just proves that Squidward is trying to screw with us. There was indeed an attack, after the page was blanked, and it was in classic Squidward style. --lightdarkness^(talk) 21:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have come to that conclusion. I've got tired of getting 30 ranting e-mails a night from him, but yet he still insists that that attack which looked so much like him wasnt in fact him...I can't say I'm not a little skeptical. Banez 06:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a simple answer to that - send em and email stating that any further emails from em will be considered public, and you will forward them(without reading them) to wikien-l. Wait a bit for the wikien-l admins to request that you stop forwarding them, and then simply delete the emails. Simple enough. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Leaky gut syndrome

User:Mutters1 has moved the article "leaky gut syndrome" to "leaky gut syndrome sucks", reasoning "because it does". An admin needs to delete the existing redirect so we can move the old page back, sans "sucks". Also, the page now points to snowboarding for some reason. Isopropyl 04:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that was already resolved. --Golbez 04:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check and mate.--Sean Black ^(talk) 04:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Isopropyl 05:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, you can move a page onto a redirect if the page has no other history. Stifle (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Apostrophe's persistent incivility despite administrative warning

Please note that user Apostrophe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was initially advised by administrator Stifle here to observe civility and please do not bite newcomers. Still, he has persisted in violating these and other policies in the following instances [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. This is only a small sampling of this user's persistently hostile attitude towards multiple editors. He is ignoring written warnings to modify his behaviour to conform with Wikipedia standards. Please assist, thank you. Netkinetic 06:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours. Stifle (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"original work?" objection

It is quickly summed up here on my talk page. I am a very new member.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reid_Welch&redirect=no

The irregularities are at "antidisestablishmentarianism", "Flatiron Building" and "carpe diem".

This is no emergency.

I stand by to make deletions if that should,

or especially, if deletion -must- be done.

Thanks for your guidance.

Reid Welch 23:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever seen a poem about a building in any other encyclopedia? They don't belong here either. We collect information, not verse. --Golbez 23:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not seen any other verse about a building, period.

Nor is there a verse contextually defining the long word, "antidisestab---"

"We collect information, not verse"

Why, then, are pages filled with poetry citations, quotes and reprints?

This is my question: how does the entry of "A" (not mine any more=public domain) relevant verse --differ from the entry of the "same thing" by, say, some other person not its author?--

Very hazy here.

Reid Welch 23:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we had an article, Reid Welch, you could put your poems there. You may also put them on your user page. But you can't put them on other pages; it's not relevant enough to the article. Ashibaka tock 23:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree; we don't paste Hamlet to Shakespeare. We could perhaps MENTION his works on his page, if ever he warranted one; however, they would belong only on Wikisource, except for exceptionally short works. --Golbez 23:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes and no. See To be, or not to be - it's all a matter of notability. :) zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, posting one's own original poetry can be considered vanity. Even if you release it to the public domain. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; see WP:NOT. Your addition to the page in question must be of encyclopedic value.

It's also common practice to structure your posts in the form of paragraphs. If you need assistance, help is available. Isopropyl 23:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the quote or poetry is vital to the understanding of the subject. "Carpe diem" was used in ancient poetry, and that is useful to understand its meaning. And it wouldn't matter if someone else inserted it, it's still not a proper addition. This doesn't fall under original research - it falls under original works. Wikipedia is not an essay or poetry depository, yours or anyone elses. We require reliable sources. These citations and quotes are required to expand our understanding of the subject; we can't, nor do we want to, include every single media involving the subject ever made. --Golbez 23:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the three entries are removed, I do agree with you about two of them being not-vital to the encylopedic nature of the Wiki.

Then, too, the citation of a Honeymooner's TV sitcom quote at "carpe diem" =is not valid either= and should be excised.

So should all near-contemporary references to a subject word like "carpe diem", such as it's being employed in classical or modern poetry: not needed, so you state, to convey the (unimportant?)present currency value of the term in popular culture.

I would state that, vanity aside, which I have surrendered inasmuch as is possible, the antidis.. verse is completely relevant to the its subject-word.

":Because the quote or poetry is vital to the understanding of the subject. "Carpe diem" was used in ancient poetry, and that is useful to understand its meaning. And it wouldn't matter if someone else inserted it, it's still not a proper addition."

I do not see the distinction made except that you apparently feel that "vanity" is my purpose in wishing for the antidis.. verse, only, to be reinstalled.

This verse is not ancient but it is quite useful in helping to impart an understanding of antidisestablishmentarianism, ca. the 1860's.

And it defines the word, contains the word and makes the word very simple to understand, in a palatable, amusing way.

In every sense the "anti..." verse meets the criteria you yourself are now promulgating, except that the author is living.

Here it is for the record, for reconsideration. I would gladly surrender copyright and even author name to have this practical verse applied to the entry "antidisestablishmentarianism"

http://poetry.tetto.org/read/15281/

Our Aunty Prudence disrespects

those who aim to disestablish

ties of England's Church to State.

Her hot protests of angry Ire-

land in the deaf ears of those men

who tarry not in grasping goals

while taking aim at an arcane

jingoistic jism-ism,

antidisestablishmentarianism

Reid Welch 00:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We have articles, not poems. We may describe poems, but do not create them because new ideas (and all poetry includes new ideas, to some degree) are forbidden original research. It's that simple. Superm401 - Talk 01:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still in conflict with itself, this policy.

"We may describe poems..."

Superm401, Wickipedia includes poems, not just descriptions...

"...but do not create them because new ideas (and all poetry includes new ideas,..."

I cannot make the leap that there is a genuine distinction between the anti... verse, vs. and other poetry, though old, which is printed in various Wiki articles.

There are no new ideas in the anti.. verse.

It is a summation of existing knowlege put into an exceedingly compact and memorable (utilitarian) form.

As such, it is of educational value as clearly as is a prose article, but set apart from mere prose by being art, and art is the iconography of a culture.

So that is that.

I've registered my thoughts without rancor or resentment.

Thank you all.

Reid Welch 01:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do sometimes include poems, but only when they are short and have already been published elsewhere. Superm401 - Talk 17:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could also try Wikisource. Stifle (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophe

Readdressing matter above which has not been responded to regarding Apostrophe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This editor was initially advised by administrator Stifle here to observe civility and please do not bite newcomers. Still, he has persisted in violating these and other policies in the following instances [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. This is only a small sampling of this user's persistently hostile attitude towards multiple editors. He is ignoring written warnings to modify his behaviour to conform with Wikipedia standards. Please assist, thank you. Netkinetic 06:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've given him a final warning. Superm401 - Talk 06:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. Hopefully he'll respond favorably. Netkinetic 20:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's been blocked for 24 hours now, as he didn't choose to take much notice of the warnings. Stifle (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the next time he does it, block for a month. After that, indefinately. I have a feeling he'll still be rough when the block is up. — Deckill e r 00:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the following examples "you clearly have problems...the height of arrogance or irony" and "keep your own opinions to yourself".Netkinetic 04:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you were professing to give an authoritve opinion when it wasn't. I asked for an administrator's opinion, not of yours. What is difficult to understand about this, Netty? Indeed, I pointed out an observation about your haste to label opposing edits as vandalism, which has occurred with an anon and now over the Multiverse thing, which I don't particularly care about; that's a observation, not a personal attack. Regardless, you seem awfully intent on getting me into trouble despite me ignoring comic book articles for a while. Why? Do you feel the need to get back at me for the 3RR thing? ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 04:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your question on your talk page did not address a specific individual nor specify a particular timeframe relating to your query, hence my response. That said, as long as you are civil in your edit summaries and comments towards fellow editors, I'm perfectly content with your contributions towards streamlining content here. Netkinetic 23:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troll at large?

SlashDot (talk · contribs · logs) appears to be some kind of troll; new account, edited a bunch of porn and GNAA related articles, has been removing info related to spyware in 180 Solutions products diff. See also Talk:Zango_Messenger. Also has gotten into a 3RR dispute on his/her own talk page User_talk:SlashDot. Also uploaded a bunch of not-quite-hardcore porn-related images (see user log). ~~No blatant vandalism visible but~~ Inserted prank image into Al Gore diff and the rapid edits from a new account smell like block evasion or some such (edited 09:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)). Conspiracy/coincidence angle: a slashdot.org comment [23] alleges that the Zango Messenger page was itself edit-warred by 180 Solutions personnel last year. The page has been pretty quiet since then but this person suddenly shows up after that comment appears. Phr 07:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has already been blocked for 24 hours for vandalism, and I would suggest reblock indefinitely for not only being a vandal account, but for having an inappropriate username that resembles the name of a popular internet site. Thoughts on this? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sock/block evasion (re-revert of Zango Messenger from an IP address: [24] Phr 03:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also further reverts to same page Phr 02:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aiman abmajid

Aiman abmajid (talk · contribs · count) ~~(who claims to be 10 years old on his user page)~~ has been creating lots of short stub articles, as well as articles for buildings which are not significant. But what irks me the most is that he creates very, very stubby Malaysian Federal Route articles that do not conform to article style convention (Malaysia Federal Route 89 and Malaysia Federal Route 91 are typical examples), and uses non-descriptive edit summaries (just take a look at his contributions and you'll see), even though he has been told to use more descriptive edit summaries [25]. Is there any way to slow him down and make him read his talk page, before he creates more short stubs and nn-road articles, a la Striver? — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006-1985=21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onthost (talk • contribs) Note the math is wrong, it isn't June 2 2006 yet. Prodego ^talk 00:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user page says "Aiman was born in Petaling Jaya, Selangor on 2nd June 1985", which makes his age 20, not 10. Prodego ^talk 00:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The math isn't wrong its just not june yet! But the point I was trying to make was he is not 10. Mike _{(T C)}

01:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops... my bad. Morning grogginess. :-( — Kimchi.sg | Talk 02:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has overwritten an existing image at Image:Tower.jpg, and I have asked him why. I have removed references to this suspect image, and requested the original image be re-instated. Noisy | Talk 11:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking clarification

I'd like to request clarification from others regarding an unfortunate recent exchange between me and another editor. Here is the timeline of events:

I tagged Elizabeth Haldane, a one-liner article from Duncharris (talk · contribs) on March 12.
BenAveling (talk · contribs) comments on the talk page on notability of the person, pointing to this link, which states exactly the same thing noted in the article

(Scottish social-welfare worker and author. The younger sister of the statesman Richard Burdon Haldane and the physiologist John Scott Haldane, she was educated privately. For much of her adult life she served on various advisory and regulatory boards for nursing. Influenced by the English housing reformer Octavia Hill,).

Presumably on the basis of this, Duncharris (talk · contribs) uses his admin revert button to revert the notability tag
I reinsert the notability tag requesting for further establishment of notability (i.e. the link given in the talk page adds no new information).
Duncharris (talk · contribs) reverts it further using the admin rollback button.
I request Duncharris on his talk page to explain the unexplained removal of the notability tag.
Duncharris (talk · contribs) replies with this personal attack, with the edit summary

If you get enough chimpanzees with enough typewriters they are capable of adding stupid tags to all articles),

and suggesting inside "A guide for you:1)Try to use your brain 2) If you can't do (1) try using Google instead, (admittedly (2) requires a little bit of brain use, but still, if you can't manage (2), don't bother at all.)".

On getting no further proofs of notability, I nominate it the article on AfD.
Duncharris replies in the afd page with the comment Someone needs whacking with a cluestick..
Later, some other editors provide links that establish her notability as the first women J.P. in Scotland, on light of that I withdrew my nomination.

My question is, does the mere reference of a EB article, with exactly the information I quoted at the top of the post, establish notability of a one-liner article to the extent that it makes the AfD nomination bad faith? Is requesting notability proof "vandalism"? And is the AfD nomination a violation of WP:POINT, in light of the above timeline of events? I'm not accusing anyone of anything (except for the abuse of ther rollback button by Duncharris), I just want clarification from experienced admins, so that I can make better judgement in future, and not go through the sequence of events that happened here. Learning is always good, and if I am at fault in nominating this article, I'm happy to admit my fault, apologize for that, and learn from it to make better decisions. Thanks. --Ragib 02:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In general I would suggest that the existence of an EB article would support a claim of notability. Frankly, EB is much pickier about the people that they include in their encyclopedia, and I would be very hesitant to AfD anyone who demonstrably had an EB entry.

That said, the freely available portion of EB's article doesn't indicate why Elizabeth Haldane was notable. It was a bit sloppy of Dunc to create an article that left out the single most important fact about Haldane—and perhaps the key fact that makes her noteworthy.

There was a bit of rudeness on both sides of the issue, but I really don't like to see admins using rollback on (what was at least initially, if not finally) a good-faith notability tag. Revert warring over a notability tag is bad behaviour on both sides, particularly when either party could have just used Google to find one or two more sentences. (The first non-Wikipedia hit would have done just fine: [26].)

Looking at the exchange on Dunc's talk page, Ragib seems to have done the right thing in approaching Dunc about the reverts, and he got a really obnoxious reply.

One more note—I'm pretty sure that Thryduulf's addition of a NPA warning template ([27]) to Dunc's page isn't going to calm things down. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: the EB article (subscription version) is 2 paragraphs and mentions that Elizabeth Haldane translated some works of Hegel and Descartes. The other notability that EB might have relied on is Elizabeth's being related to an English politician and a doctor (i.e. she's from a well known English family). In general I don't think Wikipedia should be making so many stubs about minor historical figures like this and using EB as a list of names to make such stubs from isn't so good a tactic, and being related to obscure English society figures isn't so notable either (despite EB). Phr 03:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit at a loss about the statement "there was a bit of rudeness on both sides" above – from what I can see, Ragib's behaviour was blameless. Just pointing to the mere fact of the existence of a EB article, not to its actual contents, was not sufficient to establish notability in this situation; the article as it stood was clearly AfD'able, the crucial information hadn't been forthcoming despite repeated polite requests, and Dunc's behaviour during all phases of this was really abominable, and quite unacceptable for an admin. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There wasn't rudeness on both sides; the rudeness was entirely on the part of Duncharris, who as an admin really ought to know better. As for adding the NPA warning template to his talk page, if Thryduulf hadn't already done so, I certainly would have. Angr (talk • contribs) 09:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to request further clarification of whether using the admin rollback button to remove "notability" tags without any explanation is correct in this case. Duncharris (talk · contribs) has again removed one of the tags from an article that has no information about the person's notability other than his family information. Having rollback privilege doesn't mean it needs to be abused in such way. Thanks. --Ragib 15:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. The rollback button is for reverting vandalism and oneself, not for removing tags left in good faith. I'd say his use of the rollback button in the diff provided above is an editorial comment on the insertion of the tag. Angr (talk • contribs) 15:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User 198.161.33.146

Here is a persistant vandal with ip 198.161.33.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) that has been blancking out pages. Look at his edit history. ArchonMeld 02:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to report this at Admin intervention against vandalism :) Sceptr e ^(Talk) 15:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

monobook.js pages appearing in Category:Articles that need to be wikified

I figured that I would be more likely to get an answer and solution for this here, so this is where I came. Also, editors who have pages in the category are frequently admins.

For some reason, some editors' monobook.js pages show up in Category:Articles that need to be wikified. The only reason the are not that many right now is because those of us who wikify articles keep asking people to edit their monobook.js files so that they don't show up anymore. It happens so often that I suspect that people are copying the code from somewhere. So, I would like to know where they are getting the code and a way to stop the pages from appearing in the category, without a loss of funtion if possible. Thanks, Kjkolb 09:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brossow fixed it. You can get the new code at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Quick wikify. I guess that's where it came from. Thanks again, Brossow. -- Kjkolb 12:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

probable linkspam

203.214.42.73 has been adding links to moddb to various game articles. I'd have called linkspam on it and reverted, but would these links possibly fall under being userful? Mod DB does seem to be a pretty significant site, from what I have seen.--Drat (Talk) 11:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that it's borderline. I suggest adding a link to it on an article that deals with game modifications in general. Wait, it already has one on Mod (computer gaming). I think that is sufficient. -- Kjkolb 12:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It even has an article! -- Kjkolb 12:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So should I or shouldn't I revert the adding of the links?--Drat (Talk) 22:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spliting articles and the GFDL

Could an admin familair with the GFDL and how it replated to splitting articles spare a moment to comment on the following thread, please? Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#How_to_split_pages_-_Wikipedia_guidelines_missing.3F

Basic question is if you split off a subpage, like this one, is it acceptable that part of the the history is in another article. (that part seems okay to me, under GFDL item J for modifications) However, the question is what happens if the original article is deleted? Is the history still "accessible enough" to cover the GFDL? Or, if not, is there a way of either marking an article as containing the history of another, or copying over the history to the split article so they are indpendendent from the moment of the split. Regards, MartinRe 13:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case it helps, I've summarised the links to most of the discussions (though the Village Pump seems the best place for discussion): see here, here, here and here. Carcharoth 15:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J. Robinson

Could an administrator please ban this user ASAP? He appears to be another re-incarnation of persistent stalker Johnny the Vandal and he's pretening to be Hephaestos. Mike Garcia 13:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zephram Stark indefinitely blocked

Rather than bother extending Zephram Stark's block timer (per his arbitration) every time he comes up with a new sockpuppet, I've taken the liberty of indefinitely blocking him as "banned by the community". It doesn't seem to me like there's any reason to pretend any other remedy is relevant. If I have acted precipitously, please advise. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 15:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:TrumpetPower!/Jesus as Mythical Creation

I understand that Jesus as Mythical Creation was recently deleted. However User:TrumpetPower! has a copy as a user subpage. Do we allow for this? I've never been entirely sure. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can't see any reasonable argument why not. People can keep all sorts of things in their user space, and this is certainly relevant to the encyclopedia. While the article was rightly deleted as a POV-fork, the content could presumably still be useful in editing Jesus-Myth. –Joke 16:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PaulinSaudi unblock request

User talk:PaulinSaudi#I am Blocked, Again Someone please take a look at this unblock request. Femto 16:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC) PS this seems to be an IP autoblock or something like that[reply]

I've left a message. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of duplicate images

While checking CAT:CSD I frequently see images marked for speedy deletion as duplicates, but the duplicate is on Commons. Be aware, before speedying them, that images must both be on Wikipedia to qualify for speedy deletion category I1. See Wikipedia talk:Moving images to the Commons for reasons why, and {{sdd-i1|Image:imagename}} for a talk page template you can use to advise users why it doesn't work. Stifle 16:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy permanent deletion of article User talk:AgainstFakeClaims

WP User Dave Null has violated privacy and personal copyright by editing in names of certain people when a shared PC was being temporarily used by User:AgainstFakeClaims. Section : Question and observation

The violated individuals are reporting unauthorized use of their names on public space in WP without their authorization. Following is the version in which this incident has happened. WP ADMINS Please permanently delete entire page and all versions following this version below. This is a liability issue and personal right and privacy violations issue.

Thanks for your support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AgainstFakeClaims&oldid=46675721 --129.188.33.222 18:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done I removed the three revisions with the private info in them. (Note to other admins, if this was the wrong thing to do, undo it and let me know on my talk page.) Prodego ^talk 22:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to remove any private information that might be requested, but the only possible "private information" contained in the three deleted revisions is a three word phrase: "Abhiraj or Rupalee". I fail to see how this is anthing close to a case of "violated privacy and personal copyright"(whatever that might mean). If it was an address, a full name, a location, an employer, a personal ID # of some kind, or something like that, I would certainly agree it should be deleted, but two words? That's akin to saying that the phrase "John or James" is a violation of the privacy of anyone named John or James. I don't credit this. There's no reason to undelete the revisions, but I can't see what the complaint is either. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist

A final decision has been reached in the above arbitration case, and the case has been closed.

Lapsed_Pacifist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from articles which relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland. The ban is intended to include any page in Wikipedia which Lapsed Pacifist engages in a dispute related in any way to the conflict in Northern Ireland.

If Lapsed Pacifist edits any article from which he is banned, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 19:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

regarding User:68.219.87.13

This anon has been adding unverified information in Calvin Ayre for several days, most of it seem like personal attacks at Mr. Ayre, and it has been reverted by several users. I have no idea who Calvin Ayre is, so I have no idea whether this is a content dispute or pure vandalism, but I'm leaning on the later. The history of the page here. Can an a more experienced user please take a look at the page, and talk to User:68.219.87.13. Thanks. Eivind ^t ^@^c 23:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I warned them earlier and they continued the edits, so I have blocked temporarily and warned again. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Vkasdg

He's doing some crazy stuff. Vkasdg 01:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vkasdg

Vkasdg (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)'s repeated removal of Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy cartoons image, deceptive editing practices and violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA:

Removed Image 19:37, 9 March 2006
Falsely labeled rv 19:44, 9 March 2006 (note the change of the position of )
Removed Image #2 19:51, 9 March 2006 (extended --> from image warning)
Falsely labeled rv #2 20:00, 9 March 2006 (note the -> still tacked on after last </span>)
Removed Image #3 10:29, 23 March 2006 (no editorial comment)
Removed Image #4 22:09, 4 April 2006 (mixed in some other seemingly 'benign' edits to hide the fact that he removed the image)

Expressed intention to Remove image again 01:17, 5 April 2006 (relative to talk on User:Vkasdg's talk page and my talk page.)

User:Vkasdg has been politely warned on three separate occasions to not edit to remove the image (as demonstrated here and here) Due to User:Vkasdg's repeated image removal and deceptive editing practices/commentaries it would seem that such behavior warrants at least a 24hr block.

Do note the dis-repectful post made here by User:Vkasdg just above entitled "Regarding Vkasdg".

User:Vkasdg has been notified of this report.

Netscott 01:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally User:Vkasdg has repeatedly added mean-spirited edits to my talk page in an effort to antagonize me relative to my single example of a block for 3RR violation.

01:06, 5 April 2006

01:17, 5 April 2006

02:17, 5 April 2006

Not very civil. Netscott 02:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack: User:Vkasdg added the comment (21:31, 4 April 2006), "Why are you a pedophile? That's disgusting. Vkasdg 21:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)" to User:Zanthalon's talk page. Netscott 03:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back at it again.:

22:24, 10 April 2006. I have reason to believe that besides this individual's use of this account he has been using Open Proxies from two messages I recieved one from an open proxy and the other from this user [28] as well as his own admission. Can someone please indefinite block this account? Thanks! Netscott 22:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The hidden text says nothing about moving the "-->" Vkasdg 02:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netscott is just sour because I pointed out he was removing valid edits. If I hadn't spoken to him, this report wouldn't even be here. Vkasdg 02:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the --> hides more/less text, and can be seen as blanking. NSL E _(T+C) at 02:35 UTC (2006-04-05)

No where does it state that in the rules/guidelines, or the hidden text. Vkasdg 02:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case... one can see (22:09, 4 April 2006) User:Vkasdg's blanking... Netscott 02:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think if he touches it again he should be blocked for a good amount of time. He has been warned, knows he has been warned, and has a agenda. Also the comment by the user above is troubling, since he is trying to find loopholes. Mike _{(T C)}

02:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the very valid reasons I've already reported it would be good to establish a "warning" block to initiate a sort of permanent "record" of this individual's editing behavior. Netscott 02:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Vkasdg 02:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What it says is irellevant, the evidence clearly tells that you are trying to be dissruptive. A good idea if for you to stop doing what you are doing there, and try to do some good edits. _→AzaToth 03:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an RFC is in order? Isopropyl 03:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a WP:NPA violation... see above. Netscott 03:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So now we can't say anything about pedophilia? Cry me a river. It wasn't an attack on the user - it was an attack on pedophilia, and that dude is a self-proclaimed pedophile. It's not as if I made a false accusation. Vkasdg 03:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you wrtote it, and as where you wrote it, I interpret it as a personal attack. _→AzaToth 03:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely... regardless of that person's proclivities there was no need to add such a personal attack comment to their talk page. Netscott 03:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that as long one agrees with pedophilia then it's ok to put something on his userpage, but not the opposite. I wish we had an entry on drama queens...Vkasdg 03:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

personal attacks is forbidden, even if your intentions where good. _→AzaToth 04:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking Prasi90 has agreed to mentorship

I am leaving this message to ask that another administrator remove the block of User:Prasi90, as an endorsement of the suggestions I have made here [29]. I could un-block this user myself, but I feel it might be in conflict of interest to do so. I am confident that Prasi90 is ready to turn over a new leaf, so to speak. Let's all assume that he is willing to do so, and willing to abide by the terms that I have offered to him, and to other involved parties, indeed to Wikipedia at large that I can help him to become a more productive and community minded editor. Thank you in advance for your consideraton in this matter. Hamster Sandwich 18:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this is one admin who is against any unblock and against any unilateral unblock by another admin. I am a neutral party here and have been watching what's been happening with this user for some time and feel any unblock is unwarranted, especially given the extra conditons and demands that Prasi has the nerve to demand. Just my opinion. I'm sure other reasonable admins will disagree....but none have yet commented here....Gator (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it is reasonable to go ahead and unblock, and be ready to reimpose block if begins to vandalise again. I think if one more admin agrees here the unblock should go ahead. Hamster Sandwich is going guarantor.--File Éireann 18:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamster Sandwich requested admin review of his request to unblock, so to expedite this I went and had a look at the thread on the user's talk page. The one glaring ommission to me was any mention of why the unblock is requested. I posted the following question:

Can I just ask: For what purpose do you request an ublock? What articles do you have in mind to edit and in general terms what edits do you plan to make? --kingboyk 18:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems innocent enough to me. Hamster Sandwich then recommended that Prasi90 ignore my question and bundled me in with the "detractors". If this is the level of civility Prasi90 will receive during his mentorship I think it better he remain blocked. --kingboyk 19:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony's comments on the incident page are illuminating. See here.19:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Many active users have a "todo list" (mine is User:Kingboyk#Todo). If for some reason I were to be blocked, I'd be frustrated at not being able to work on those tasks. I just want to know what tasks Prasi90 is itching to get done, or just he want to be unblocked because he doesn't like being blocked. In other words, what encyclopedic contributions has he in mind to justify this experiment? I don't see the relevance of the diff you provided (other than suggesting we should tread very carefully, that kind of hatred can't be tolerated - and I'm not American). My question addresses the future not the past. --kingboyk 19:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I've had an exchange of views on my talk page with Hamster Sandwich, and reviewed what other folks have to say. If Hamster Sandwich is game I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to give this kid a second chance, although I await with interest to see any useful contributions to the encyclopedia! Instant and long term block for the user if he posts anything vile again, of course, but other than that go for it AFAIC. --kingboyk 20:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would anybody object if I were to cut and paste this thread over to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Prasi90? We seem to be discussing this in multiple places which doesn't help the flow of conversation. --kingboyk 19:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an "Incident" or is it a "notice" that something is happening? Perhaps the thread at WP:AN/I should be pasted here? So I guess I do have an objection! Hamster Sandwich 19:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either/or :) But if it's gonna bother anyone one let's leave it. --kingboyk 19:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:AN/I: Continued from above, [30], Prasi90 (talk · contribs) is going to be under possible mentorship by HamsterSandwich as sown here. I am posting a little more information, a sampling of sorts, that demonstrate why I am washing my hands of the matter.

Here Prasi90, using his IP 202.177.246.3 (talk · contribs) refers to Americans as Nazis[31] calls U.S. troops neo-nazis[32] and in article space "perverted,sadistic mentality of American troops and Americans in general"[33], he blanked the article on the United States here to post his commentary[34] vandalized the same article earlier[35] redirects the Category on the United States to Sudan [36] and more vandalism[37],[38]. Prasi90 with his IP login asks how to make a template "anti-American"[39], there is a whole series of edits made from his IP to Prasi90 userpage [40], [41], [42], [43].

With the IP account, he states that the victims of 9/11 are "clearly rotting in hell" in article space[44] and when I first stumbled into him was after he added this lovely comment to my watchlisted article September 11, 2001 attacks Americans being roasted to death even as they leap toward certain death-Kodak Moments. Ip then insults one editor on his usertalk about his sexual orientation[45]. IP adds information to the Rfc filed against Prasi90 [46]. Using his Prasi90 account, editor again calls Americans neo Nazis[47] tells another editor he has a mental deficiency[48]...oh the list goes on and on. I haven't even touched the rather hard warnings he gave some vandals that they would be blocked and yet didn't do even one vandalism revert that I could find. There is a series of opposition votes on Rfa's that served no purpose aside from disruption.

There have been numerous threatening emails to myself and other editors and he has been asked to stop. I asked him why he posted a user:vandal template on his userpage and he lied and told me that he was reflecting that he was a student at the university of Idaho [49] and I ran three IP checks on his IP and they all came back as India. Anyway, a look at the block logs for the IP[50] and for Prasi90[51] demonstrate that this editor has been blocked by numerous admins and has been released from those blocks prior to their expiration after apologizing, only to return to the same disruptive editing pattern.

I've listed maybe 30% of the edits that clearly demostrate this editor has disrupted, has vandalized, has harassed and has trolled his way around Wikipedia. I believe that Hamster Sandwich has his work cut out for him and also believe that there is a high risk that Prasi90 will open sock accounts once his IP is unblocked. I congratulate Hamster for being so willing to take this situation over, but I can see almost zero evidence that this editor will be a positive contributor to this project.--MONGO 18:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never encountered Prasi90 before, but his clear pattern of abuse, apology and recidivism, and the rather low quality and quantity of his article contributions in the time he has edited Wikipedia, suggest to me that he's a permanent block candidate. I've no idea why Hamster Sandwich thinks that mentorship will turn this editor into a useful contributor, but as long as it's understood that we'll stand for absolutely no more nonsense, I don't see any great harm that can be done by letting him give Prasi90 one last chance. --Tony Sidaway 19:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like this user is waaaay past the point of an indefinite block. --Cyde Weys 20:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is also occurring on the noticeboard with some support for removing the block. I'd suggest that we also comment there or consolidate this.Gator (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I precieve absolutely no logical nor reasonable concensus for an unblock at the current momment or in the near future. This requires more discussion. -Zero^Talk 20:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have told Hamster that I will not be involved anymore on this matter as that will hopefully give him the best chance of success in reforming this editor. I am confident that Hamster, if anyone, will have the best chance of turning this editor around, and applaud his show of good faith in this matter.--MONGO 20:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

I listed it on WP:VPM, but I think thats the wrong place to list it on. The problem is that at the moment there is a month old backlog there, it's stated:

Listings should be checked and processed by administrators after 7 days.

. _→AzaToth 21:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do is tag with {{adminbacklog}}. Stifle 22:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jami

I'm not sure what to do about this. SouthernComfort (talk · contribs) insists on disputing a section of the article on the basis that the claims it makes about Jami's views are just one person's opinion. The odd thing is that the "one person" is Jami. SouthernComfort's argument is that, as Jami's work has been translated, it's the interpretation of the translator, and so counts as merely a secondary source.

This seems absurd to me (and if taken seriously would have huge repercussions for Wikipedia articles more generally). He won't back down, though. I've listed the article at RfC, but it's not arousing much interest. What can be done/should I do? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to say that Jami's poetry "deals extensively with the esoteric topic of pederasty", is simply the interpretation of the English translator of Jami's works. Nowhere is his work, Jami discusses "pederasty". His narrative is metaphoric and spiritual. --ManiF 22:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to this argument (which involves denying the claim about pederasty on the basis of interpretation of the poetry as "metaphorical") at the Talk page. Note that, despite his "exactly" below, SouthernComfort hadn't made this point. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I am shocked that Mel (an admin himself who should be well versed in WP etiquette and guidelines) keeps taking off the tag when there is still a legitimate dispute. SouthernComfort 02:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual editing?

I ran across this very unusual editing from this account here User talk:Textuvre. What do you think? --HappyCamper 00:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the indef block is fine, not least because of username similarity. People can play around in the sandbox, but not if those are their only 'contributions'. Particularly not when it's clear they are literally just playing. -Splash^talk 00:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for advice / intervention in speedy del noms for 2 pages

To begin; I'm not sure if this is the right forum. If any response could include either a confirmation that this is the right forum to post to, or a suggestion for future queries, I would be appreciative.

I've added speedy delete db-copyvio templates to AV Voice Changer Software and Music Morpher and the templates have been deleted. I know that if a prod template is del, it is to be listed on AFD, but I can't see (from a quick wikisearch) what the best approach is here. I don't want to just edit war. Any advice, please? Colonel Tom 11:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In general, if a legitimate speedy tag has been removed, the thing to do is restore it, explaining on the talk page why you think it qualifies for speedy deletion. In these cases, however, you didn't provide evidence for your claim that they were copyvios. {{db-copyvio}} needs a parameter giving the URL of the site you believe the information has been copied from: {{db-copyvio|url=http://www.whatever.com}}. Angr (talk • contribs) 11:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the tags, but I nor someone else will delete it unless we got the urls, like Angr said. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your responses. I now understand when initially applying the copyvio tag, there is a responsibility to provide details of the vio. Fair enough. I must admit that I assumed that the links contained within the article(s), to the manufacturer's site, with the same info, was sufficient. I appreciate your answers and assistance. I'll revisit. Many thanks. Colonel Tom 12:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These do not look like copyvios to me, although they are products of a company called Avnex added by Avnex (talk · contribs) which is clearly a potential problem. Just zis Guy you know? 13:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they do look like copyright violations, although since the copy was probably posted by the company that owns the copyright the company could technically release the text under the GFDL. That said, the articles are still linkspam and not notable and should be speedily deleted.--Alabamaboy 16:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters. If I write something and have it on my website then release it under the GFDL to wikipedia I should source wikipedia on my page since I have licensed it under the GFDL to wikipedia and no longer "own" it. Mike _{(T C)}

20:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing under the GFDL never limits the owner's original rights, it only grants others the right to use the material under the GFDL. The originator can use his own material in any way he sees fit. He certainly does not need to attribute it to Wikipedia, since it's still his own work. --Tony Sidaway 18:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony is absolutely right and Mike (sorry) you have it the wrong way round. If I write a new article now, I am the author and copyright owner and Wikipedia have the duty to credit me. If I want to go and use the article somewhere else - including publishing it in print or selling it - I can. It's my work, legally and morally. Work submitted here is licenced to the world (including but not exclusively Wikipedia) and Wikipedia no more own the content than any other 3rd party does. --kingboyk 18:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles de Rais

Anon (User:152.163.100.72 talk) keeps edit warring on Gilles de Rais, removing sourced quotes [52] [53] [54], while ignoring points made through edit summaries as well the talk. A couple of other anons have also been behaving in a similar manner. This is in violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:V. SouthernComfort 12:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is an AOL IP address, and would be very difficult to actually block or communicate with the user who is actively avoiding any sort of communication. Might a semi-protect be a good alternative here? --HappyCamper 12:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like it to me. It looks to me like the anon is adding sourced comments too, which SouthernComfort is removing as well. SouthernComfort seems to be the only significant editor with a username to the article in the past few months and may be having some ownership issues as he has reverted everything added by anyone else except for an interwiki link to fr:. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Review the edit history (and take a good look at the diffs I have provided) and compare the versions and do not make blatantly false accusations - I have retained their edits. The anon(s) in question have been deleting sourced quotations and adding edits that are clearly not NPOV. As well, they have also failed to provide proper citations to back up their claims that "many" historians are against Murray's theory. And again, I do not inappreciate your accusations (ownership issues, eh?) which are clearly not civil. I also find it interesting that Angr ignores the fact that the anon(s) have not made a single comment on the talk And please do show me what "sourced comment" the anon has been adding? There are none. What a world. That I have to even explain myself, as an editor with long experience here, is ridiculous and appalling. SouthernComfort 15:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that the anon hasn't been using the talk page; I didn't mean to sound like I was exonerating him in any way. But here the anon added a source which you removed here. Perhaps I was hasty in accusing you of ownership, but it struck me as suspicious that this and this seem to be the only additions made by anyone other than you in the last three weeks that you've allowed to remain. Angr (talk • contribs) 15:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Revert wars"?

~~The issue is with User:Niz, but, a brief history:~~

User:Zzzzz threatened to de-list (and actually did, in some cases) GAs and FAs based on an outdated guideline stating filmogs and other lists must be oldest-to-newest. Now a discussion is under way to determine whether there should be a current guideline (seems left to preference ATM). Editors then reverted several of those articles to their appearance prior to the issue (which, by my experience, is hardly an uncommon move).

Here's where User:Niz jumped in, undoing the reversions and leaving behind edit summaries like "rvv" ("vandalism"?), "rvv, yawn" ("yawn"?!) and "rvcb" ("childish behavior"?!?). "Childish" and "childishness", in fact, are oft-repeated.

Given that User:Niz has yet to respond to my concerns, and that I tend to think an impartial third party would wonder whether this user is creating the very revert war (s)he decries, would I be out of line to request that this user get a refresher course in Wikiquette and assuming good faith, at the least? (At best, I'd like an administrator to step in and revert each page to its appearance immediately prior to any changes by User:Zzzzz to avoid further revert-warring.) Radio Kirk talk to me 14:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this resulted from a user trying to do a lot of work at once and some things got lost in the translation. Please disregard. Radio Kirk talk to me 18:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic vandalism and revert war

Dear admins, there has been systematic vandalism and repeated deletions of major part of Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi article by User:80.191.95.2 . --Uvolik 19:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call one instance of blanking in two weeks "systematic vandalism and repeated deletions." You handled it already so I don't think there is anything for an admin to do.--Alabamaboy 19:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Keith

This page is getting serially vandalized by anons, with various RC faces making plenty of reverts in recent history. I don't know much about the subject but he seems to be a whistle-blower, or at least holds controversial opinions on pro-wrestling which might be a cause of discontent. He apparently survived AfD last year and seems to be here to stay, also judging by the banter on the talk the article has been under some kind of protection before. It would appear to be a candidate for semi-protection at the moment? Deizio 19:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't complain to the page being protected, as the vandal shares my IP (no, its not me, my IP is shared by the entire country sadly :) ) and I am often blocked. Banez 22:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Melgibson1 possibly blocked in error

User:Peruvianllama blocked newcomer User:Melgibson1 yesterday for vandalism. This may be partly because he kept leaving comments at Luciferene, which I improperly tagged for deletion. Gazpacho 19:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably for making this series of edits [55]. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 19:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He should probably stay blocked for having an inappropriate username. Angr (talk • contribs) 20:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO abuse of adminship

User ChrisO has deleted template about persecution of Serbs in the middle of the debate, and it was clear that he (who proposed the deletion) was beginning to lose the case. Instead of debating it, he decided to delete it before the period has ended. There were two votes to keep it at the time. From the debate it was clear that NPOV problems can be fixed, and that template has a legitimate place in Wikipedia. Also, his own template about Scientology is more biased than this one, as it slanders the whole religion by attributing a nonsensical doctrine (in a template) to it, while it is claimed that it cannot be proved/verified as it is secret. How can this be NPOV. I think ChrisO abused his privileges. Also, isnt it true that it SHOULD NOT BE THE SAME PERSON who nominates and deletes the page - otherwise, the tags make no sense if noone is to have a say. I think this moderator, who also made personal attacks, has to be investigated for other possible adminship abuses. CeBuCCuCmeM 22:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC filed, so this should be ignored in favor of it. WP:RFC/ChrisO --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆

WP:AIV

Lately I've noticed reports to WP:AIV growing, and probably as a result not being dealt with as quickly as ought to be the case. May I ask administrators to consider adding this page to their watchlist if they haven't already, and if they have to please redouble their efforts to be actively involved? Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes maam! Done. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

Could an Admin review the following Requested moves and wrap them up if deemed appropriate:

--Mais oui! 22:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take such request to WP:RFPM --pgk^(talk) 06:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were already there, I believe; the request was to close the debates. Nightstallion has now done so. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I closed three of them, Nightstallion closed the forth. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism and pov censoring by Anonymous editor

This user on History_of_the_Kashmir_conflict is trying to censor views of

New York Times Journalist Robert Trumbull:

Robert Trumbull, of New York Times sent this dispatch, published on 10 November:

The city had been stripped of its wealth and young women before the Pakistanis fled in terror, at midnight friday, before the advancing Indian army. Surviving residents estimate that 3000 of there townsmen including four Europeans and a retired British army officer, Colonel Dykes, and his pregnant wife were slain. St Joseph Franciscan Convent and the convent hospital was stormed and four nuns were shot.

Alan Moorehead of the Observer (London):

reported that recruitment for the invasion had been going on not only in NWFP but all of Pakistan[2].

And other authors who have published books on the topic of Kashmir, none of whom

is an Indian or Hindu. Akbar is a muslim and the other two are not Indians. References

  1. ↑ Hodson, H.V. (1969). The Great Divide: Britain, India, Pakistan.
  2. ↑ a b c d Akbar, M.J. (2002). Kashmir Behind the vale.
  3. ↑ Brecher, Michael (1953). The Struggle for Kashmir

Anonymous editor is unhappy to see Pakistan's involvement and the atrocities comitted by its armies be listed on wikipedia even though they are sourced from books that are considered unbiased and scholarly. Can somebody please check his vandalism? Here is the diff [[56]]

This is a content dispute, near as I can tell. Are you sure this is the place you're looking for? You might want to try getting a third opinion or opening a topic RFC instead. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is removing sourced material from reputed books and journalists, published in standard weeklies, newspapers common on wikipedia? I would expect someone to counter with another published source and not just blatant reverts.

More Vandalism by Anonymous editor

On Kashmir page this user has deleted text which shows that hinduism flourished in kashmir for thousands of years and there are hindu temples from antiquity which can still be visited in this state. [[57]]. Looks to me this person has a political agenda of not allowing facts that are opposite to his pov to be mentioned on wikipedia.

Definitely a content dispute, then. This isn't the place to air this; the relevant talk pages and related Wikiprojects handle this sort of thing, as no administrator intervention is needed, nor is inappropriate use of admin privileges in evidence. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, please don't come running to administrator's noticeboard every time you don't like an edit someone makes.--Alhutch 04:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is not running to you guys. I am figuring out how this thing works. Read my comments above. Question to you does citing reputable sources have any value or can anyone reverse without citing his own?

It has value in that other editors are more likely to support you if those edits were reversed without good cause. It won't prevent other people from reversing without citation though (although such an action might well be difficult for them to justify). By the way it's good practice to sign your comments by adding four tildes at the end like so: ~~~~. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page Protections

In response to various problems (content disputes and possible WP:SOCK vio's) I've placed Kashmir and History of the Kashmir conflict under temporary page protection, this applies to all editors (admins too). Please form a concensus on the Talk pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting block for inappropriate vandalism

Please see this edit and you be the judge. Nobody's blocked the user yet.

Thanks. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 09:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked by Curps for 24 hours. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On user Ankaram, self promoting

The user Ankaram, is most certainly, and even certainly Sedat Laciner who is very close to the Turkish government who has written a good deal of materials specifically aimed at linking the Armenians with anti-Semitism, while this is not much a problem here, the main problem is that he is self-promoting himself, his organization and his journal in Wikipedia.

Evidences that he is Laciner are clear. First, the anonymous user who added on the anti-semitism article the links to the articles published by Laciner, and all the links from the Journal of Turkish Weekly, who Laciner is the chairman of. This was done on March 10, this anonymous user also added materials relating to Laciner organizations and affiliations, as well as edited the Armenian Genocide article with materials that Laciner has written himself. Not to forget also the fact that this same anonymous user has added a link in the Armenia article to his article and his journal. Here all this anonymous users contributions. [58]

While this anonymous user appeared in March 10, on March 11, the login Slaciner was created and he started contributing [59], on his user page, he rightly say who he is etc. He also created the page about himself. On 13:30 of April 1, 2006, he stop contributing with this acount, another account appear the same day, which is Ankaram and continue the work starting with the alias Slaciner and his attempt to place his works links and his journal everywhere he can find. Right now of course after that anonymous edit of his on the Armenian Genocide article he has not edited there, but this is probably due to the fact that the article is now locked for new users.

The thing is that his newspaper is not notable, neither it has the credibility to be used as a source for anything. This man consider Armenians to control the world public opinion and has written works with titles such as : "Armenian propaganda" etc, the newspaper also in various occasion been exposed to have manipulated and fabricated others statments, just recently a Courier writter was threatned with legal actions just because he has reported one of those fabrications. I was advised by Golbez and Bertilvidet to place Laciner cases in the administrators noticeboard, but I haven't done so because after my message on Ankaram talk page, he has stopped doing that a little, but he started back again adding another link to his newspaper at the entry on Turkish invasion of Cyprus. [60] Fad (ix) 17:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well this is interesting

apparently I've found out one more thing that AOL can do, I'm currently editing with two different user names at the same time, on the same computer, and will post this message on both WP:AN and WP:AN/i with both accounts, at exactly the same time--Chelloru 20:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to guess I'd say that AOL somehow keeps two completely seperate sets of cookies, one for each type of browsing window--Fernblogin 20:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is by far the strangest thing I've ever found out about AOL--Fernblogin 20:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be the only way to do that of course. One IE, one Firefox, one Mozilla, one Opera, and then the same in multiple instances of VMWare - a user could have a veritable sockfarm on one computer. --kingboyk 20:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

now that we know this can work, the question becomes, is there any reasonable expanaition for why it works? It is pretty strange--Chelloru 20:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing particularly unusual about it. Between the use of bots and multiple web browsers, I've edited from the same computer under as many as three accounts at the same time. --Carnildo 22:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question now

Is there any sort of rule saying that you can't operate two usernames on Wikipedia at the exact same time, on the exact same computer? Would it even occur to anyone to make such a rule?--Chelloru 20:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SOCK for the closest thing we have to that. Blackcap (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above comment by Blackcap copied by myself from a duplicate section (which I'll delete now) from above; his was the only comment that wasn't in this section. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you dont use it to manipulate voting - in which case it would be a sockpuppet - no. KI 20:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if I manipulate voting in 2 different ways, one vote support,--Chelloru 20:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other oppose, basically the same thing as not voting at all--Fernblogin 20:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fool proof, as long as I always have an even number of sockpuppets--Chelloru 20:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really true, usually supermajorities are required in Wikipedia related things, so for example in an RfA, that would be like 2 net opposes, because 1 oppose is worth 3 supports. --Rory096 23:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that's probably covered under WP:POINT somewhere, either way I'm getting kind of tired of this, using 2 accounts at the same time isn't a glamorous as you'd think it is--Fernblogin 20:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, guys there seem to be massive WP:BEANS issues here. I suggest that this conversation be taking off the noticeboard. JoshuaZ 20:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think so--Fernblogin 20:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEANS? I'd think this comes under the "so obvious it isn't worth mentioning" clause myself. --Carnildo 22:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They've started posting the same thread in duplicate now, so I've blocked both sockpuppets (no other contribs). Interesting experiment but enough is enough. However, I've been told it's triggered an autoblock? How can I reverse the autoblock whilst leaving the accounts blocked? --kingboyk 20:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright, I found it on Special:Ipblocklist and removed the autoblock (although if there's an easier way I'd like to know). --kingboyk 21:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan

Can someone please watch over Geo Swan? He/she wont leave me alone. The user seems infuriated that I moved Charities accused of ties to terrorism to Charities with ties to terrorism - accused being a truism in my opinion. This move was undone but now this user wont leave me alone and keeps lecturing me about American politics, something I really dont care about. I dont know what angered Geo Swan, but my move seems to have struck a nerve. Thanks. KI 20:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on talk page. I couldn't find evidence of significant harassment. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody help me track down an abuser?

I received several obscenity-laced emails ostensibly sent by User:Homeworld5 to my email account. I have notified abuse@hotmail.com of the abuse, but at the same time, there were several attempts to get my Wikipedia password changed. The attempts all came from IP address 210.8.110.33. ARIN and APNIC are not very helpful at tracking down where this address comes from and whom I can contact to report the abuse. Can somebody help me? User:Zoe|^(talk)`

Its owned by connect.com.au (from APNIC). Mike _{(T C)}

21:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I can't find an abuse email address. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one gives an abuse e-mail [61] -- not that it will actually help, I rarely get anything but a bot answer from those things. Antandrus (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That email may be defunct due to takeover, there is contact info for AAPT here [62]. Arniep 22:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When in dobut abuse@, but personally I wouldn't worry about it.Mike _{(T C)}

22:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everybody. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

70.27.217.5

There's an anon user who has been blanking their IP talk page (User talk:70.27.217.5), which contains some vandalism warnings and other editing comments from the last couple of days. Is it appropriate to revert their blanking (I've done it once already), or is this a legitimate use of the talk page? Cheers, Ziggurat 21:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He does indeed have fresh vandalism warnings, and he's not served any block. He shouldn't remove the warnings, and I've reverted to your version. --kingboyk 21:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Reversing" vandalism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aomori_Prefecture&diff=47459008&oldid=46907076 seems to be a new sort of vandalism to me. This user reversed some names and corrupted others. Is this some sort of bot? Richard W.M. Jones 21:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the diff above the user also added the comment "(names are not Japanese but Aomorese)", which leads me to suspect he's changing names from Standard Japanese to the local dialect, which to my mind would fall under making a political POINT. No, you're right, he's probably just playing. The message you left on his talk page is entirely appropriate, and considering it was only two edits is probably nothing to get worried about. Angr (talk • contribs) 05:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked with an Japanese person from Aomori, and the edit was not "Aomorese". Anyway - I'll keep an eye on it. Richard W.M. Jones 08:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup after a bot mistake

Because of a bug in experimental code for tagging new uploads, OrphanBot has been occasionally placing messages at pages of the form "User talk:User:Someuser". I've fixed the bug, and the list of approximately 270 pages that were accidentally created is at User:Carnildo/Bot mistake. Could someone go through and delete them? Thanks. --Carnildo 22:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'm starting at the bottom of that list --pgk^(talk) 22:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like humans are still needed, huh? ;-) SoLando (Talk) 23:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All done it would seem. You want the list deleted now? --kingboyk 23:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've got no need for it now. --Carnildo 23:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of NPA Template from Talk page

When someone removes a vandalism warning template from their Talk page it is considered vandalism. Does the same hold true for when someone removes an NPA warning template? FiguringItOutAgain 03:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're begging the question; removing vandalism warnings isn't necessarily considered vandalism. If you could let us know the circumstances that prompted your question – and perhaps the username that you usually edit under – we might be able to assist you with your concerns. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to beg a question, I meant to ask a question. On the vandalism page it is stated that removing a vandalism template on a user talk page is considered vandalism. "Removing warnings for vandalism from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." Here comes the question:

When a user commits a Personal Attack, and they are warned with an npa template, is it considered vandalism for them to remove the npa template from their user talk?

I don't have an username I usually edit under. I have dozens of usernames. FiguringItOutAgain 03:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question is yes. All of warning templates are listed on Template:TestTemplates. Instead of listing every single warning template, WP:VAND does have a link to that page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that depends on the exact situation generally for properly placed warnings, yes. Clearly there are disagreements about if a personal attack occurred and if the warning was placed in good faith, so if it involves you personally it's sometimes better to ask someone independant for anoter opinion about the specific circumstance, rather than escalating any "hostility". --pgk^(talk) 08:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PRODs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree with making such a bot. When I first became an admin, I was chastised multiple times for deleting articles that did not fit CSD criteria. CSD'ing all old PRODs would result in lots of admins all of the sudden speedily deleting articles against policy. In fact, when I scan through CAT:CSD, I routinely find articles marked as CSD that shouldn't be. When I find such an article, I either AFD it or PROD it. PROD should be used to remove all anti-process CSDs, not add to them. --M @th wiz 20 20 15:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request to return Talk page after reverted page move

A user moved a page, but then decided, for reasons unclear, to edit the Talk page of what was then a Redirect. This meant that when the page was moved back, the Talk page was abandonned.

Could an Admin return Talk:Royal Coat of Arms in Scotland back to its original spot: Talk:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom for use in Scotland. The User in question is not questioning the return move (although they are seriously questioning the actual content of the article.) --Mais oui! 13:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis moved, because I'm cool like that. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated MOS violations

Regarding 200.138.194.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): is there a policy for dealing with users who repeatedly make edits in violation of the Manual of Style (sometimes undoing attempts to bring the articles back in line with the MoS)? Template {{Mos3}} (which I left on the user's talk page) says "Continuous changing of content in articles to break agreed-upon MoS rules, when you have been asked to stop, is often seen as vandalism. Constant vandalism may lead to you being blocked from editing Wikipedia", but Wikipedia:Vandalism says that Manual of Style violations do not count as vandalism. The problem is, the user in question is making the same edits over and over to the same articles (e.g. [63], [64], [65]), and each time I've cleaned them up and asked that he/she stop, but they just carry on. Extraordinary Machine 16:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with [66]? Shouldn't a remix name - by extension part of the song title - be in Title Case? --kingboyk 17:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion somewhere about using case that the performers and their record label use, even if it violates usual Title Case. I can't find that discussion right now, however. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Here it is. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to discuss it but I can't help myself :-) The problem with that is that record labels tend to be very inconsistent, exactly the same song can be named in multiple ways over the years. The other thing is, the diff provided is simply "Foo Remix" - it's not the name of the song (it's the remix called Foo), but it ought to be title case because by extension it is part of the song title! :P Now, perhaps I've just proven that right and wrong is hard to define here and we should close this as "no case to answer"? :) --kingboyk 21:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was told by an editor that it shouldn't. Regardless, the anon has been changing things like "Dirrty" featuring Redman to "Dirrty" (Featuring Redman), which goes against the MoS as the word "featuring" definitely isn't part of the song's title. Extraordinary Machine 21:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. As for what to do about it, I'll pass. I'm a (fairly) new admin and I don't really know, sorry. Others will chip in soon no doubt. --kingboyk 22:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD backlog

There's a bit of a backlog at AFD, with debates as old as March 30 still open (actually March 28 but I'll close that day myself right now). In particular, could somebody either ~~close or relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools in the United Kingdom (2nd nomination) please?~~ I'd do it myself but I'm the nominator. --kingboyk 21:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC) That one's been closed, cheers. --kingboyk 21:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A list with tens of thousands of potential entries, requiring consant maintenacne, dominated by redlinks - madness! What we really need is a simple system where you can tag the articles themselves and have them automatically added into a list in alphabetical order. We could call it "categories". Just zis Guy you know? 21:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Much as I agree with you - and despite my best efforts at a deletion rationale - it was closed as no consensus. Sorry about that! :) --kingboyk 21:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was with much regret that I closed it as no consensus. I would have really enjoyed deleting it. Angr (talk • contribs) 22:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what is wrong with AfD. --Doc ^ask? 22:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not "mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles." I agree with you, Doc. AfD does need a reform, especially when articles that clearly violate WP:NOT do not reach a consensus. --M @th wiz 20 20 22:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, of course, is that AFD regulars who know the guidelines and actually read my rationale (the first wave of ""voters"") agreed with the nomination. Then along came the second wave who presumably saw the AFD tag on the article and immediately considered it an attack on schools. Consider such comments as "Keep and subdivide list if necessary, but absolutely do not delete this content from Wikipedia" (I proposed placing the redlinks in the Schools WikiProject, which I thought an admirable solution) and (cough) "Obviously, we want this. It's a list of schools and we do articles on schools." (an experienced editor that one but contribs show many education-related edits). Oh well, I tried, and no doubt it will get attempt #3 at some point. --kingboyk 22:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Genius home collegiate school can be kept at AfD, even once, then basically any article with the word 'school' in the title is probably bound to be kept. I remember suggesting to Jason Gastrich before I became properly aware of the extent of his self-promotion that if he wanted his name in Wikipedia he should found a school, and as long as it had a website he'd be sorted. I thought I was joking :-/ --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC) (P.S. I'll take a look at the backlog if it's still around when I'm sober.)[reply]

Gah

Good Day. I would like to support the inclusion of Gah in Wikipedia. This term originated within a PC gaming enthusiast website called www.totalwar.org. Newcomers sometimes ask what Gah means and we would like to lend the term some credibility. Furthermore, the use of GAH! is expanding beyond totalwar.org into the english vernacular. Members of Totalwar.org can view a discussion on this here: http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=63385.

I understand that this topic was submitted for speedy deletion. I hope that the staff of Wikipedia will reconsider this. I will be happy to conduct more reseacrh on the matter and provide wiki with a complete history of the word is necessary. My thanks for your consideration,

Divinus Arma

Sorry. We are not here to lend terms credibility they don't otherwise merit. I suggest you create a glossary of jargon on your own website. We don't cover neologisms. --Doc ^ask? 22:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A side comment - the article "Gah" was created and speedied twice on April 2nd, so I added a {{db-repost}} tag to the re-creation today. We might consider protecting the page since in total it has been speedied five times now. Gwernol 22:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

To save anyone else checking, it is now protected. [67] --kingboyk 23:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gnome (Bot)

Hello, I am the bot operator. I am asking for an admin to look and see if the bot is fully unblocked.

The original blcok was placed by User:Zoe, 1 day later User:Grutness also blocked the bot. Both blocks were indefinate. Upon my request, and after I had changed the coding in the bot, I asked User:Zoe to unblock the bot. He did, but when I try to test it on my user subpages, I trigger the autoblock... Please someone explain to me what is wrong. My theory is that Zoe removed his block, but forgot to also remove Grutness' block. Someone please have a look at this, thanks.Eagle (talk) (desk) 23:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it now; if you tried to edit while block, the autoblocker (which the blocking admin has no control over) will need to be unblocked. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should be unblocked by now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably happened because you tried to edit after the main block had been lifted but less than 24 for hours after it had been placed so since we use an absolutely stupid autoblock system you got hit with a still present autoblock. Maybe you should file a bug report and see if a dev can rectify it so autoblocks autolift when the main block lifts even if it's say 1 minute later or something like that. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 09:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:IHATEAUSSIES

This user appears to have been created for the sole pupose of publishing attacks on Australians. So far he has limited himself to his user and talk page, but it is only a matter of time before he goes elsewhere. Can we get an indefinate block on the account? --Hetar 03:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already indef blocked. I've taken the unusual step of deleting the user page too as it contains some quite revolting words of hatred against our friends downunder. --kingboyk 03:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks

An increasing number of admins are being threatened or harassed off-site. This is usually possible because they've inadvertently left enough information in their contributions or on their user pages for abusive editors to be able to piece together who they are. I've therefore created a new page, Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks, so that admins who are being threatened, or are worried about being identified by an abusive editor, can contact one of the admins on the list discreetly and ask them to take over the case. Feel free to add your own name if you're willing to deal with these abusive editors. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:George cowie

Hi folks. George_cowie (talk · contribs · count) is a young new user who has just discovered the delights of the Upload function combined with Google Image Search. He's put dozens of tagless images up and is sticking them into articles about his local area. All the images have been tagged NLD and removed from the articles as I really don't think he got permission.

He has been warned on his talk page by me and others about the image usage policy, but his response was to upload duplicates, remove the NLD tag and add the images back to the articles.

I've started treating the adding back of the images as simple vandalism and using rollback to take them away again. I've also given him a 15 minute block in an attempt to get his attention (just in case he hasn't read his talk page).

Obviously, I don't want to bite a new user, I don't want 3RR trouble for the reverting and I don't want to over-apply blocks against him if I haven't managed to get his attention. I'm still a new admin, so these things worry me inordinately!

Would others like to join me in keeping an eye on this chap, in case he's clueless rather than willfully ignorant? (Apologies for the intemperate language, but you know what I mean). And I'd welcome your comments if I'm not doing right here. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User appears to be promoting his hometown

I don't know if it's a big enough deal to do anything or what I should do if it is, but I have noticed that Crazyjoeda (contributions) seems to be promoting his hometown of Vancouver. For example, he moved Vancouver up on a disambiguation page, noted that a company mentioned in fuel cell was located there and inserted a claim in another city's article that their nickname usually refers to Vancouver. Finally, he moved Vancouver from the bottom to the top of a list of projects on cities. -- Kjkolb 10:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Case of WP:POINT?

An AfD was recently raised against County flower; the claim of two very vociferous opponents of the article was that, first, the system of county flowers was created more or less whole by a national charity, and secondly, that the charity used (quite openly) an old-fashioned system of counties.

While the AfD discussion was continuing (and it was obvious from the outset that the overwhelming consensus was to keep the article) [~~the nominator~~ User:Bwithh] deleted all references to the county flowers from the relevant county and city articles, citing the AfD. When I replaced them, Mais oui! (talk • contribs • oui! page moves • block user • oui! block log)] added {{fact}} to them all, and has continued to insist on doing so (even after the County flower article passed the AfD easily). I've just left this comment at his Talk page:

We don't add citations for every fact in every article; if we did, the articles would be unredable. We use common sense, guided by the advice in WP:CITE (which is a style guide, not policy, incidentally). If a claim is uncontroversial, and contains links to other articles that provide external citations, then cluttering up the article is unnecessary.

Using {{fact}} in order to make a point about the fact mentioned violated WP:POINT.

If you know what the citation is (as you do, having read and argued against the County flower article), then you should add it; again, disfiguring the article with the "fact" template in such circumstances is very close to disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

This seems fairly obviously to be disruption to make a point, in fact. Do others agree? Should I warn MaisOui, and block him if he continues? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sensible to me, once warned that his/her actions are disruptive continuing them would justify a block to prevent that disruption. --pgk^(talk) 10:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also, I think that something like that should be made into a guideline or policy for using the fact template. -- Kjkolb 10:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not know the facts/citations are for every single county. What I was requesting was that someone with detailed knowledge of each area perhaps produce a reference showing how, or if, Plantlife's suggestions had been adopted in their "county" or city. Failing such citations of real-life adoption then all references to "county flowers" (sic) are just spamming for the charity Plantlife. User:Mel Etitis claimed, I believe inaccurately, that an internal link was a reasonable substitute for putting an external reference for the neologism "county flower" in context. WP:CITE clearly states that internal links are no substitute for proper sourcing.

I was most certaonly not making a point. I was very genuinely asking if any editors knew the facts in their area, rather than the facile inclusion of a one line reference to some novel "county flower" that no-one has hitherto heard of. As it happens, several editors have backed up my approach and either put the statement in context, referenced it, shifted it out of the Introduction section, or even deleted it altogether. I chose not to delete the info, but rather find out if it had any basis in fact. Is that not what Wikipedia is all about: fact conquering fiction? --Mais oui! 10:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this: I have just read Mel Etitis accccusations in detail and found this:

"While the AfD discussion was continuing (and it was obvious from the outset that the overwhelming consensus was to keep the article) the nominator deleted all references to the county flowers from the relevant county and city articles, citing the AfD."

That is just not true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It was User:Bwithh who did that: [68]. This allegation is unbelievable. Where on earth is a single shred of evidence to back up Mel Etitis allegations????? --Mais oui! 10:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the slip; I was writing from memory. I've changed my original statement fo the affair (though I don't see that it changes the situation significantly). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is just not good enough. You have totally misrepresented the situation here. If readers look very, very carefully at Mel Etitis opening accusation against me, you will see that it is composed of 100% opinion and 0% evidence. The fact is I added the "citation needed" template to about 6 or 7 articles. Citations were duly supplied for most or other editors removed the simple sentences altogether (this was all happening while Mel Etitis was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR). The next day, I added "citation needed" back onto 2 or 3 articles that Mel Etitis had removed them from. That was it! No edit war, no incivility, no nothing. This whole jumped-up case against me is totally outrageous, and I await a full apology, and for Mel Etitis to be reprimanded. --Mais oui! 11:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information: here is the only occasion on which Mel Etitis chose to take this to the Talk page. We were civil, but was he?

Talk:Bristol#Citations

--Mais oui! 11:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is outrageous. While this strand is just a few minutes old Mel Etitis has chosen to "Archive" (way down at the bottom) a message I left on his Talk page 2 days ago about this "County flower" issue.

Here is the bit of his Talk page he is trying to conceal. It shows that I tried to engage him in intelligent discourse. He chose to decline the offer:

SECTION FROM MEL ETITIS TALK PAGE BEGINS

County flowers?

You cannot restore all these references to "county flowers" without some source. A charity or any other private organisation can say anything they like about various former administrative divisions: it does not make it true. Perhaps, at a pinch, it is worth a wee footnote saying that as part of a marketing campaign Plantlife, in 2002! (long after the abolition of nearly every county concerned) invented a number of "county flowers" (sic). But c'mon, they are not really county flowers unless a proper county (of which few remain, and none in Scotland) actually adopts and uses it. In how many cases can that be said? Yorkshire, Lancashire, County Durham? That seems to be about it. --Mais oui! 14:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just to point out (although you probably already know) that the county flower article has been nominated for deletion, so the occurance or removal of 'county flower' information in article probably ough to pend the outcome of this vote. Hence I support your restoration of it when you did, although I'm not entirely convinced that county flowers are sufficiently universal or notable to be included in all articles prominently, as I have mentioned before. Stringops 17:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SECTION ENDS --Mais oui! 11:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The spluttering indignation is misplaced, especially as the comment misses the points that I was making.
Interestingly, Mais Oui" has copied his comment back to my Talk page, but not the one from Stringpops. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth has that got to do with anything? I insist that other Admins step in here and prevent this travesty of justice. I repeat: there is zero evidence: zero dates, zero times, zero links. This whole complaint against me is a straw house. When is another Admin going to step in? --Mais oui! 13:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to block the pair of you for 24 hours to cool down. This is not the forum for a content dispute. Take it to the relevant talk pages, file an RfC or whatever. But please take it away. --Doc ^ask? 13:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's more than a little unfair. I brought a question here, asking other admins to help out (two have commented, both supprioting my view). Mais Oui! has filled the section with emotional ranting. That is pretty much his usual technique, as a look at his Talk page indicates; he's used it successfully a number of times — he produces an avalanche of posts, pesters admins, and eventually swamps the original issue so that people give up and let him do what he wants. It's not clear to me that I've any cooling down to do (well, except that your comment has got me a little hot under the collar), and the vast majority of what's above comes from Mais Oui! --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, my agreement above is based on a fairly supeficial look at the situation, and is a basic agreement that should someone persist in simply repeating an action can be disruptive and can be a legitimate block reason, this is the basics of not edit warring, getting those involved to discuss it calmly and rationally. --pgk^(talk) 15:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But I was not involved in Edit warring. In fairness, that is not what Mel Etitis was accusing me of. And I was most certainly not making a WP:POINT either. I was simply making a request for suitable citations to be provided (I only repeated the request twice, at 2 or 3 articles). Would someone, please cite some evidence against me, because otherwise this entire strand is 100% opinion and 0% fact. --Mais oui! 15:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mais Oui! would be a good candiate to be assigned a mentor, to help control his anger and show him how to edit Wikipedia in a more constructive manner. Astrotrain 14:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're both fairly difficult to work with, but in this case it seems that Mel Etitis is doing some sort of subtle advertising campaign for a charity, and Mais Oui! is trying to rein it in. Noisy | Talk 09:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly that's ludicrous (and I notice that you've been joining in the peculiar campaign to remove mentions of county flowers froma rticles, with the same accusations). I have no connection with and little knowledge of the charity. Like many editors who contributed to the AfC I was aware of the campaign at the time, and saw that it was supported by my County Council, local newspapers, other local wildlife charities, and many individuals who voted and disucssed the issue. Mais Oui! and Bwithh's over-the-top reactions to the article and mentions of it drew my attention when it came up on my Watchlist (Oxfordshire), and I joined in discussion at the AfC. I neither started the article nor added references to the counties, but I can see no problem with either.

I'm puzzled that this issues has aroused such emotions and accusations of bad faith. Is there something about this that I'm missing?

I came here with a request for advice from other admins concerning dubious behaviour by two editors. Could we stick to that? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plantlife section The Plantlife county flowers competition says "In 2002 Plantlife ran a competition to select county flowers for all counties of the UK. A list of the flowers chosen can be found at List of county flowers of the United Kingdom."

County flower says "A county flower is a flowering plant chosen to symbolise a county. They exist primarily in the United Kingdom, but some counties in other countries also have them. State flowers exist for each of the states of the USA."

List of county flowers of the United Kingdom redirects to County flower.

State flowers and other state symbols are chosen by the state's legislators. There seems to be a confusion between "county flower" and "candidate for county flower selected by Plantlife". Flowers legislatively or by executive order legally adopted as county flowers are one thing while flowers selected as candidates for that position various parties are clearly something else. Wikipedia should be clear which is meant. WAS 4.250 13:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there's a confusion here between U.S. states and counties, or if "state" is being used to mean "naion". Either way, it's not really accurate, I'm afraid. In many if not most countries national flowers (and other objects) are the result of long traditions. In the present case, the county-flower campaign was supported by my local country council, who included it in their own publications. I doubt that they were alone in this.

Noisy (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is still removing mentions of it from articles with edit summaries calling it "advertising". It really has stirred up the excitable fringe. My feeling is that this also counts as bad-faith and disruptive editing, given the overwhelming consensus to keep the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are normally ultra-moralistic to the point of obsession when it comes to policy, and yet in this instance which reeks of viral marketing you suddenly have a blindspot for the Wikipedia cornerstones of WP:CITE, WP:VERIFY and WP:NOT. Tens - if not hundreds - of people have now read about Plantlife since you've brought the issue here, with a spurious charge of WP:POINT, rather than using RFC. That's what leads me to believe you have an agenda. Noisy | Talk 21:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided some links to recent official uses of county flowers by British councils at Talk:Plantlife.
As basic wikiquette, please can all editing of articles containing the phrase cease until we at least have a consensus in the debate at Talk:Plantlife. From this point, further reverts should be seen as wilfully obstructive.
Can all further debate on this matter take place on Talk:Plantlife. This will unify the debate and take it away from completely inappropriate fora such as this here.

Many thanks in advance for your consideration of the above. A q uilina 22:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still await an apology from Mel Etitis for his completely unfounded allegation against me. He has still not removed a very unpleasant message he left on my Talk page in this regard. Is this the behaviour we expect of Admins? --Mais oui! 06:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir

What was once a great page at Omar el-Beshir has somehow been destroyed and replaced with this #$%*#. If theres a way to recover the old version - I dont know what happened to it - will someone please restore it? KI 16:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it was deleted before 2004, there has never been any page called either Omar el-Beshir or Omar al-Beshir. Are you sure of the page's name? --cesarb 16:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Sign Language

On the front page, in the current events section, it says that an act was passed making NZSL an offial language of New Zealand. This has caused many people, including me, to edit the page and "update" it. However, it is not an official language until it recieves Royal Assent, signing by the executive. Anyways, more discussion can be found here, on its talk page. All in all, the front page needs to be changed for the moment - it is very misleading. Thanks much, zappa 18:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also posted something about it on the template's (In the news') talk page. zappa 02:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation can be found from Ben Arnold on my talk page. zappa 02:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just tweaked the ITN template, changing "making..." into "to make ...". Hope it's better now. -- PFHLai 06:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Down ?

What happened ? The site was down all day today. You have another crash ? Martial Law 04:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Downtime. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:DreamGuy's Cat vandalised

DreamGuy's cat messenger has been vandalised. Martial Law 04:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC) :o[reply]

The vandalism I think you are talking about was reverted several hours ago. Martial Law, please be careful not to post unimportant information like this to the Administrators' noticeboard: it's a very busy page as it is. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen his user page ? There are a LOT of "\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"s all over that page. Martial Law 04:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC) :o[reply]

Try clearing your browser's cache. The vandalism doesn't appear to have been re-added after it was removed. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing PSYCH's libel

Xtra's stalker PSYCH seems to have decided to vandalise every single article Xtra ever edited. This particular vandal uses obscene and abusive edit summaries, examples of which can be seen in the revision history of my talk page. As these edit summaries obviously libel Xtra, I intend to delete these edits from article histories wherever I see them, per Wikipedia's libel policy. Since I just (temporarily) deleted Australia, I thought it was probably time that I let everyone know what I'm on about. Snottygobble 04:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to block the UP indefinitely as an open proxy Sceptr e ^(Talk) 15:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral admin required for decision

I'd like an uninvolved administrator to have a look at EffK's account. He came to Wikipedia about a year ago, I think, and had the name User:Flamekeeper. He did not feel comfortable giving an e-mail address to Wikipedia, so when his computer rebooted, and he couldn't remember his password, he had to register a new account - User:Fiamekeeper. He lost computer cookies again, so he registered User:Corecticus. Then he registered as User:Famekeeper. Then he registered as User:PureSoupS, and finally as User:EffK. It was not at all a case of decitful sockpuppetry. He never tried to use multiple accounts to violate 3RR or to vote twice; nor did he attempt to hide his old identities. Each account was abandoned as he moved on to the next.

He had a theory that Pope Pius XII had actively collaborated with Hitler (not just that he hadn't done enough to condemn him), and kept making really long, incoherent posts about how Pope Benedict should order Pope Pius's body to be exhumed so that Pius could face trial and be excommunicated. He antogonized not only the "loyal Catholic" editors, but also those who felt that Pius had been negligent, and those who were not Catholic at all. He also engaged in numerous personal attacks, particularly on the editor User:Str1977 - "the brother of the murderer . . . a deep despair hiding in your Catholic soul . . . your morality is highly objectionable . . . you read Hitler's mind and reveal his thoughts, and they are yours . . . shocking . . . sinister . . . a source of moral pollution . . . you will have to be controlled . . . a lost sheep . . . on the point of mental sickness", etc. The talk pages of Pope Pius XII, Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Pope, etc. were flooded with thousands of words, which were often so incoherent as to be almost impossible to understand. He also attacked User:Robert McClenon, telling him something like "Go wash out your mouth with soap and say a hundred rosaries for your lie to Wikipedia." In fact, SlimVirgin gave him a warning for that post.

He began to post things on Jimbo's page, about how the Vatican was trying to take over Wikipedia and the world. Jimbo quite kindly advised him to leave Wikipedia while he still could, with his head held high, and his dignity intact, as he seemed to be the kind of editor who would be banned eventually. He left then, for a few weeks, but came back, calling on Wikipedia to ban Str1977 as a Vatican agent. (He thinks that Str has been commissioned by the Vatican to join Wikipedia specifically for the purpose of opposing him.) He would also post things about how his own life would be in danger if anyone on Wikipedia discovered his identity, as the Vatican agents might have him pushed out of a train.

I think that Str1977 generally treated him quite kindly and patiently. I couldn't help liking him, in spite of my (wiki-)friendship with Str1977, who was the main target of his attacks, and in spite of the fact that he attacked me a few times. Eventually Robert McClenon filed a request for Arbitration. Str1977 gave evidence, and I did as well. The result was that EffK was banned from Wikipedia for one year, for his personal attacks. He was banned indefinitely from any articles dealing with the Catholic Church. And he could also be blocked by any administrator for causing disruption to any article.

He then joined Wikinfo, and began to make long posts there.

http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=User_talk:EffK

After a while, an administrator decided enough was enough, and banned him indefinitely from there.

The next thing I noticed was that he had joined the French Wikipedia

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:EffK

I don't think he is interested in editing. He just wants to use it to promote his theories.

While the ArbCom case was going on, he kept making long posts. Sometimes he would copy an entire section of several thousand words to a different and unrelated talk page; sometimes he would just post a short sentence like "I am excessively offended by this arbitration". He frequently referred to Str1977 as a Vatican agent (commenting on the fact that Str started editing Wikipedia just after the election of Benedict XVI), and to Robert McClenon as his side-kick. Eventually one of the arbitrators got impatient and reverted one of his long posts.

After he was banned, he was still technically able to edit his talk page, and continued to do so. Sam Korn said that it could be protected if he continued to use it as a soap box, so after he had engaged in a few more attacks against Str1977, Str applied for protection, and Woohookitty protected. I felt a bit sorry for EffK, as I knew this would cut off all means of communication (as he refuses to give Wikipedia his e-mail address), so after a few days, I asked Str if he'd mind if I unprotected, after giving EffK a warning that it would be reprotected again if he continued to use it that way, and that it would remain protected. Str said he was more than happy to give him another chance, and he had never intended to cut off communication completely, so I warned EffK, and unprotected. I also sent a note to Woohookitty.

After the unprotection, EffK behaved himself for a while. Str welcomed him back, and answered some of his questions. But then, he began to indulge in the long soapbox posts again. For most of the time while he was on Wikipedia, nobody at all sided with him, because his behaviour was so extreme. Even those who thought that Pius XII was negligent would have nothing to do with him. However, just approaching the end of the arbitration case, User:Bengalski joined forces with him, and began to complain about the way he had been treated. Bengalski made no mention of any of the personal attacks EffK had made, but criticized those who had brushed him aside. Sean Black replaced the lo-o-o-o-o-o-o-ong contents on EffK's user page with a notice saying that EffK had been banned, and Bengalski reverted it as vandalism. Sean reverted it again, and Bengalski complained at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration. He then copied EffK's version of the EffK user page to his own user page, presumably as an act of solidarity, and edited EffK's page to say that the contents could now be found at User:Bengalski. More recently, Bengalski edited EffK's page to make it look as if EffK had been banned simply for trying to include information that was critical of Pius XII, when in fact he was banned for greatly disrupting the talk page of almost every article he ever went near, and for engaging in numerous personal attacks.

If anyone looks though the history of his talk page since I unprotected (with warning) on 16 February, he/she will see that he's just been clogging it up, and using it as a soapbox. I have given him a few more warnings, and told him that I really didn't want the page to be protected again, but that I could see that it was going in that direction. Bengalski archived it for him (which I'd have been happy to do), but it's still a massive clutter. He got very offended recently because of a remark I made at the talk page of Hitler's Pope. Someone was accusing the Catholic editors of POV pushing, and I pointed out that a high average of edits per article indicated an agenda, and Pius's defenders had a lower average than his critics. That drew the following outraged comment. He threatened me that I wouldn't get away with blanking his page, because Bengalski was watching me, and made eight demands of me(scroll to the bottom of the diff section). I tried, reasonably successfully, to calm him down, but now he's making more attacks on Str1977, and is asking Bengalski to copy more of his material onto Bengalski subpages.

Would a neutral admin be so kind as to look into the history of the page, and if you think you need to blank and protect it, please do so as gently as you can. I think the poor guy is completely sincere in his belief that Wikipedia is full of Vatican agents who are planning to take over the world, and his extremely eccentric and obsessional behaviour can be partly excused on those grounds. Nevertheless, his behaviour, at least on the English Wikipedia, has been highly disruptive, and I can understand that the arbitrators couldn't allow it to continue. Also, I'd like feedback about Bengalski putting the contents of a banned user's page onto his own page. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 10:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor guy. I feel sorry for him as well. I'd say just ignore him and leave him in his sandbox. But if people are actually reading and cares enough to take offense of what he writes and want it locked down, I can't see we have any choice as it clearly is against policy. But if leaving him alone on his talk page for now is fine for those involved I don't see much harm in it, despite soapboxing rules etc. Silently ignoring someone is often most effective. But he should really just get a blog somewhere. Shanes 13:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather one-sided account, and as I'm mentioned a few times here I feel I need to make a few comments. First: personally I don't understand why Ann has such a problem with EffK continuing to post his views on his talk page - what harm is it doing? Ann has said before that she is concerned he is wasting server space, but I disagree that this really an issue.

Second, it's not the case that EffK is using his talk page just as a soapbox. If you look at it you will see that most of what he's been doing there falls under two categories. Mainly, he is using it to communicate with me about my edits to pages he is interested in. As an active editor on those pages, I find his notes useful. The other thing he's doing is protesting what he sees as the injustice of his ban. I don't see why this is a problem for WP, and nor I think did the one arbitrator who answered my request for a comment on that at the arbcom discussion page.

Third, Ann is quite right that EffK was banned for, amongst other things, personal abuse. I don't dispute that. What she doesn't mention is that EffK also had a positive contribution to make to wikipedia. The dispute between him and a number of Catholic editors began over his trying to include information critical to the catholic church in the period of the rise of Nazism. In particular, he had found writers who argued that there was a 'deal' cut between the Vatican and the Nazis in which the German catholic political party voted for Hitler's dictatorship (the Enabling Act) in return for Hitler's agreement to a treaty (the Reichskonkordat giving an official concessions to the Church. EffK's claims were treated unfairly, labelled as conspiracy theory by biased editors, and the dispute degenerated from there. Now I am not defending all of EffK's conduct after that (maybe it's true I'm not attacking him for it either, but then he's got enough opponents doing that). But for me it is important that he was trying to include verifiable information and being blocked from doing so by a group of editors pushing a strong pro-Church POV. I note that most of EffK's 'conspiracy theory' claims are now included in the relevant article (Pope Pius XII), after other editors got involved and I found further very respectable sourcing for them.

To sum that up: EffK was making substantive, verifiable claims which are not at all lunatic conspiracy theory; they are points which I, and other editors, are still working on - and I still find it valuable to communicate with EffK about them; the conduct of the editors who deleted and dismissed EffK's points also should be considered. I haven't been acting out of 'solidarity' alone: I genuinely believe EffK has a contribution to make, and yes I have used my own userpage to help him do that. I think I am entitled to that choice.

Fourth: I am all for neutral editors taking a look at this. Though I don't think it should be just admins: if, as it looks from Ann's post here, there is going to be an ongoing dispute between us on this issue, perhaps we should take it to an RfC or even mediation. If that happens though neutral parties need to bear in mind that Ann also has a clear bias here. She has as strong an agenda as anyone else concerned with these pages, and has actively engaged in edit warring to support her POV. I don't think it's a bad thing to have opinions - I certainly have some. I do believe a first step towards overcoming that in our work here is to be honest about it.Bengalski 21:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on EffK. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunk15

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chipmunk15]

Just thought I'd bring these edits to someone's attention. WAS 4.250 12:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything particularly evil. More like the edits of a new user. Although Lockie Leonard, Human Torpedo is garbage, which I've now stubbed. I've put a welcome message on the user's talk page; perhaps (s)he'll take a look and the suggested links and find their feet. Proto||type 13:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missed AFD closing

Hi all, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Hills Elementary School is still open from March 23. The result is obviously a keep. I don't know how to close it so I wanted to post it here. I would appreciate it if someone could either close it or let me know how to close it. Thanks! ClarkBHM 15:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, though I was tempted to speedy delete it on the basis of being empty (there is nothing there but templates and an external link) and/or a group of non-notable people (children). If it wasn't for this post to the AN I doubt anyone have noticed. How notable can it be if no-one noticed it had been under AFD for over a fortnight? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all related Afd tags for the other listed schools as well. KimvdLinde 17:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking For Mr. or Mrs. Goodbar ...(User:Gator1)

For the purposes of continuity and potential resolution of some outstanding issues, would User:Gator1 please contact me either through this page or on my own talk page. Hamster Sandwich 16:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I just stumbled across this [69]. Sorry to disturb you, we now return you to your reguularly scheduled programming. Hamster Sandwich 16:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should wikipedia be given this face?

The article Windows Genuine Advantage has been brought to my attention by another wikipedian of bringing not only illegal cracks about windows to wikipedia for no reason, but it gives explicit instructions about how to carry the hack out. I have no problem bringing the cracks to public attention in the article but I think that it is a little overboard to give intructions on how to carry them out. I recommend that this section in the article be deleted.-- Damien Vryc e 17:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend discussing that on the article's talk page. Blackcap (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have, but it is getting no where. Firefox suggested that I place it here. I thought that this place was for such instances....-- Damien Vryc e 17:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to note that Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, so legal or otherwise, it probably shouldn't be there. Blackcap (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the info off the page for the above reason, but I don't see why we can't keep external links to how-to sites. VegaDark 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThomasK

The prolific-editing account ThomasK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now a vandal account (or controlled by a vandal) and has been blocked indefinitely, and should not be unblocked. -- Curps 18:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The person controlling the account already asked to be unblocked once, and was, and stated that the password had been changed, but the account committed vandalism again within hours (or minutes, depending on how you interpret blanking the user talk page).

On the other hand, come to think of it, I'm fairly sure that old sessions don't automatically get logged out when passwords are changed. I remember one time a vandal account of the type "My password is <<password>>" was blocked by me, and another admin logged in to the account using the given password and changed it, and then unblocked the account (in the name of efficiency, since at that time the blocking code was inefficient and could only support a small number of simultaneous blocks). The vandal then posted a mocking message about being unblocked, clearly having read the message posted (to WP:AN or AN/I) by the unblocking admin, obviously still logged in under the old password. So this could be the case here. Is there any way to prevent this and boot off all the old login sessions when a password gets changed? -- Curps 18:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a dev issue. Stifle (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Based on this edit, I traced the IP and, sure enough, it returns to the Arkansas Public School Computer Network. I haven't checked the other IPs in range 170.211.0.0 - 170.211.255.255 but, given the history of this one, it's possible the school may have to be sent a note asking they keep the kiddies under control, or account creation could be mandated. Radio Kirk talk to me 20:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:JarlaxleArtemis unbanning

Recent threads:

I posted this notice to User talk:JarlaxleArtemis:

Requirements met
User:NicholasTurnbull sends his best wishes, says he can't recall any incident either, and waives the requirement. It may have been a mistake by Linuxbeak, though I wonder why you didn't mention it back in November when you agreed to it as part of your unbanning. To recap the history, you were in the midst of your second ArbCom case when you were permanently banned for behavior. You were subsequently unbanned, contingent on certain requirements which which you've now fulfilled. You are editing under parole and mentorship. Complaints from other users or other evidence that you have engaged in the behaviors cited by the ArbCom will result in future blocks without notice. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis 2/Proposed decision Those behaviors include: childish behavior, ignorance or defiance of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and MOS, improper use of image tags, personal attacks, and vandalism. Please do not remove this and other enforcement notices from your talk page until your parole is complete. You are welcome to edit here so long as your contributions are helpful and you follow the norms of the community. -Will Beback 22:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This editor has been very productive and very disruptive in the past. Let's all try to make sure that he does not become disruptive again. Cheers, -Will Beback 23:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of World of Warcraft

Could someone please take a look at User:144.35.254.12's recent contributions to this article? He has turned the section into an attack on homosexuality and attempts to mask his attack with vague AP policies. Thanks. --Hetar 23:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol I think my version is better. And as far as I know outside of Middle School the term "gay" is not akin to an attack when someone self-identifies as gay. Please take a look and see what you think. 144.35.254.12 23:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Gay" is more informal in tone, so "homosexual". And your statement "A gay legal group also questioned whether banning such guilds may violate anti-discrimination laws." is unsourced. Anyway, this is a problem with the content of the article, so please further discuss in Talk:Criticism of World of Warcraft. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And in general, cool down for the next 24 hours, you are both close to breaking WP:3RR. personally, as a lesbian, I do not care whether people use the word gay. KimvdLinde 00:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion_log_archive/November_2003

This page is still listed in Category:Medicine and Category:Art - can an admin temporarily unprotect this and remove the offending category links (identified by User:Sparkit in the talk page)? Cheers, Ziggurat 04:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Kusma (討論) 04:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capture bonding article

Please help, there seems to be some kind of monopoly going on with the capture bonding article. I've been trying to add a simple paragraph on capture bonding by John Money and User:Maureen D (see: User talk:Maureen D to see her other revert wars) keeps reverting back to some unknown horribly sloppy version and basically throwing all of my contributions out the window? Furthermore, there is someone named Keith Henson, i.e. User:Hkhenson, who seems to think he invented the concept, and its copy-pasting whole chunks of article from his own research. And they both seem to have some kind of connected relationship of Scientology? What I am to do? This has been going on for weeks now. Take a look at the current double revert to see what I'm talking about.--Sadi Carnot 04:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]

~~Broken link to Talk page~~
Could an Admin have a look at Talk:Bute, which for some reason is currently a Redirect. I assume that it ought not to be a Redirect, because otherwise how do we discuss the contents of the Bute page? --Mais oui! 11:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~I must be a bit tired today. I just did the obvious thing and added my comment anyway, deleting the Redirect instruction. Pretty slow today! --Mais oui! 11:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer~~
In light of his continued and flagrant violation of his restrictions using sockpuppets, as documented by Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Lightbringer and Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Lightbringer, Lightbringer is banned from Wikipedia for one year.
For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 12:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~This block has yet to be formally implemented, according to the block log and IP block list. Can someone "fill in the gap" here? --69.117.7.63 01:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Done. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 01:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~User:Maintenance~~
I'm not sure what the deal here is, but this user keeps moving Gilles de Rais to uncommon spellings (such as Giles de Rais [70] [71] and before that Giles de Retz [72] without even pursuing discussion. Suffice it to say that Gilles de Rais is overwhelmingly the most common and proper spelling in both French and English. SouthernComfort 13:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His userpages make my headspin. Mike _{(T C)} 21:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a new admin, so I wouldn't feel comfortable doing this myself just yet, but shouldn't we indef block some of those accounts as usernames that are too similar? ~MDD 46 96 23:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My head is spinning too. We've got User:Maintenance which seems like a regular account, but it redirects to User:Maintenance., which then redirects to User:Maintenance,, which then redirects to User:Maintenance;. As far as I can tell, the redirects are all not accounts. User:Maintenance just moved his user page several times. Ugh. ~MDD 46 96 23:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL I know i'm just getting over a stomach bug and I honestly was going to puke trying to figure it out. Mike _{(T C)} 02:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ACK. I've speedily deleted all of the User: pages there that did not belong to a User account, as well as the then redirectos to nonexistant pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hope it didn't cause you any undue mental distress, its something so simple yet confused the heck outta me once I got into the pages. Mike _{(T C)} 00:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Help needed!~~
I have the been dealing with all sorts of controversial articles, especially in connection to the Greeks, and have argued and disagreed with many fellow editors for various issues. That, I have done without breaking any rules (yet) and without ever hiding my identity. I was recently the receptor of a particularily fierce personal attack, which I better not copy here word by word. This attack was in the form of an anonymous edit summary comment, for reverting an addition that was completely unjustified according to WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:AGF, WP:V, WP:POINT and WP:VANDAL. As this is not a content dispute, I would appreciate your consultation on the matter. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I should also bring this edit to your attention, that possibly identifies the anonymous user... NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A poll is also being obstructed. URGENT attention needed by an admin. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~I have blocked the user for 24 hours for the personal attacks and restored the deleted content from the talk page. Angr (talk • contribs) 16:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~The Contributions list~~
All of a sudden, any edits made to the Wikipedia: namespace are not showing up in Users' contributions. This is going to be a major hindrance in vandal fighting. User:Zoe|^(talk) 15:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very disappointing indeed. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
Actually, I also noticed that my contributions only show two from today...and I know I've done a lot more than that. My watchlist still shows my edits to watched articles, but thats it. --Syrthiss 15:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Seems OK for me. --Doc ^ask? 15:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
Edits to User and Talk pages are also not showing up. I haven't changed anything in my preferences, and I can't find any place in preferences where I could check to see or not see certain edits. Unless it's the Search page ... User:Zoe|^(talk) 15:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have the similar problem. Only the main namespace shows up. Nothing in any other namespace does. I can't find any link or button to check other namespaces. This happens for both my contributions and other users' contributions. Did a developer decide it'd help fight vandals to hide their contributions? JIP | Talk 15:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing that the developers are making some tweaks to the software, similar to the Namespace filter on watchlists. Of course, contributions should default to "all" namespaces. Until it's fixed, though you can use the namespace filter on your contributions page. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 15:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any contributions to any namespace in the English wikipedia. But this seems to be a problem localized to the En-wiki only ... the wikipedias in other languages are doing just fine. --Ragib 15:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, there is a "Namespace: all" dropdown box on all search pages now, apparently -- Watchlist, Contributions, Recent changes, anyway. However, it doesn't seem to be working -- the all doesn't do anything, even if you click on "Go". However, I used the dropdown box to change it to "Wikipedia" and clicked "Go" and got a fatal error, but since having done that, I can now see all contributions. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Problem is fixed. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 16:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
I get this error if I select any other namespace than "all":
Fatal error: Call to a member function set_namespace() on a non-object in ::/usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/SpecialContributions.php on line 183

(10.0.5.3)

JIP | Talk 16:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Suppose they are still fixing the bug. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 16:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Malicious use of {{tl:Sockpuppet}}?~~
(As expected) WP:SOCK doesn't clearly state what to do if you're wrongly accused of sockpuppetry, except that "If you have been accused incorrectly of being a sock puppet, don't take it too personally." An anon user (I even have a hunch who) has placed the template on my page [73] as well as the one of new User:Thomas.macmillan (whom I first heard of today). Basically, it's pretty silly harrasment against me (that I don't care much about), but it's a harrasment against a newbie as well. Now what? Should I remove the template myself? WP:AN/I? Or... Duja 14:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~I think you did the right thing by just reverting it, it looks like a case of simple harassment/vandalism. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~paranoid/hostile edits by someone who is now an admin?~~
here is the makings of a very paranoid sysops, seems to have only ever passed his RFA by the skin of his teeth, and with a promise of intense reform, based on his recent agressive edit warring, that reform seems unlikely--PEMDAS 23:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm... that was about 8 months ago. It may be time to move on. MONGO's a pretty fair editor, it seems. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, I haven't used this computer in about 8 months, and I apparently bookmarked that talk page for some reason, so 8 months sounds about right, either way.. meh--PEMDAS 23:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Legit question, invitation removed ?~~
Why has a legit question been removed ? That question was this:" Any Admins famiiar with paranormal matters ? Here is your invite to Wikipedia:Paranormal Watchers.", I discribed what it is about, such as what we are, what we do, such as having bizarre experiences and/or investigating these matters. Martial Law 01:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]
Please see the top of this page: "This is a message board for coordinating and discussing administrative tasks on Wikipedia.". Your post wasn't by any stretch anything to do with administrative tasks, adminship, or use or abuse of admin powers (unless you take those powers to be paranormal). Please keep posts relevant, this page is bloated enough as it is. Bishonen | talk 01:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Appreciate the reminder. Just trying to find a place on here to announce the existence of a new Wikipedia Organization. Where do I do this ? Martial Law 01:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

This isn't a place to announce projects or new organizations, perhaps use the mailing list? Mike _{(T C)} 02:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about WP:VPN? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Final decision~~
~~The arbcom has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al case. Raul654 01:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~The spamlinks blacklist~~
How does one suggest a new entry for the automatic spamlinks blacklister? A variety of anonymous editors have been repeatedly adding http://www.datasheet4u.com to many of the electronics articles and a variety of registered editors have been reverting them right back out again; it may be time to consider putting this site on the blacklist.
How is this done?
And how would I have learned how this is done without asking here? ;-)
Atlant 13:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~I believe you need a steward to edit it into m:spam blacklist. --lightdarkness^(talk) 13:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~No, just a sysop on meta. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Heh, wasn't sure, I'm not able to access that page from school since some keywords on the page are filterd. --lightdarkness^(talk) 14:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~A cruel irony to have a blacklist for bad words blacklisted. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 14:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~To answer the first of the original questions: m:Talk:Spam blacklist --cesarb 19:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
Thanks to all!
Atlant 11:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~repeating blanking of page~~
User:Greenpoint is repeatedly erasing comments from the talk page of Greenpoint. He seems to erase all comments but his own. He has been warned that this is vandalism, but continues to do it [74]. Jonas Silk 13:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've given User:Greenpoint a proper warning on their talk page. Your edit to their user page was a no no... but understandable. I'll watch the article to see what develops. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~OK, thanks - I thought that was the proper course, but I was apparently mistaken. Jonas Silk 14:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Derby County F.C.~~
I hope this is the right place to report this. Rich nffc has moved Derby County F.C. to Sheep Shaggers F.C.. Someone has recreated the page with the old content at Derby County F.C., but the page history and talk remain at Sheep Shaggers F.C.. Is it possible for someone to undo this mess? This is the most recent non-vandalised version of the page (though of course it's in the wrong location).
Incidentally, this is not the first time that Rich nffc has vandalised the Derby County page and he once moved it to Cerby Dounty F.C.. There has also been a spate of vandalism from Mr mormon and a host of non-registered users. All have only recently begun contributing to Wikipedia, so they may be linked. There never used to be any problem with vandalism on this page.
Thank you in advance. - Green Tentacle 15:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, and the user has been indefinitely blocked for persistent and racist page-move vandalism. I have temporarily semi-protected the page to prevent any further page moves while I go through the article history, as it's a pain in the butt fixing them. Proto||type 16:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Thanks! - Green Tentacle 18:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Cite~~
What can be done about an editor (Merecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) repeatedly disrupting pages by objecting to the new link style? See Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Nomen Nescio 21:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~A public challenge: Can someone make a copyright problems bot?~~
I really enjoy hunting down copyright violations on Wikipedia but one thing that neither I, nor any other admin, likes doing is dealing with the Wikipedia:Copyright_problems backlog. The reason I know that no other admins like working this page is because the work is incredibly tedious, resulting in a two-week backlog. Very few of the copyright problems on the page require any insight--they are blatant violations with the original url in the copyright violation template. Because of this, I'd like the challenge the very industrious programmers who make all the great Wikipedia bots to see if someone can create a bot that would examine pages with the {{subst:article-cv|Article Title Here}}, compare the copy on the page with the link to the supposed original page, and then either delete the article if there is a match or remove the copyright violation template if there isn't. Any articles that are not a close match could be left for a human admins to examine. However, if the bot could catch most of the 80-90% of copyright violations that are extremely blatent, we admins would be able to get a handle on this extremely important issue. As an incentive, I will publically award a "Grand Poo-Bah of Bot Designers" award to the first person who creates a workable copyright violation bot. Any thoughts from other people?--Alabamaboy 00:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My immediate thought is that I feel very uneasy, to the point of objection almost, at handing a bot deletion powers on any of our deletion processes. Indeed, I feel uneasy at handing a bot any kind of admin powers. (Yes, I know Curps has just such a bot, but I don't feel completely at ease with that, either.) A better challenge by far would be for admins to go to WP:CP and so some of the (easy) work that is available over there. -Splash^talk 00:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would be somewhat easy to create a bot to do it, its the accuracy / potential for error that is the problem as is giving a bot sysop access. Splash has expressed concerns about any bot having admin access and I'm leaning to agree. We do have an idea on how to execute it and it would likely be possible but I don't think speedy by bot is a good idea. I'd be in favour of a db tag which would be a quick look / hit delete by a human but I don't think the community at large will support an 100% automatic bot. Most of the problem is all of the Wikipedia mirrors and forks, some are (illegally) not showing gfdl / source notices and we wouldn't want it deleting based on those sites -- Tawker 00:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps there is some solution that would have sufficient parameters to aid in the backlog but not worry people. The problem is that as the number of Wikipedia users rise, the number of blatent copyright violations are also rising. At one point not too long ago the copyright problems backlog was one month. As I said, a bot could easily (depending upon how difficult the programming is) compare the source url with the article and see how closely they resemble each other. Perhaps the bot could then give a percent grade on how similar the article and source material are. A human admin could then look at that data and delete using another mechanism (preferably one in which large numbers of articles and their percent similarities can be evaluated quickly and deleted as needed). Personally, I think we have to do something drastic like this because under copyright law we can be found liable if our backlog keeps growing and results in a months-long wait for deletion.--Alabamaboy 00:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've been chatting with Joshbuddy about it and its in the works, I've even gone so far as to register TawkerbotC (thanks Curps for not blocking me in 30 seconds :) - we'll start some work on it. For this to auto delete, its going to be QA'd for a while and we're likely going to have to have a vote on giving a bot sysophood if its going to delete (and I'm not going to give the bot access to my account) so I'd appreciate a debate somewhere about it, a vote will also be necessary sometime. For now I'll be created to make a report, not delete the pages -- Tawker 00:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tawker, you say you "lean to agree", but you've already made an account that explicitly declares itself as "for [your] copyvio bot". Hm. -Splash^talk 02:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Defensive registration of the username only, Tawkerbot's have had a "fan club" of sorts that like to make impostors, I'd figure I'd grab it when I can. I'm not planning on making any fast requests, this bot is still (literally) on paper, no code has been written. Besides, even if I want to work on a "flag bot" it really doesn't fit under either Tawkerbot (1, flagged bot) or Tawkerbot2 (vandal revert-o-bot) so a unique username is necessary -- Tawker 03:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent news. Any help I can give, such as testing or feedback or dealing with combative editors, let me know. In fact, I'd be happy to handle the debate and vote aspects of this when we're ready (I assume that before we go that far people would want to know exactly how the bot will work). Anyway, thanks again. Anything that would speed up this tiresome process is greatly appreciated.--Alabamaboy 00:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a large window for missuse. Anyone could potentially create a website, copy and paste the article to it, and wait for the bot to look at it, and delete since it's a 100% match. There is no way for the bot to recognize when the website was created, to know if it was created for the soul intention of deleteing the wikipedia page. --lightdarkness^(talk) 00:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or it could just be one of the many wikipedia mirrors. I've found new mirrors dealing with stuff at WP:CP.Geni 01:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alabamaboy, please do not treat those who disagree as dismissable "combative editors". -Splash^talk 01:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say people who disagreed were "combative editors." I just meant that to refer, with tongue-in-cheek, to editors who insult people instead of taking part in discussions like this one. Apologies for not being more specific. I don't see anyone in this discussion being combative. best,--Alabamaboy 13:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion by bot is not a good idea. Most cases are easy, but some are not. Some are copy-pastes of public domain websites, some are GFDL'd (rarely), many are forks and so on and so on. There are two good solutions: fix CSD A8 to actually be more than the worthless piece of verbiage it is at the moment, and to educate and encourage admins to clear WP:CP. Doing it by bot is to do it by laziness, and that's really not good. We have never, to my knowledge, handed a piece of code the right to nuke articles. Just because it can be done, does not mean it should be done. In the area of copyright problems, a human's common-sense is needed more than a senseless bot. We have so many bots crawling around this place doing useless things that there is a tendency to bot-ify every tedious task. Some tasks are tedious, but still need the tedium to be gone through. -Splash^talk 01:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about, instead of a bot to try and sort out the current backlog of copyvios, a bot that looks at new pages, picks out a few sentences from each (relatively large) new article, and uses a search engine to see if these have been copied from somewhere. If it matches, then the article could be flagged for quick deletion (or even automatically deleted by the bot, if it were to have that ability). This won't help clear the backlog, but it would reduce the amount of additions in the future, hopefully. MD87 02:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The part of this that amounts to "any article which has a few words in common with something on the web" is the germ of a good idea insofar as it would expand A8. Obviously it would need to be much better than this. The bot doesn't need deletion powers if we do it by improving the speedy criterion, since admins are easily on top of CAT:CSD at most times. -Splash^talk 02:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to say that the bot would use a few sentences as the search terms, then retrieve matching webpage(s) and compare the text properly (either by just comparing the two texts, or by calculating the Levenshtein distance or something similar). When it determines a match, it can mark it for speedy deletion as you suggested. MD87 02:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - first write a bot to identify copyright violations from Special:Newpages (and tag and list the pages at WP:CP). Do the QA there. When the bot's accuracy reaches 100% then consider letting it check and delete articles after their listing period. --Duk 02:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with doing it after the page has been created, though, is that there are likely to be mirrors/other sites using wikipedia content. If the bot is patrolling Special:Newpages then we can be sure that anything it finds was around before the WP article. Checking articles after they've been created means it would have to deal with possible mirrors/other sites using WP content. MD87 02:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not always so, splitting articles for example. --Duk 02:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. It depends how the algorithm was written, I guess. If the article contents are a subset of another page, then someone would have to check; but if the article contains all of the content from another page, then it's probably copyvio. It's something that would have to be played with if/when the bot's developed MD87 02:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~I don't think this is a good idea. —Encephalon 07:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
I don't either. When I very first started editing here, one of the first things I did was bring over some information on the Irish language that had been on an old webpage of mine that I no longer had access to. Someone presumably on new page patrol found my original page and left a note on the talk page of the article pointing out the similarities and asking whether the information I was adding belonged to me. I said that yes, it did, and because I was dealing with a human being I could explain the situation. If a bot had just come along and replaced the text with a {{copyvio}} tag I would have been annoyed, frustrated, and as a then-newbie frankly bitten. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Add me, I don't think this is a good idea. The current speedy deletion criteria is for commercial content providers only, i.e. those we don't believe will contribute to wikipedia. Beyond that there are lots of possibilities, websites where the content is licensed in a compatible way, just without such a notice listed on every page, sites whose owners decide to contribute it to wikipedia, upon seeing the copyvio message add details to the article talk page etc. etc. To my mind there are too many conflicting possibilities for any simple algorithm to compute, start building more complex alogorithm and the risk of error rises. --pgk^(talk) 07:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't talking about this bot working under speedy deletion copyright violation rules. We're talking about the bot dealing with the Wikipedia:Copyright_problems backlog. These articles go through the process of a human editor flagging the article, providing a url to source material, and then listing the article on the Wikipedia:Copyright_problems page. If a bot could make it easier for an admin to go through the large number of possible violations listed on this page and let the human admin more easily determine if a violation exists, then I don't see a problem--especially if the human admin remains the one to delete the article.--Alabamaboy 13:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about instead of flagging article using the normal copyvio template, the bot just adds a template to the article or its talk page? Something that signals to a human editor, 'Hey, there's a strong similarity between this new article and that web site. Can someone have a look, please?' Explain in the template that the message was generated automatically, that the matter will be reviewed by a human being, and that the editor should add an explanation – if any – on the talk page.

I think such a compromise would resolve most of the concerns about newbie biting and inadvertant deletion of non-copyvios. The major cost of such a change, of course, is that it would slow down the process—we all know that the vast majority of apparent copyvios turn out to be genuine copyvios. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see this bot working in conjunction with human editors dealing with the copyright backlog (while I originally raised the issue of a bot deleting some articles, since there is strong opposition to this I would say this is not a feasible option). A human editor would still have to identify an article as a copyright violation and tag the article and provide a url to the original text (which is the current copyright violation process). Then if the bot could analyze the article text and the original text and give a percent similarity (50%, 90%, 100%) a human admin could come in and look at a large numbers of these articles and their percents and urls and delete those that rise to a certain level. If an article didn't rise to a certain level, or if the url was to a mirror site or something, the admin wouldn't delete without first examining the situation. As I see it, the bot would not be deleting the articles but merely aiding in examining the copyright problem. As it is now, the huge backlog is a problem that must be dealt with before it grows even bigger as Wikipedia grows. After all, we don't want to be found libel under copyright law for allowing copyrighted text to stay up on Wikipedia for long periods of time.--Alabamaboy 13:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see hot the bot giving a percentage really helps. Even if it is a 100% copy you still have to go to the source and determine if it is a possible copyright violation. So what time is saved? Kotepho 16:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if the bot gave a 100 or 90% rating and the url wasn't to a mirror site, I'd say the admin could safely delete the article. That's where the time saving would come in.--Alabamaboy 18:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like an over simplification to me, if you go to the site and it says licensed under the GFDL? or that the author release it into public domain? It might be a 100% copy but certainly not eligble for instant deletion. Similarly I'm sure how you would recognise for sure it was/wasn't a mirror without visiting the site itself. --pgk^(talk) 19:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think where a bot would be useful is in finding probable locations of copyrighted material, and tagging the article with the apporpriate URL. I don't think this would be a terribly difficult task, and once my work settles down a bit, a task I look forward to taking a shot at. joshbuddy^talk 00:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be sweet. I've been finding a lot of copyvios as we get to the dregs of each month at Category:Articles that need to be wikified. There is usually a very large percentage of copyvios in the category, but when you get down to the last few for that month, it's even worse. They also tend to be harder to find, since the easy ones are picked off first.

If you want to find possible copyvios, you could get a bot to look for articles with extra spacing between paragraphs, indented paragraphs, huge sections of text with no paragraphs, three or more spaces between words or after periods, no spaces between parentheses and text, articles that start a new line of text without a <br>, colon, asterisk or pound sign, and articles that don't start new lines before asterisks. Obviously, an article would have to have several instances of one of these or a combination of them to avoid marking a lot of non-copyvios for human review. The articles would be added to a possible copyvio category and people who like finding them could identify the source, or mark it for cleanup or wikification for non-copyvios. -- Kjkolb 02:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~DieYuppieScum (talk · contribs)~~
I came across this chap as he was editing a subpage of his—the charmingly titled User:DieYuppieScum/Hey terrorists, terrorize this! The block log informs us that MarkSweep (talk · contribs) blocked him last September, some 5 months or so after he signed up and began contributing with admirable industry to numismatics-related articles on WP. However, two minutes after placing the block Mark unblocked, with the summary legitimate contributor with unfortunate username. I concur entirely that he is a "legitimate contributor" and that he has an "unfortunate username"; I'm not so sure that the correct response to this is to let it be. Perhaps someone with more experience with the policy and technicalities of username changes might be willing to look into this? Regards —Encephalon 06:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he is certainly a good contributor, as the article in that subpage is a request in WikiProject Numismatics. That said, you can surely ask him politely if he'd like to change usernames to prevent further username blocks by admins who stumble upon him and think he is violating Wikipedia:Username. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Tito, I know. I was simply hoping that someone who knows off the top of his head what the technical requirements are might go do it—you know, like bright, enthusiastic bureaucrat nominees who have this stuff at the tips of their fingers.;-p But never mind, I've gone and read that page now, so I'll do it. —Encephalon 07:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, the title is a joke -- a line from action-movie parody Team America: World Police. I don't even like these guys and I recognized the line (it's in the trailer, that's why).--Calton | Talk 02:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Main page tab~~
~~See MediaWiki_talk:Monobook.js#Main_page.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 16:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~User:Metehan1992~~
~~This user has posted ridiculous material on the article O. Henry. I havn't reverted his edits, but please keep an eye on him. 19:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)~~
~~Admin reserves/Acting Admins~~
This will help you guys to handle future problems. You create what is known as a Admin reserve. These will be "acting Admins" who are users who will be Admins for one month at the time, can be decommissioned AS admins by the real Admins for just cause. These reserve Admins are to come from long standing Wikipedia citizens. It'll take 2 real Admins to decommission a Acting Admin for just cause, teach the citizens about what being a Admin is all about, and if they do a good job,for one year, these will become regular Admins. The "Acting Admin" is to have a timer placed on the User page, have no means of resetting it, except by the real Admins. These "acting Admins are to be appointed, not nominated, elected. Is this a good idea ? Or a lousy one ? Martial Law 20:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]
I have been attacked by a Sockpuppet bug. Heading to the appropriate area NOW !!!! Martial Law 20:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]
If those acting admins are to be recruited from long-standing Wikipedians (with good reputation, I presume), what would prevent them from running for an actual admin post and get elected instead? I guess I don't quite understand the purpose of having two kinds of admins.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a emergency reserve, just like the reserves in the US Military and some US police forces, usually not entitled to run for political office while in the reserves,( while the citizens can run for office), because they can be called to active duty if the need arose, just like serving in the military or the police force. Martial Law 20:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]
Like all who hold power, they are to know this: With power comes responsibility and accountability. Martial Law 21:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]
Still not seeing why we need a second type of admin, and I'm not a big fan of the whole "admins-as-police/military" analogy some people seem to be so fond of. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Temp admins can be appointed IF needed but there are so many admins on english wikipedia this is not only not needed but seems like a large waste of time and resources. My feeling is if they can be trusted with powers for a month then can be trusted forever. Mike _{(T C)} 00:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Administrators' Noticeboard is not for new policy proposals about administrators. Ral315 (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~urgent call for help~~
Foekervenflemer (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has been edit warring over the Roadblocks in the North Western United States article for over 2 days now, and has made multiple personal attacks, and is now on his ninth revert in 48 hours, that's like an 8RR violation, user is also spitting out racial slurs left and right, and is clearly too hostile to remain an editor here on wikipediaPokipman 22:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~The first step for you is to give the correct username, as that user has no contributions.~~
The second step for you is to give the correct article name, as that article does not exist. --Golbez 22:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know what this looks like, but it is in fact a serious problemPokipman 22:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~you're a fucking a liar, I hope they all know that--Foekervenflemer 22:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
Looks to me like they're bringing a flamewar here from somewhere else. I'd suggest blocking both of them and deleting Roadblocks in the North Western United States --Carnildo 23:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~I've been bold and done all that. --Golbez 23:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~It's probably the troll who likes to report nonexistant wars here. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Just a word of warning~~
Don't know for sure, but figured I'd rather be safe than sorry. Over at Wikibooks, we had a WoW-type vandal, Im In Bed, moving things to "article name in bed". Just thought we might like to keep an eye out for more "In Bed" type names here as well. And pardon me if this is already well-known. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Be careful... Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~I am being careful... but thanks for the reminder. ;-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~lol --Syrthiss 11:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Please delete this~~
I put Syd Barret's address on his article by accident, please remove it completely (deletion) as it's notoriously secret and should not be on the internet - 84.9.99.252 00:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taken care of. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 00:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, last time I go near wikipedia wasted... until next week, probably - 84.9.99.252 00:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed up everything now. Interesting attempt at fixing everything when my cache wasn't clearing properly, but I think everything's done now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ZAROVE~~
The Arbitration Committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ZAROVE case. ZAROVE is prohibited from editing Acharya S or any related pages, and from making any comment on any page about her or her son. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Requested deletion of pages in my (former) userspace.~~
Hello. This is User:Blu Aardvark, and I would like to request the deletion of the following pages in my userspace. (I'd tag them as speedy, but I wouldn't be able to tag them with my original account, which could potentially cause confusion for the admins who clean up speedy deletion candidates)
User:Blu Aardvark/On Wheels! User:Blu Aardvark/Userboxes User:Blu Aardvark/Workspace User:Blu Aardvark/Userboxes/Saved from death User talk:Blu Aardvark/Sandbox User talk:Blu Aardvark/Userboxes
In addition, I would like for my userpage, User:Blu Aardvark, to be purged, as there is some personal information in the history that I would like removed. Thank you. --72.160.80.78 01:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This now-blocked user has gone on multiple vandalism sprees, and spent weeks harassing multiple user (myself, Musicallinguist, Slimvirgin, Nicholas Turnbull, 'etc). He put his personal information out there of his own free will, and now that he's decided to act badly, I suspect he doesn't want anyone googling his name to find out about his misbehavior. I don't see why we should be doing him any favors. Raul654 01:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted all the user subpages, but not the main userpage itself. The tag about indef block needs to remain as a record. Hopefully this is an acceptable move. Harr o5 01:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~That's what I intended by "purge". I would appreciate it if the history of the page was removed. The tag should certainly remain. --72.160.80.78 01:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
I removed the information prior to being blocked. The reason I want it completely gone now is because users such as Malber are re-publishing the information in several locations, and that is not acceptable. I did add it of my own free will, true, but that was because I was attempting to foster accountabilty, when I thought that Wikipedia was still a decent place. As it turns out, it just became troll food, and that's why I want it gone. --72.160.80.78 01:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and lies do not become you Raul. I've only gone on ONE vandalism spree, after enduring a multitude of abuses from you, NicholasTurnbull, and several other editors. I was wrong in doing so, true, and I recognize that. That's the only "vandalism spree" I have ever gone on, despite what summaries you use when blocking thousands of potential contributors by instating range blocks on 72.160.1.1/16. I've toyed with your userpage and NicholasTurnbull's userpage, but that is not the same as a "vandalism spree". I also have not at all harrassed Musical Linguist. She just happened to be the user most frequently watching your talk/userpages when I went a'trollin'. As for SlimVirgin, I have given her a fully sincere apology, and have not harrased her since then. --72.160.80.78 02:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was counting your sprees on en, meta, and commons - the three that we know of - seperately. If you want to count them as a single one, that's your buisness -- I, for one, do not. Raul654 02:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now Raul is starting in on the trolling and republishing this info. I want it gone, and I want action taken against Malber and Raul654. --72.160.85.60 23:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. The comment I made "republishing this info" was made two days before Blu put in the request for that page to be deleted. Nor was it gratitious - I was making the point that if he should get his ranged blocked again, that the complaint against his ISP (being written by other legit users on that range who get blocked) would contain the personal information he freely posted to his user page. Raul654 00:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~User:Videofreakboy91~~
Videofreakboy91 (talk · contribs) has spent most of this morning uploading unlicenced images and promoting an unofficial videogame Halloween: Awakening. He's ignored warnings about image copyrights (keeps uploading unfree pics after notices), has removed warning tags on image pages (eg. [75] [76] [77] among many), and twice removed an AfD tag on his game's article ([78] and [79]). Seeing as how I've just been undoing his nonsense edits for about an hour now, could another admin take the necessary step of blocking this user? Thanks. Harr o5 01:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wikipedia Links~~
~~Have I found all of the links in Wikipedia ? I've been using them as a quick access reference to different Wikipedia protocol. Martial Law 01:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]~~
Look, Martial Law, could you please stop posting questions on the Admins' noticeboard that people like Bunchofgrapes have already answered? It's not the place for them, and you won't get anything different than what you've already been told. This page gets long enough just from relevant questions. Bishonen | talk 01:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Will do. Martial Law 02:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]
~~Cap_j~~
I am blocking Cap_j (talk · contribs) for 24 hours pending review by other admins. Cap_j has been involved in a long standing editing dispute in the Shotokan article, where a concensus of editors have continuously reverted his edits for the most part. I responded to this complaint on the Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard, in which Southwick (talk · contribs) stated that "Cap_j has sent links to our discussion on Shotokan to my Department administrator at Michigan State University, where I am employed. This is outrageous behavior. My life as an editor on Wikipedia has nothing to do with my academic career. Something needs to be done." I asked Southwick if he could provide proof to me that this occurred and he has. I can provide the evidence, but I am trying to protect the emails of those involved. User:Wsiegmund is on my watchlisted editors and I saw that he was also involved in this situation in a mediative role. Cap_j posted this email evidence in which he claims that Southwick contacted him directly and wrote:

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

I questioned Cap_j about this email and told him I needed verification.[80] I also subsequently recieved a copy of the email that Southwick had sent by way of email to me. In the version that Southwick provided, the wording "You do not know who you are messing with. Feel free to contact me here." does not exist. I asked Cap_j to send me the copy he recieved and the address to Cap_j is different than the address that Southwick actually used to email Cap_j...the times of transmission are also different. In a nutshell, Cap_j did indeed contact Southwick's place of employment in regards to an editing dispute in Wikipedia...that is the primary reason for the block. Secondarily, Cap_j misrepresented an email that Southwick had sent to him, when questioned by myself and by Wsiegmund. Without being unilateral, I request further advisement, and I also want to point out that I am rather itchy about this off wiki harassment as of late, but regardless of that, I am inclined to permanblock Cap_j for his actions.--MONGO 05:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~I support a permablock if Cap_j did indeed contact Southwick's place of employment. Ral315 (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
In many ways I was just as pigheaded about this as CapJ. I did not realize that this could get so overblown and go beyond Wikipedia. I have learned a lot from this and apologize to those who had to go through it, including CapJ. ron Southwick 14:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~I also support a permablock. There is no excuse for that, and falsifying the info just makes it more dastardly. --Syrthiss 14:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
I have indefinitely blocked Cap_j (talk · contribs) and his IP 137.207.80.163 (talk · contribs) which was established based on this edit and editing history.--MONGO 00:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Gaffe~~
Er, I think I have made a serious gaffe deleting Human nature which when I looked at the edit history I though was just a redirect to Human Nature (disambiguation), but checking afterwards there were 190 edits. I can't quite seem to restore them, please help! Tim! 09:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The one that should have got nuked was Human Nature. Tim! 09:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It still exists as I can see it here just the history doesn't show up when I hit the tab. Tim! 09:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the redirect of Human nature, all looks good now. Martin 09:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thanks a million! Tim! 09:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Doboszenski Farmstead~~
Could someone close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Doboszenski Farmstead? It seems to have slipped through the cracks. I looked for it on the AfD page that it was supposedly supposed to be relisted on, but did not find it. -- Kjkolb 16:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Closed. It's not listed at any daily AfD. I'll check what happened. - Liberatore(T) 16:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was delisted from the AfD of March 26, presumably by mistake. I have relisted it. - Liberatore(T) 17:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Special page "dead-end pages" hasn't been updated.~~
For a few weeks the Dead-end pages section hasn't been updated even though links have been put into the mentioned documents. Myself and quite a few other people are trying to clean this up but it hasn't updated in awhile so it is hard to see which ones need attention. Please help; no one is responding to the talk section of the page. --Unreal128 18:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's an editable version (i.e; you can remove the titles taken care of) at Wikipedia:Dead-end_pages --Calton | Talk 02:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Some POV pushing~~
I do not really know where to bring this, so please direct me if neede to another place. There is a discussion going on at Naturism about whether the page should be renamed to Social nudity. The discussion is not going anywhere, and one person has now decided that the first sentence of the page should be changed already [81] [82] [83]. I have reverted already two time and mentioned (in the edit summary and at the talk page) why the first sentence should stay for the time being as is in line with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles, but this person has apparently set his/her mind to getting his/her POV pushed through. An ideas how top handle this? KimvdLinde 02:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards