Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Review request for Instantnood

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

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

The block having expired, Instantnood now requests that the bans be lifted [1]. I am not prepared to do this, but as with all bans I regard these as subject to review by other administrators. So I invite other administrators to examine the circumstances and make whatever changes they think best. --Tony Sidaway 18:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

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

" The block having expired, Instantnood now requests that the bans be lifted [2]. " - I requested user:Tony Sidaway to reconsider before the block expired [3], but she/he did not respond until I moved the reply to his user talk page after the block expired. — Instantnood 18:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To clarify, Instantnood actively participated in both of his first two arbitration case, and was fully informed of the third case [4] [5] but volubly declined to participate. --Tony Sidaway 11:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Would it help? — Instantnood 20:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact I tried before, and apparently there wasn't any response. — Instantnood 21:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Prem Rawat

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

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

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

I found your comments, Bishonen, to be unnecessarily negative. Yes, we have sometimes contributors that come with the only intention to bypass policy and push their POV, engage in uncivil behavior and disrupt talk-page discipline. These come and go after a few weeks. But we also have committed contributors that are civil and do a great deal of research to improve the material in the article. At the end of the day, it is perseverance and patience that wins the game against POV pushing. The article has benefitted from your first intervention and from P. Jacobi's. Efforts have and continue to be made to make the article better, more succint and more compliant. Unnecessary negative comments and comparisons as the ones you made above, only help those that want to sabotage Wikipedia's processes. Your Barnstar to a self-declared POV pusher, commending him for "his efforts to balance the article" after just a cursory look at the article, did not help either, and shows a definitive bias that I am surprised to observe in you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I fully deserved Bishone's award for keeping the Prem Rawat article balanced against Jossi's POV pushing. Jossi repeatedly removed all specifics of criticism from the summary. Bishonen's observation of Jossi's behavior then was enough or could have been enough to see that Jossi is not exactly the ideal, neutral contributor to that article. Andries 22:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an outrageous and untruthful statement, Andries. Judge me by my edits, by my behavior and by my contribututions to Wikipedia. I have welcomed each and every editor that came to edit this article, even those that attacked me personally and were banned. I have explained policy to each one of them. I have restored criticism deleted by proponents. I welcomed Bishonen's and Pjacobi's interventions, while you were at work in the detractors' forum colluding on how to push their POV with your help. You are the self-admitted POV pusher, not me. Just read your own words. My opiniopn remains that Bishonen's "award" was a mistake and did not help, on the contrary. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I do admit that you try to be fair even on that article, but it will be clear that I do not think you are fair and reasonable. Andries 22:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I openly admitted that I was a POV pusher, but I wonder how other editors would feel if e.g. the article African American, Dutch people, or Swedish people stated that they cannot be trusted and do not speak the truth. I am not aware of any other article in Wikipedia that makes such generalizations. Andries 22:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing is POV pushing is POV pushing. Two wrongs do not make a right. So, before you accuse anyone of that, just look at your behavior at Satya Sai Baba. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen, arbitration for violating what policies and guidelines? Yes, the talk page is used by minor contributors for many off-topic discussions, but I do not think that the violations by the main contributors relative to the amount of contributions by them on the article have been frequent and serious enough for arbitration. I almost wished they were, because then the endless disagreements, reverts and discussing could possibly lead into constructive directions. Now the proportion of non-constructive edits and discussion remains too high and this is not likely going to change. Andries 13:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It can change, if we all help with it. Join me and other experienced editors in reigning some kind of basic talk-page discipline. We can do it, if we apply ourselves to it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary user

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you Primetime! I could not have asked for a better demonstration of your immediate tactics of 1) resorting to invalid personal attacks, and 2) bold, flagrant lies. --Connel MacKenzie 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Please note that Primetime's indefinite block on Wiktionary was approved after a decision made by the community. It was not even issued by Connel MacKenzie [6]. Now Connel is indeed a very active contributor and sysop on Wiktionary, probably among our best (if there's such a thing as "the best" on a wiki), who's not afraid of discussion, some arguments in which he is a party indeed evolving into what one might arguably call a "dispute". That is, however, of no relevance here, and has more to do with the argumentative nature of the English Wiktionary. Primetime, though, has never conformed to the rules that apply to Wiktionary, and he and his host of sockpuppets have been banned from Wiktionary by the community, for the reasons given above by Connel. The majority of his former contributions have either been deleted (by a variety of sysops, not just Connel), or rephrased in order to eliminate the copyright violations originally entered by Primetime. New admissions from his part, once they have been identified as being Primetime's, are being deleted on sight (by a variety of sysops, not just Connel or me) due to his long-standing tradition of proven copyright violations. Vildricianus 18:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (Wiktionary sysop).

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

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

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

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

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

Interestingly, that last bit and this sound quite alike. And your palaver about being a financial donor is also recognizable. Same old tricks, Primetime. Vildricianus 22:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've said it before, and I need to say it again. Everything I just said is all true. Everyone should read what I just wrote. As for my donation, go here: [7]--I listed my user name in the comment column.--Primetime 22:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

(Born Whilton, Northants., Dec. 22, 1785; Died Versailles, Feb. 19, 1859). English organ builder. The son of a local joiner, he first learnt his father's trade. Against family opinion he was apprenticed while still in his youth to the organ builder James Davis and later joined in partnership with Hugh Russell... [8]

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

Sounds good. You can also search the introductions for each entry for free online. As you can see here: <http://www.britannica.com/search?query=John+Abbey&ct=>, there is no entry. As for formatting, I hate Wikipedia formatting because it is not in keeping with style recommendations of writers. For example, above, I did not give the link as this because I think it looks unintuitive and doesn't tell the reader where they're going.--Primetime 20:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate Wikipedia formatting because it is not in keeping with style recommendations of writers.' Really? What "style recommendations of writers" are you referring to? What possible applicability do these "style recommendations of writers" have for THIS project? And what about these "style recommendations of writers" gives you an exemption from the Wikipedia Manual of Style? --Calton | Talk 23:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This is another debate, but I tend to follow styling guidelines of style manuals like Merriam-Webster's Manual for Writer's and Editors as well as Random-House's style guide. I also imitate for experimentation purposes several innovations, like enlarging the headword a point or two. I have had several disagreements and have explained myself in detail on why I don't always follow Wikipedia guidelines. Examples include pronunciation aids,^[9] as well as links.^[10]--Primetime 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you clarify where the article came from? Is it all your own original writing or is copied from another source? -Will Beback 23:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

To repeat, let's cut through a lot of noise: Primetime, do you deny that on Wiktionary you copied definitions from existing dictionaries? Can you affirm that the text I quoted above is all your own? What was the source of your information? --Calton | Talk 23:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not copied from anywhere. I wrote most of my contributions. Many were written as school reports. Others are from the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Some are reports I wrote for my classes at school.--Primetime 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This article, Reinhard Sorge [11], also appears to be copied from another source. If it isn't then it is a severe violation of WP:NOT as it includes extensive literary criticism. -Will Beback 23:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that's strange: that list of articles on on User:Primetime's page, which listed the articles he says he was principal contributer to? The one I browsed checking for copying? Primetime has suddenly removed them [12]. Why would that be? --Calton | Talk 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm tired of you guys going through each of my contributions and picking them apart. I don't have time for that.--Primetime 00:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Man, I'm slow: that list I mentioned? One of the entries is for the Dictionary of Literary Biography -- and the article includes an external link to a site which provides short versions of some of the articles. Looking up Reinhard Sorge...Hmm, do these look familiar?

Reinhard Johannes Sorge (January 29, 1892-July 20, 1916) is considered one of the earliest expressionist dramatists in Germany. Although his death on the battlefield in World War I put an abrupt end to an all-too-brief six-year period of intensive literary productivity, Sorge, who was only twenty-four years old at the time of his death, achieved recognition as one of Germany's foremost religious playwrights and poets, one whose poetic mission was inspired by his fervent quest for God and by an ecstatic mystical faith. Sorge's protagonists are either projections of his own self into a dramatic character who combines the role of the writer as leader and healer with that of the prophet and seeker of God's truth, or personal interpretations of key figures in the history of Christianity such as King David, Saint Francis of Assisi, and Martin Luther. None of his plays was performed during his lifetime. (from Primetime's version

Reinhard Johannes Sorge is considered one of the earliest expressionist dramatists in Germany. Although his death on the battlefield in World War I put an abrupt end to an all-too-brief six-year period of intensive literary productivity, Sorge, who was only twenty-four years old at the time of his death, achieved recognition as one of Germany's foremost religious playwrights and poets, one whose poetic mission was inspired by his fervent quest for God and by an ecstatic mystical faith. Sorge's protagonists are either projections of his own self into a dramatic character who combines the role of the writer as leader and healer with that of the prophet and seeker of God's truth, or personal interpretations of key figures in the history of Christianity such as King David, Saint Francis of Assisi, and Martin Luther. None of his plays was performed during his lifetime. From the BookRags site

Busted. --Calton | Talk 00:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I admit that it's from the DLB. That doesn't mean that everything I've ever written is a copyvio, though. Most of the articles I've written aren't even about writers.--Primetime 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Another quick check: N. Scott Momaday (here versus here)...do I need to continue? Your long-winded rationale is pure misdirection, and while it's, I'm sure, literally true that not EVERYTHING you've ever written is stolen, it's enough to presume it's true unless you provide evidence to the contrary. --Calton | Talk 00:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

STOP! WHAT DO YOU MEAN? ARE YOU PROPOSING THE DELETION OF EVERYTHING I'VE EVER WRITTEN BECAUSE OF THOSE TWO ENTRIES??? WHAT PROOF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO PROVE THAT THEY'RE NOT FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE! WHY ARE YOU GOING AFTER ME SO HARD?--Primetime 00:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Those first two entries are what I found sitting at my desk, from my computer, after only a few minutes work and without breaking a sweat. Imagine what I could do if I went down to the local university library and actually search in their hard-copy of Britannica, Grove's, DLB, Current Biography, etc. --Calton | Talk 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A message on my talk page: ...Also, why are you doing this? You know that Wikipedia isn't liable for copyright violations that it isn't aware are occurring? There's absolutely no reason to be doing this! This is perhaps the most pathetic rationale for copyright abuse I've seen in a long time -- but more to the point, we are aware now. You've been busted: deal with it. --Calton | Talk 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Throw Fyodor Sologub (here versus here on the list. Man, this may take a co-ordinated effort to root out. --Calton | Talk 01:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Block of Primetime

I have blocked Primetime per the above developments, and the obvious rejection of any wrongdoing from him. Currently set to indef, but if there are objections, please someone take the initiative to unblock. This is only a precautionary measure from stopping him from creating any further articles for now. If there are no objections, then it'd be a community indef block. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:58 UTC (2006-05-09)

I would like to remind you that wikt:User:Primetime has now dozens of known sockpuppets on the English Wiktionary. He is very adept at finding open proxies. He is also very adept at finding the newest "tor" exit points. Again, I request assistance from all available Wikipedia sysops now, to 1) verify whatever portion of his edits you need to, are copyright violations and 2) keep a very sharp eye out for new sockpuppets.

Despite everything he has said in the past six months or so, I do not believe his stated motives. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you must, but I think he is being paid to insert copyright violations into Wikimedia projects. I cannot comprehend any other reason why he would have pursued his attacks on the English Wiktionary, for months after being blocked. For example, wikt:give is still being actively vandalized. It obviously is not some desire to propogate "truth." It is instead, a very disturbing case. --Connel MacKenzie 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Given his insistence of innocence until proven to have violated copyright I have to agree that this user has forfeited all right to assumptions of good faith. Insertion of fragments to 'build up' a copyvio in pieces shows foreknowledge that they are not allowed and a deliberate effort to evade detection. He needs to provide an explanation for why he was deliberately sneaking in copyrighted material and list every instance of doing so under all accounts before we should even consider unblocking him. I'm usually the one saying 'blocks are bad and cause more problems than they solve', but this guy needs to be blocked indefinitely and his contributions sanitized. If in doubt assume it is a copyvio and remove or rewrite it. --CBDunkerson 13:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Given the extent of his damage, has anyone in Wikipedia requested a blanket Checkuser on his IP address, for his Wikipedia activities? Looking at policy #6 from meta:CheckUser Policy#Wikimedia privacy policy it looks like such a check is permitted. But only for a couple days more. --Connel MacKenzie 23:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The article J

By sheer coincidence, I looked at this article about a week ago. I grew suspicious at the very atypical tone of the piece, and so I checked the history. What I found was something atypical of copyvios, namely a long series of edits to a section made by a registered user with a userpage, so I shrugged it off. In light of this, however, I've Google-tested some pieces, but found no hits; could anyone perhaps check a copy of EB and/or other likely reference works to see if it's stolen from there? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I left a list (compiled by going through a list from his own user page) of likely copyvios on his talk page, with a request that he account for them. Let's see if his repentence is serious. --Calton | Talk 07:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Compare histories of wikt:j and J. Also those of wikt:C, wikt:c and C. They have multiple Primetime or Primetime sockpuppet edits. There are probably more cross-project parallels. Vildricianus 10:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've received e-mail from Primetime, and it's apparent that he doesn't have the slightest clue what he's done wrong. Until he does, I strongly urge not unblocking him. --Calton | Talk 10:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That's perhaps a reason why he keeps doing it. However, I think he's cleverer than that. At Wiktionary, he has tricked various users into believing he was completely innocent, prior to his unmasking and the consequent indefinite block. Vildricianus 10:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have M-W Third on hold at my local library again, and will pick it up tomorrow afternoon. --Connel MacKenzie 07:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be from the OED. The 20 volume set can't be checked out, but the next time I'm there I'll confirm that this partial citation (halfway down the page) does in fact match the start of this edit. --Connel MacKenzie 03:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC) edited

By the way, it looks like this will be archived/deleted soon? Tracking down 1,700 entries is probably going to take quite a while. Are topics on the archive pages considered "active" or should this be moved somewhere else? --Connel MacKenzie 03:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Crypticbot, the bot that archives this page, reports the date of the oldest response when it archives sections, so I think it will ignore this section as long as you keep posting here. But if you want to keep track of the reverting of Primetime's copyvios, it'd be better to make a subpage of your user page for that purpose. Kimchi.sg 04:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:AIDSWikiCredit

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

We require that kind of attribution from other sites using our content under the GFDL, so I think it's only fair we also give credit where it's due. It does of course raise the question of whether we want to be using material taken from another wiki in the first place. --kingboyk 13:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd consider it a bad idea:

1. If using an article from that Wiki as source, no specific GFDL note is necessary, just use standard referencing for specific statements
2. If our article is a derived work of the article on another GFDL licensed Wiki, that notice isn't sufficent to fulfill GFDL requirements.
3. Anyway, using http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/, the Wiki of the AIDS reappraisal movement, as source is hardly matching our criteria of WP:V and WP:RS.

Pjacobi 13:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that specific information can be added as references, and than I want to go to the actuall cources. So, I do not see the need for this kind of credit giving in the first place. It suggests as if the page is made by that source and imported in wikipedia, which is definatly incorrect. BTW, the tamplate is also inserted in various other page for which I think this is inpropriate. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If this is used in articles which used the AIDS wiki as a source, this template is a bad thing. If it is used in articles which are derivative works (or wholesale copies) from that wiki, then it's a good thing. After all, we credit public domain sites when it's not legally necessary; in this case, where the content is released un the GFDL, this should be mandatory. Johnleemk | Talk 17:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeq banned from Nakba Day

Under his probation in the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq, I've banned Zeq from editing Nakba Day, for tendentious editing, particularly removing well-sourced information from the article [13]. --Tony Sidaway 23:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I received the following two comments on this:

Hi Tony - I'm not sure if banning Zeq was the best thing to do. While he may be hard to reason with, I'm not sure that his intentions were malicious. Maybe you could reconsider or at least give him/her a chance to iron the dispute out over another day or two. Thanks. Ramallite ^(talk) 03:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't accept your ban

Nakba day needs a mediator, Ian has delibertly caused an edit war in order to try and ban me from this article.

Look at my last edit and talk page. I tried to restore sanity to this article and avoid making it another vbattle article about the events in 1948.

I expect that you will remove the ban and help madiate the subject. Zeq 04:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that according to policy: "Striking out at users on probation is strongly discouraged" this apply to Ian specifically as he tried to take advantage of the fact I am on probation and inserted unrelated information (which is already in the article palestinian exodus) into Nakba day so that i will remove it. Any attempts to reason with him failed.

This editor has been following me around in the last 2 weeks. Every edit (or almost any) I made, ant where in any article got a revert or change from him (most often a revert). This is a simple issue that can be prooved. I have also asked him several times to stop stalking me. I expect that you will not take a side in this harrasment and help resolve the content dispute in Nakba day reminding ian on harrasment policy as well on his own being cautioned against creating an edit war. Zeq 04:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the ban was unreasonable, but I welcome review and would accept removal of the ban by another administrator. I have no intention of getting involved in mediation, as Zeq requests. If mediation were likely to succeed, I very much doubt that the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq would have been required in the first place. --Tony Sidaway 04:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to argue the ArbCom case here again but to note that it arrived to ArbCom without any mediation or RFC.

To the currect issue:

Clearly in the Nakba day case mediation has been proposed (and needed). Instead of accepting it ian Pichford (which has tried for two weeks to "trap" me by reverting and changing any edit I did on wikipedia (violating harrsament policy, despite numoures request to stop on his talk page) has choose to bring admin action aginst me. I suggest that anyone intersted in what goes on will ask Ramallite who does not agree with me on content of the article but understand that this is an honest content dispute with no malicious intentions on my part.

The absured thing of all is that prior to Tony appliing the ban I announced on the talk page that I will stay away from the article until it is mediated. Zeq 06:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think intentions should matter where probation is concerned. So long as he was violating the terms, a ban is the appropriate action. --InShaneee 18:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course intention matter. I was trying to resolve the edit war on issues that do not belong in this article. I created focus (by taking many contested issues out) while the other side tried to turn the article in another battle field about the events in 1948 israeli-Palestinian war are debated. (these issues are already address and debated in other articles) Zeq 19:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're involved in an edit war, you're edit warring. These issues need to be resolved on the talk page before they're taken to the article. --InShaneee 19:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I find Zeq's assertions somewhat puzzling. At the time I inserted the ban notice, at 2305 on 8 May, the last edit on the talk page had been by Zeq at 1942 UTC on 8 May, and the last edit on the article had been by Zeq at 1859 UTC on 8 May. For someone who said "I will stay away from the article until it is mediated", he seems to have been awfully active! Moreover, even while banned, he is attempting to persuade me to remove edits by another editor. He hasn't left this article alone even now. --Tony Sidaway 19:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony, Check your facts: I made an edit that was to stop the editwar on the events at 1948 and clearly suggested that if someone don't like it they can revert it and I will not make any more change This is not an edit war this is an attempt at resolution. Also suggested to one editor in the edit war (Rammalite) to correct any fact I may have left out.

My only "sin" is being bold in trying to resolve the issue. Zeq 20:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still trying hard to get other people experienced in the subject matter to review the ban.

Meanwhile I am rescinding it because Zeq and others have raised several legitimate points that cast doubt on my original decision. I've removed the ban notice and hereby place this update on all other relevant notices. If he really needs to be banned from this article then some other administrator will be just as capable of imposing it. In the meantime I apologise to Zeq. --Tony Sidaway 18:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see the article talk page. Since I no longer participate in this article (only on talk) I doubt any ban is needed> A warnning to Ian Pichford to avoid edit wars, POV pushing and wikistalking could be helpfull. Zeq 18:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Did You Know article posted in error: please assist

The contentious and disputed article Battle of Khaybar, which does not meet the criteria for listing in "Did You Know" (it has existed since 2005), has been posted to the front page in error (based on inaccurate comments from some of its editors). Please, could someone remove this listing urgently? The admin who put the list together last is currently offline and unresponsive to three separate contact attempts by various editors. Thanks! &#0151; JEREMY 04:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you're right, it's an old article and shouldn't be on DYK, so I removed it. —Keenan Pepper 04:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your prompt attention. &#0151; JEREMY 05:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors is now the page to report any errors needing attention on the main page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is generally accepted that expanded stubs may be put on DYK. Previous attempts have been made to expand that article, but up until recently they were all reverted wholesale and the previous 'stable' version of the article was a stub. The last expansion, on the other hand, is under dispute but stable. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Make Willy on Wheels redirect to its incident page?

M.C. Brown Shoes requested that the Willy on Wheels page in the main namespace be a protected redirect to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels. Is this okay?  Denelson83  09:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's necessary. To be more precise, anyone who knows about Willy on Wheels is probably familiar enough with the Wiki software to not need a redirect there. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 09:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Even though it's still in development, WP:DENY would fall into place here... --lightdarkness ^(talk) 11:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Which I read as supporting moving the pages out of the userspace. — Ilyanep (Talk) 11:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather see it redirect, protected if necessary, to Wheely Willy. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Apart from WP:DENY, we have separate namespaces to have encyclopedia articles separated from wikipedia pages. - Liberatore(T) 12:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the protected redirect to the paraplegic poodle per Ilmari Karonen. One more thing I've learnt today. :-) Kimchi.sg 13:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure its such a good idea, it could easilly lead to the poodle page getting heavilly vandalised and i'm not positive it would be a legit redirect anyway. Plugwash 13:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Mind you, that article already seems to be a vandalism target. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If anything, the page should be a proper article about this product. http://ww3.adultsextoyscatalog.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=5439 Or perhaps not… Femto 14:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No cross-namespace redirects, please. Also would give this poor guy way to much prominence. Wikipedia vandals are not noteworthy. This one is a very minor one easily checked by simple technical means such as the move throttle. If we could protect non-existing pages to avoid their creation altogether, the page wouldn't even exist. Lupo 14:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a template (I forgot what it was), that you put on a page that says you've created the page and protected it to stop it from being used to recreate deleted content. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 14:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I know. That's what was done with that page. But if you could protect non-existing pages from re-creation, we wouldn't need to do that and the page wouldn't be there at all. Lupo 15:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a very good idea. Why are we glorifying a vandal? Also, we shouldn't do cross-namespace redirects. Keeping it as a deleted and protected page is good enough. He is infamous enough within the Wiki community, no need more mention in the article mainspace. Keep mainspace articles away from project-spaced articles. If its make a redirect, protect the page to prevent any page moves or vandalism. --Terence Ong 05:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Help with autoblocks

I'm having some trouble understanding the autoblocker. How exactly does one find the correct autoblock number to unblock? For example, let's say I block person A for a week. Person B gets assigned the IP, is autoblocked, and comes to me asking for an unblock. Do I just go the Special:Ipblocklist and type in his username? Will that pull up the autoblock? I've had this come up twice, and I can never find the number... I don't know if I'm just an eejit or if the block's simply expired. Any help is gratefully listened to. (Oh, and I've read Wikipedia:Autoblock several times and I'm still confused. Sorry!) Snoutwood (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There was a similar case about a week ago where I and several other admins tried to remove autoblocks on the IP of a user repeatedly without success until the original block expired. Not sure what that was about, but this tool may help to identify autoblocks in need of removal. --CBDunkerson 12:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

oooh, another tool! *bookmarks* --Syrthiss 12:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I'll use that from now on. Snoutwood (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The best rule is to ask the user for thier IP. For those who have never seen it, Mediawiki:Blockedtext is the message shown to blocked users; right at the very top is a line that says "Your IP address is ...". If they tell you the IP address, you can unblock it directly (just go to the unblock page and put in the IP) and it will unblock any autoblocks (yes, they are masked with a #12345-style code on the block list, but trust me, unblocking an IP unblocks any autoblocks on that IP). Trying to hunt down the right autoblock by the mask number is difficult and time consuming, not to mention frequently futile, and is best avoided; just ask the user for thier IP (they can email it to you if they're concerned about privacy) and then unblock it directly. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 13:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblock the IP? But won't that unblock the person you were trying to block in the first place? Is there a way to undo the autoblock without unblocking an IP that you wish to remain blocked? Snoutwood (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding of the nature of autoblocks; autoblocks are placed against IP addresses, not accounts. Though people tend to speak of thier accounts being innocently "autoblocked", that is not actually the case: Your account doesn't get autoblocked when you try to use a blocked IP; it just appears that way, because no edits are allowed from blocked IPs, including those from logged-in accounts. No block is ever placed against the innocent account itslef; it is the underlying IP that is blocked.

What the autoblocker does is block IPs (only IPs) previously used by blocked user accounts if they are used again after the account name is blocked. The timeline is like this: User:Foo, who is on IP 12.34.56.79, vandalizes and an admin blocks that account name. Then, someone else, User:Example (maybe a sockpuppet of User:Foo, maybe someone innocent, the autoblocker doesn't know) tries to use that IP to do something else. Since the software knows Foo was using 12.34.56.78, it assumes that the new person on that IP is Foo trying to evade his block, and places an autoblock on 12.34.56.78, stopping all edits, signed in accounts included. (This is when User:Example requests an unblock, thinking they have been blocked; not the case at all: Their IP is blocked, not thier account. If they switched to a different IP, they would be able to edit immediately.)

The autoblock of 12.34.56.78 is recorded on Special:Ipblocklist as #12345 (no relation between the IP numbers and the mask numbers; 12345 is just convenient), to prevent disclosure of the user's IP address. (If it didn't, you would see "...blocked 12.34.56.78...reason: Autoblocked because your IP was recently used by User:Foo"; this would reveal User:Foo's IP to the entire world, which is not something we routinely do. Why do we care, when it's a vandal? Well, because not everyone who is blocked is a vandal.)

So, the only way to clear an autoblock is to unblock the IP; when you unblock #12345, you're unblocking the IP represented by #12345 (in the example above, 12.34.56.78). The software doesn't care if you tell it to unblock #12345 or 12.34.56.78; the action performed will be to unblock 12.34.56.78 in either case. Note that nowhere in this process does the account User:Foo (the vandal) get unblocked; however, when 12.34.56.79 is unblocked, User:Example (who was never really blocked, just using a blocked IP) is immediately able to edit again.

Hopefully this helps with understanding it; if I've not managed to make the whole deal clear, let me know and I'll try again. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That was extremely helpful, I now understand completely. Thank you, Essjay. Snoutwood (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep an eye on this thread

Titled "Help Getting My Company Into Wikipedia", this clearly shows an attempt at pushing a non-notable article into Wikipedia. Please keep an eye on the thread, and act accordingly. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I've always thought that if having a wikipedia article would make a notable difference to a company, then that company isn't notable enough to have an article on wikipedia. (My own version of WP:CORP in a nutshell :) MartinRe 23:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well put. Snoutwood (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This article was already deleted (Dollar Rent a Car Los Cabos). Ral315 (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Also note Ion Global Ltd, an article created by another one of the SEO members there. Ral315 (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Samuel Blanning

Can someone please call this off now? Since an RFC has to have 2 people to agree that an admin was abusing rights to have an RFC in the first place (In this case BabaRera and Dzoni) and one of them (Dzoni) was just blocked for being the communism vandal, I think this RFC is moot, IMO. DGX 02:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

He's left an unblock request, which I was inclined to deny but there's too much superficial conflict of interest there, so please can another admin do it? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've denied it and removed the {{unblock}} template. Bishonen | talk 23:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC).

Oops!

Hi, I was in the middle of disagreeing with a PROD, when the article got deleted from under me! It was List of casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, and I was planning to move it to AfD. Is it possible to belatedly do that? The article seemed substantial. (Don't know its history, just found it at the last minute while scanning PROD.) JackyR 02:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You can go to Deletion review. The prod seems to be done in line with the policy of waiting for 5 days. In this case the prod was from 5 May. Thanks. --Ragib 04:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added this for you, since no admin appears to have undeleted it yet. Not sure if this is because people haven't seen it or because the content is no good. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I undeleted it so you can either send it to AFD or improve it in line with the concerns raised. Tim! 06:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I'm sure it was just bad timing on my part. Many thanks, will send it to AfD. JackyR 11:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

User:60.227.174.236 blocked

Could an admin take a look at User_talk:60.227.174.236 for me? This user apparently has been caught in the indef block on User:Jazzper. Is there anything that can be done to allow this IP to edit while keeping Jazzper blocked? If the user registered an account, I assume they would still be blocked? Thanks, Gwernol 03:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the autoblock. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 03:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Matthew Mazankowski page

how come i cannot make a Matthew Mazankowski Page? please help me out. thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewmazankowski (talk • contribs)

WP:N with 0 Google hits. RadioKirk talk to me 03:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You can as a user pager! --Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 04:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

How would i do that?, im trying to make my biography :S:S but it keeps getting deleted... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewmazankowski (talk • contribs)

I have done it for you on your user page already! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 05:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It keeps getting deleted because, under WP:N as linked above, the biography does not assert the notability of the subject. One needs either wait until one is notable—and, naturally, best of fortunes—or tell us who you (?) are on your user page, as the user above has done. RadioKirk talk to me 05:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And please sign your edits with ~~~~ --Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 09:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I am Matthew Mazankowski, in the band Behind Sapphire...and i'd like to put my bio on wikipedia. Can you please undelete the Matthew Mazankowski page please. thank you.

Also what do you mean by sign your edits with the --Matthewmazankowski 02:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC) thinger?

Block recommendation:

Talk Page of IP editor with copious warnings. Block as appropriate, no current block in force, last block was 20 April 2006. Last edit was data entropy. -- ∞Dbroadwell 07:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This should go to WP:AIV--Doc ^ask? 08:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

How to deal with edit summary vandalism?

It is easy to revert page vandalism, but is there a way to remove vulgar edit summaries? This case diff is an example. On low traffic pages they remain visible for a long time. --Blainster 09:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Check the history now. Thanks. --Ragib 09:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... normally we don't remove edits unless they contain personal information (in the edit or its summary). Kimchi.sg 09:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Like this? Vildricianus 13:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hell, yes! The Alkivar phone number vandal strikes again! (This is the first time I've seen it.) :-( Kimchi.sg 15:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't delete the page to delete the revisions, I keep getting a "Wikimedia down" error. Can someone else try it? --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 17:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I tried with that particular page a day or two ago, and kept getting an error message — probably because there are so many versions of it. I think we need a developer for this. AnnH ♫ 17:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal telephone number of an Admin. Snoutwood (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, crap

I just clicked on the current AFD log instead of the May 4 one and closed a load of AFDs, thinking they had spoiled. What do I do? :( Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 13:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting you and restoring, don't worry about it. You might want to recheck to see if I restored anything that you rightly closed as speedy delete, although I am looking out for them. --JoanneB 14:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Asoczewko

Can someone please hurry up and block Asoczewko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? He's been listed for over an hour now, very actively vandalising pages including my user page. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked already. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy undelete request (page history merge)

The page Canadair CL-215 was deleted so that Canadair CL215's page history could be merged into it. Now I've made the appropriate move, and the deleted revisions of Canadair CL-215 should be undeleted. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Note to admins who close AfDs

It might become good practice to skim an AfD's history page before closing it, as there has been a recent trend of anon (IP address) users attempting to add votes to these pages. They often (somewhat successfully) try to pass themselves off as logged-in users, using a name followed by a timestamp. Occasionally this might be an actual registered user forgetting to log-in, but in practice they should come back after they've logged in and confirm that it was actually them. Recent examples of this include Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wuice and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Tomic. Just thought I'd give everyone a heads up. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. A good idea would be for the nominator of each AfD to have it watchlisted; that way, s/he can spot discrepancies and any attempts to game the system easily and quickly. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There are people who don't watchlist the AfDs they create? It saves some embarassment if you can withdraw your nom after additional information is revealed during an AfD. In fact, also the other contributors should watchlist the AfD, after all, it is a discussion, not a vote. Kusma (討論) 21:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And no matter how AfDs you participate in, it's not like they all clog up your watchlist. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wuice looks pretty obvious. I may presume good faith that the vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Tomic is actually someone who forgot to login, cos' the account itself is pretty new. - Mailer Diablo 10:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal information released

Jumphoop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has released Alkivars telephone number in his contributions. I think someone needs to go through his contributions and delete any mentions of it. And because of the looks of his contribtions, his account might need to be indef blocked. (Never mind about blocking him, as I read Curps blocked him). But the edit should be deleted. DGX 21:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Done already. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Colignatus

This indefinitely-blocked user has added a load of article material to his own talkpage. It may be POV-pushing and inappropriate, I'd appreciate if someone would take a look. Stifle (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Ruud 01:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Alkivar phone number vandals

Isn't it possible to add Alkivar's phone number to the spam blacklist or something? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I can think of three reasons why this might not be possible, but am hesistant to spill the WP:BEANS. Regards, MartinRe 10:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind emailing me then? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I too have had to deal with this kind of vandalism in the last couple of days, on an article appearing on the front page. Deleted and restored twice before semi-protection. --kingboyk 10:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If if we add Alkivar's telephone number to the spam blacklist, wouldn't we be releasing it into the public domain on Meta-Wiki where people could easily access it from there? DGX 03:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Then just add the area code and the first two or three digits. Leave off the rest and no one will know what the number is. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 03:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The inherent problem with that is that, say, if his phone number was (123) 456-7890, then it could be done as "(123) 45", "123-45", "12345", "12,345", etc., and obviously a number like 12345 could be found somewhere (Rambot articles, for example). There are just too many ways to do it. Ral315 (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Half seriously, here, do we know that it is indeed Alikvar's phone number? And if so, has anyone gently suggested that it might be time to get it changed to an unlisted number; if it really is his number, he's got to be having enough prank calls to be driven insane. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

We've still got to stop the guy somehow if we can. What happens to the person who gets that number after Alkivar relinquishes it? And it could set future precedents if we let people post phone numbers, real or not, with impunity. Kimchi.sg 08:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinate

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinate is up for quite a while but wasn't closed Spearhead 11:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Suns ditto Spearhead 11:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You never performed step 3 of the AfD process (see WP:AFD) by adding it to the daily log, so no-one knew about the nomination except those who saw the notice on the article. I've listed it on today's log. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

User:What you think?

Something seems to be wrong with this guy's contributions; there are a lot of miscellaneous characters, seemingly inserted between every two good characters. I have seen a mention somewhere of this kind of thing happening when someone uses an open proxy, so I was hoping an admin could look into it. Thanks! Mangojuice^talk 15:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that and if you read between his weird characters the warning he put on the anon's page is a falsified warning from Tawkerbot2. I'm going to try to keep an eye on him. --Syrthiss 20:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I know adding random // slashes can be an indication of a bot, but I've never seen this before. Peculiar. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what you're talking about...care to explain? He has three edits- one is a revert, another is creating his own user page, and the last is a warning (though copy-and-pasted from Tawkerbot's warnings.) I see no peculiar characters. Ral315 (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the editor is using odd characters that you may or may not have in your browser settings or preferences or wherever such things are kept (I'm not an expert on the subject). For example, when I view that Tawkerbot edit in my version of IE, I see almost all odd/nonexistant characters (mostly squares). However, when I view it in my version of Firefox, I see the words perfectly fine. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any odd characters, in the SeaMonkey browser or when I send the edit diff URL to Web Sniffer to see the raw HTTP response. Maybe IE is somehow getting the character encoding wrong? *Dan T.* 04:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I see skull-and-crossbones characters between every letter of his contributions. I'm using Opera for Linux. --Carnildo 04:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Further investigation: It's Unicode code point U+0090, a non-printing control character. Most fonts these days don't have a glyph for it, but some non-Unicode fonts (such as Tengwar Quenya on my machine) do. --Carnildo 04:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Just looks like "......" to me

REdirect damage repair requested

There is a note at Talk:Digital Rights Management explaining the problem. Briefly, someone decided to redirect a large and active page, and in so doing managed to lose the entire discussion page and history which were both extensive and covered important and continuing aspects othe article content. The original article (that was redirected), and whose discussion page and history should be transferred to the new name as well, is Digital rights management. Thanks, in advance, for assitance with the underlying machinery. ww 16:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The talk page was still there, it just wasn't moved along with the main article because the target talk page did not have an empty edit history. The problem is corrected now. --bainer (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Masatepe and User:68.16.249.3

An anonymous user has been regularly adding spam to this stub page, consisting of an advertisement for (I presume) his or her website at [14]. It gets reverted regularly enough and I left a short message at the user's talk page. It's a fixed IP number assigned to BellSouth and Masatepe is the only article this person edits. I've now reverted the page twice today. This has been going on irregularly since February. Please block this user or find some way to explain why they shouldn't do this. --Diderot 16:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Help needed

I need help from an admin (or someone with a decent browser ;-)).

User:Kingstonjr and User:Hashbrowns both have user pages contaning an excessive amount of images that are either under fair use or unsourced. Since my browser is extremely slow when loading Images (my computer ends up freezing), could someone look through all the images placed on their user pages and remove fair use/no source images?

On Kingstonjr's page, I removed many fair use/no sourced images already, but he keeps readding him. (I sent him a warning about it). Could somebody do this for me? DGX 20:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added a warning and pointed to Wikipedia:User page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone smarter than I needs to look through the uploads for those two. Despite the fair use images, I see some uploaded that claim that since they're from Usenet, they're in the public domain. I highly doubt that this is a valid claim. Ral315 (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

IP-range block requested

Could somebody with the required technical expertise take a look at this posting on AN/I? A block on a range of IPs has been requested to stop repeated disruptive vandalism from sockpuppets of the permanently banned user User:Irate. Aquilina 21:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That is too wide a range of IPs to block. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. In fact I have blocked it already. (The block should expire in 11 minutes though) Prodego ^talk 00:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest asking for a checkuser first; a quick check of just the /24 revealed at least one legitimate contributor that could have quite easly been blocked as well. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a great idea, I should have thought of that. Anyway here are the known ranges if you want to look:

87.75.130.0/23
84.9.210.0/23
84.9.192.0/22

Prodego ^talk 01:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Bad open proxy or somesuch

I have vauge recollections of "watch out for backslashes, for they art the tool of the devil." So, err, is this what that was about? - brenneman^{L} 01:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the hallmark of a bad OP. Backslashes before quote marks. (Although that edit is innocuous.) Kimchi.sg 02:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone scan it? I lost the link to Tawker's OP scanner when my computer went boom. --Rory096 09:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

These backslashing proxies are always CGI proxies, written in PHP, with magic_quotes enabled, and unable to deal correctly with magic_quotes. You do not need a scanner (and in fact a scanner would return a false negative, since these kinds of proxies are just normal web servers); just use a normal web browser. In this particular case, it opens a cPanel page, which means it's a shared web host; that is enough for a indefinite block as an open proxy (someone else already blocked). --cesarb 20:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Backlog on WP:PAIN

• The page says it is to "get administrator attention quickly," yet there have been issues there for 3 days now that no admins have addressed yet. On Wikipedia, I would think quickly means at most a few hours, not days. Paul Cyr 05:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it is because your argument has no merit. -- Gnetwerker 05:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I guess you didn't notice the other user reports on there. So none of those arguements have merit and admins won't remove issues with no merit? Seems to me you are just trying to create problems. But what I find funny is that you had said before "I am tired of dealing with this user" and yet you seem to be following my edits. Get lost Gnetwerker, stop following me around making snide comments. Or are you up for another ArbCom ruling cautioning you against being rude? Paul Cyr 06:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Malber, who did in fact address your complaint, that Gnetwerker did not make personal attacks requiring immediate admin intervention. By claiming that admins oignored your complaint when Malber took the time to look into it, you do him a disservice. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • And you do me a disservice by claiming I said stuff I did not. I never said admins were ignoring my compaint. As for Malber, I can't find his name on the administrator list. He hasn't identified himself on his user page that he is an administrator either. Can you show me that he even is an administrator? Paul Cyr 12:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I consider it fairly self-evident that your complaint here relates to the fact that your other complaint on WP:PAIN was not dealt with the way you wanted.
2. No, Malber is not an administrator, but non-admins may deal with any 'administrative' task except those requiring administrative tools. Admins are not anything particularly special, they just have some extra buttons.
3. If an admin declines to block someone on WP:PAIN, they won't necessarily announce it, especially if someone (even a non-admin) has adequately addressed the case. If no-one posts to disagree with the first person to reply, then that almost certainly indicates agreement.
4. If you really want the voice of an administrator, here it is. Malber's analysis is correct.
5. Your own comments are far from civil: for instance, saying that Malber has "been accused of making personal attacks yourself", then giving a diff which showed a user quoting an NPA warning by Malber, presenting it as if the quoter was issuing an NPA warning. That misrepresentation of the facts is then followed up by a healthy dose of well-poisoning with "I recommend admins taking this user's comments with a grain of salt". For your own good, I would recommend that you drop this. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Or maybe the fact that I did not get an administrator response on an administrator notice board. Would I be making my comments if I hadn't posted on PAIN? Obviously not. However not only were my notices not addressed by an administrator, no one else’s have been for four days now. That only compounds my point. Especially since I have brought this to your attention and other people's complaints are still waiting to be addressed. To the point of Sophia resorting to shouting! Is user has restored the material [5] AGAIN! Help! not notice enough? My notice was never addressed by an administrator and I was simply saying "hey! look at all of us waiting for administrators!" Your blatant accusation that I am just doing this because I am not happy with the handling (or lack thereof) is just bad faith and incorrect. In short, the first line of the page says This page is intended to get administrator attention quickly when dealing with personal attacks. If no administrators comment on issues lasting days you actually think the page is being properly monitored?
2. Pot meet kettle. Below you say that I was misrepresenting the facts (which I will address) yet you say By claiming that admins ignored your complaint when Malber took the time to look into it, you do him a disservice. Hmm... post on admin notice board, user comments, poster saying admins ignored him does said user disservice. Explain to me how that doesn't imply said user is an admin. At the very least show me how it could be reasonably interpreted that Malber wasn't an admin. non-admins may deal with any 'administrative' task except those requiring administrative tools. Really? Show me the Wikipedia policy that says non-admins may make rulings on admin notice boards, not comments, rulings. Show me the policy.
3. Do you actually expect me to believe that? That's just faulty logic plain and simple. If an admin removed the notices that would be an indication. But four days of users saying "is anyone reading this? help!" is hardly admins agreeing with comments. At the very least they would remove the notices or say something.
4. Now, now, did you really think that would be satisfactory after I asked Malber to justify his remarks? You haven't even shown any indication that you've even read the notice. So basically you are agree with a user that doesn't provide justification. In any case, the reason why I've been asking for justification is simple. Just for kicks (not really), in your own words, define ad hominem, because I have a strong suspicion you have no idea what it is.
5. And I will apologize for that, I read it over too quickly and though Malber was being warned, not quoted. But please, don't try to intimidate me with that "for your own good" crap.

I expect all the other user' issues on WP:PAIN to be addressed before or immediately after your reply to me, otherwise I would love to see how many words you have to write to even begin to show no hypocrisy. Paul Cyr 06:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's see - taking the recent ones, H8 wasn't addressed because it was a throwaway account that had already been discarded, but just to please you I blocked it anyway. Gnetwerker had already been dealt with by Malber, EnthusiastFRANCE archived the personal attack warnings rather than removing them (he does not wish to have a talk page) and is trying to move on, so no administrative action would be productive, and RyanFreisling asked a difficult question in a perfectly civil way. Now that's over with, you don't bring up anything new. Non-admins may always offer comments (no-one makes 'rulings' around here, except the Arbcom), this is a generally accepted principle everywhere, and, if that doesn't satisfy you, has been formally accepted at WP:AIV [15] . And it's very simple - if no admin posts, that means "no action necessary". If a non-admin posts, and no-one posts to disagree, that means "we agree". This is a wiki - "I agree +1 editcount" isn't as commonly seen around here as on Internet forums. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. How do you expect me to reach a consensus with you if you are going to pick and choose which points of mine you are going to address? You addressed most of my first point but not my points raised by Sophia's complaint. I can't see how you even attempted to address my third point, and you completely ignored my fourth point which is the cause for this debate. In addition to your comment of "If a non-admin posts, and no-one posts to disagree, that means "we agree"." Completely supports my point. I was the last responder to Malber. So since no one disagreed with my insisting he provide some justification for his views, according to your statement the admins agree that he didn't provide a good justification.
• Non-admins may always offer comments (no-one makes 'rulings' around here, except the Arbcom), this is a generally accepted principle everywhere, and, if that doesn't satisfy you, has been formally accepted at WP:AIV [60] .. If it's been "formerly accepted", why is there no policy on it? At the very least there would be a guideline no?
• In any case, back to the point at hand, no one has even offered a measly sentence to try to explain how Gnetwerker's comments were not personal attacks. The fact that you have refused to offer an explanation that you even know what an ad hominem is even when you could have copy-pasted from Wikitionary makes me doubt your sincerity in trying to offer a balanced view. I handed that one to you and you still didn't bother to address it.
• I don't find it objectionable if someone disagrees with my views. However on every level of non-fallacious arguing and just plain honesty, picking and choosing points to address is indecent. Paul Cyr 05:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• EDIT: oh, just so you know, Sophia has been waiting a week now for a response. Either she is being ignored or no one is bothering to maintain the page by removing out-dated comments (I was the one who removed a bunch yesturday.) "self-evident that your complaint here relates to the fact that your other complaint on WP:PAIN was not dealt with the way you wanted" my ass.

Given Samuel's abandonment of this discussion and Alistair's removement of my complaint from WP:PAIN without respect to the discussion here, I have to conclude that an end-run-around has been made in bad-faith to the dispute resolution process. No one from my opposing side has given a single response with justification and free of cherry picking. In summation I feel the chain of events are as follows:

1. Gnetwerker made personal attacks against me.
2. I asked Gnetwerker to stop multiple times.
3. Gnetwerk continued making personal attacks.
4. I brought the attacks to the attention of WP:PAIN.
5. The user Malber commented that they were not personal attacks.
6. I asked him to explain his views because he wasn't providing any justification, he did not.
7. After a few days without any action being taken, I felt the page was being disregarded and brought it to the attention here.
8. After the above discussions, Samuel's comments appear to be an ignoratio elenchi which were full of unexplained and bad-faith remarks and cherry picking.
9. Without respect to the discussion here, Alistair removed the comments from WP:PAIN.
10. Since I am not going to repost the complaint on WP:PAIN and no serious attempt has been made to resolve the issue, I am going to request mediation. Paul Cyr 02:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude closed

This arbitration case is closed.

Monicasdude is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses. Monicasdude is banned from making edits related to the deletion process (excepting obvious vandalism and copyright problems) for one year. This is to be interpreted broadly, and includes, but is not limited to, commenting on articles for deletion nominations and removals of nominations for proposed deletion and speedy deletion. He may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to a year.

Should Monicasdude violate any ban imposed by this decision he may be briefly blocked, up to a week for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to a year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Monicasdude#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As soon as his 99 hours block ended....

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas&diff=52820462&oldid=52794524

Shared IP, and simple reports of vandalism should go on WP:AIV - when the user has been given a {{test3}}, {{test4}} or {{bv}} warning and has continued to vandalise despite that. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Help

Apparently you are the guys to talk to about editing in the wiki.

I got a bit confused and wanted to thank Mr Wales for his site as it helped me in researching for a recent paper i did, but I think i put my comments under the wrong tab or wrong place, i dunno.

I was wondering if there was somewhere i could learn about to edit the wiki properly. i clearly am inadept at it, but i don't think that made name calling a necessity. i mean i don't own any spray paint anyway.

your help would be most appreciated.

ps is there an easy way to sign your name without having to copy the time every time?

tom

User:172.201.101.170 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Introduction, it will teach you. :-) And signatures are done by typing: ~~~~ Kimchi.sg 17:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Help vs. Harrassment!

I made one ill-considered edit (I thought it was legit), and now I am being attacked from all sides, with ordinary users placing vandalism warnings and sock puppet notices on my personal page in retaliation. I haven't vandalized anything and I'm not a sock puppet. Full story is here. Help! -- Gomi-no-sensei 20:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Why was your very first edit to the encylopedia under this username to another user's userpage? --Syrthiss 20:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw a red user name when I hit "Recent changes" and asked the person who was showing me Wikipedia why the user's link was red, even though he had made lots of edits. I thought it would be innocuous. -- Gomi-no-sensei 20:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, looking at your contributions I don't see anything that looks naughty. I'm going to AGF and propose to IronDuke that he leave you alone, and you should leave him alone. This just looks like it spiraled out of control. --Syrthiss 20:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Deep breath... all right, I'm familiar enough with Wikipedia at this point to see how the above represents a pattern. User A harasses user B (User B being me), user B reacts (in an entirely appropriate way), user A makes a public accusation of harassment (accusing the victim of his own behavior) and editors rush in to "warn" User B to back off. First off: gomi-no-sensei is, I believe, a user who has severely harassed me in the past (and almost been blocked for doing so) and may have multiple sock puppets. But before I get to that - does anyone here believe, for one tenth of a second, that a newbie editor would make his first edit to create someone else's user page? And how would a new user even know that most editors who make lots of edits don't have red usernames unless he was already an editor? Did his mythical "friend" tell him? But that's really the tip of the iceberg. Let's take some of gomi-no-sensei's points one by one.

"I have been the subject of harassment by two Wikipedia users: User:IronDuke and an anonymous editor 69.117.7.84, who may be the same person as IronDuke." I am especially grateful that GNS made this point, as I think it illustrates not only the disingenuousness going on here, but that GNS attempts to smear me with what he is in fact guilty of -- being/using a sockpuppet. The reason that 69.117.7.84 complained on GNS's talk page was that GNS created an unwanted user page for him, too (and that's harassment?). Is GNS implying that, at random, he selected two users for whom to create an unwanted userpage, and that those two users happen to be the same person? What do you suppose the chances of that are? At any rate, I'd be interested to see GNS press that case formally, if he truly believes it.

Moving on: my first edit to GNS's talk page was simply this: "Who are you?" I think this was a perfectly reasonable, neutral thing to ask in response to someone messing with my userpage, neither rude nor polite. I was genuinely curious, thinking it might be a bot, or someone had just made an innocent mistake. I didn't want to bite someone's head off without getting a response. The response I got was having my message simply deleted. Later, when I restored the message, and added another, it was also deleted. Finally, GNS abused the speedy delete function to entirely erase my comments (and bragged about it), when he could have at least (improperly) archived them. Also, just as a for instance, GNS did not "restore" a deleted user page. Mine was never in existence up until his edit.

I've been advised to "move on" and I think that's good advice and would love to. However, I am being harassed/stalked by someone via their sockpuppet (or maybe meatpuppet, but I'm pretty sure sock). I think I'm not out of line in asking for a checkuser run with GNS and several other users who may be socks/puppeteers of GNS.

There is, finally, a tendency here at WP, when two editors are having a dispute, to essentially tell both of them, "Okay kids, play nice, I don't care who hit who first." That's totally understandable and generally sensible, but it's a really bad idea here: this user, I believe, has been stalking me in a really unpleasant and threatening manner. I may be wrong, but it absolutely has to be investigated, and if I am indeed wrong, I will abjectly and grovellingly apologize to all concerned. This is why I began the sockpuppet investigation, to get the ball rolling. I believe that it has been closed prematurely and improperly. I have more evidence, and was not consulted in any way prior to its closing. Please know, I'm not denigrating any admins or casting aspersions. I know the idea here is to try to reduce friction and get on with editing, and believe me, that's what I'd like to do. I didn't seek this out, I was essentially baited by a socktroll (and fell for it), and now am put in the unfortunate position of having to plead my case as a co-aggressor, when an actual investigation of the person tormenting me should be taking place. Please keep an open mind here, I really need this to stop. IronDuke 22:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I recall that Ironduke has been the subject of harassment before. ID, I'm going to continue this discussion with you by e-mail so as to keep it off the website. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I requested a check user and it confirms that User:Gomi-no-sensei and User:Anomicene are operated by the same person, and that someone from that same IP set up User:IronDuck, which was never used, but which appears to have been created to mimic IronDuke. Given that Gomi's first edit was to create a page for IronDuke, and that someone using his IP address created an account mimicking IronDuke, that strongly suggests to me that Gomi may indeed be Gnetwerker, who was previously harassing IronDuke in the form of posting his personal details. However, the check-user evidence on that point is "inconclusive," which I understand means the IP evidence doesn't confirm that Gomi-no-sensei and Anomicene are Gnetwerker, but that it doesn't rule it out either. In the meantime, I've blocked Gomi-no-sensei as an abusive sockpuppet, leaving Anomicene as the main account until further evidence linking them to Gnetwerker is available. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess I have to say something here (actually several somethings):

• I am not User:Gomi-no-sensei;
• I am not User:Gnetwerker;
• I know who both of those users are, and they are not the same people
• I do sometimes work on the same sub-net as Gomi, so I see how User:SlimVirgin got confused; and
• Gomi is astonishingly pissed-off that he has no way of responding to his block -- he can't edit anywhere, or send email to admins, apparently.

All of this is beside the point, I guess. I have no beef with User:IronDuke, and it would appear that the ways of Wikipedia admins are far beyond the ken of us normal folk, especially from a brief perusal of Gomi's talk page. What a mess. -- Anomicene 07:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what the check-user evidence showed, but it was enough to conclude that you are the same person, and in addition you edit the same articles. If you want to e-mail me or any other admin, as Gomi, there is nothing to stop that account from doing so. In addition to the sockpuppetry, the same person set up what looked like an attack account, IronDuck. We've had enough of whatever these shenanigans are. The bottom line is that the person behind these accounts needs to stay away from IronDuke. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't want to pick a fight with you, but I think you are confusing IP addresses with people. Does the phrase "Network Address Translation (NAT)" mean anything here? But this is not my fight, so I'll leave it be. -- Anomicene 08:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The CheckUser evidence confirms that Gomi-no-sensei is a sockpuppet of Anomicene, as was the attack account IronDuck. I suppose Gomi-no-sensei could be Anomicene's identical twin who happens to live with him, but Occam's razor teaches that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Check users on Anti-Americanism

So, I've just had a flare-up on Anti-Americanism. After a week of often snarky talk posts with a red-linked editor and another editor who won't use talk at all (user or main space) I have them both on at the same time and, given that neither is particularly active, I got wondering if they're the same person. Anyhow, I was hoping some one could check User:Rkrichbaum and User:Christinam to see if they're editing from the same spot. I could totally be wrong and just have a situation where two newbies disagree with me at once, but I want to do due diligence. I have three reverts there now and I'm a little frustrated: it's a months-old intro and it got gutted without consensus. I asked an admin individually to look at it and thought I'd ask here too. Marskell

I'm not certain that a request for check user would be justified here, but you ought to ask, in any case, at WP:RFCU. Joe 01:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Πrate

Πrate (talk · contribs) claims to be a Chinese Wikipedian, but the name makes me wonder whether he/she is a sockpuppet of banned user Irate (talk · contribs). Thoughts? --Nlu (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly Π (capital letter π "pi") makes this user's name "pirate" perhaps? — May. 13, '06 [01:52] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

As far as one can tell the edit patters are quite different. (And I like the pi-rate pun.) Dr Zak 02:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Myg0t

Could an admin please take a look at this article? It has had two previous AfD's that resulted in its deletion (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Myg0t and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myg0t (2nd nomination)) and is now undergoing its third. The page needs to speedy deleted as a repost and please protect it this time, as its creators have made it clear they have no respect for policy. Thanks. --Hetar 04:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I've done so. Two AFDs is quite enough for a marginal online crufty article. --maru (talk) contribs 05:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Could someone have a serious talk with this editor?

Sorry to bring this here, but I don't know where else it might be more appropriate to mention this. Could someone have a word with User:Kuban kazak, please? Maybe that could help de-escalating a nasty situation without my having to file an RfC. The issue are gross violations of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and the "no threats" policy (what was that shortcut, again?). I don't think things like "you will regret this", calling me a "parasite" or a "nazi" twice, or stating that he "will make my life more miserable" should be tolerated. Banding together with other editors to push a demonstratably false view (on an image copyright tag) also is questionable behavior. Lupo 09:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The root of the problem is the refusal of some (apparently Russian) editors to accept that {{PD-USSR}} is just plain wrong. For the detailed reasoning, see this summary. Note that I didn't invent that reasoning; there are several U.S. experts who say so; and Russian and Ukrainian experts also agree, and I even discussed the issue with Jean-Baptiste Soufron, our very own Wikimedia foundation lawyer specialized on international copyright issues. What I find most annoying is that none of these editors has participated in the discussions about this template during the past months, although they most certainly were aware of the issue.[16] None of them ever brought forward any rational argument why the template should be right; all I ever got were personal attacks. Lupo 09:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: One editor did make an effort to understand the (admittedly confusing) copyright situation of Soviet works, and agreed finally that the tag indeed needed fixing.[17] Thanks, Zscout370! Lupo 09:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Lupo personal attacks is something ths is not nice but that is a mild form considering your abuse of WP:FAITH and for an admin like you that is important. I have started an RfC against you. You used your admin powers to deprecate a tagwithout any mention to the Russian and Ukrainian communities TWICE. First time we were insulted deep enough but now we feel like we have been spat in the face. That is compleate neglect of a whole community of editors, who actually try to IMPROVE wikipedia. --Kuban Cossack 12:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You might want to provide diffs, as Zach has, to support your assertations. Zach has shown diffs of six personal attacks by you on him, and you should probably respond to these before you make your own unsubstantiated assertations. Werdna_Tc@bCmLt 17:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is, you cannot find any cases of copyright disputes or court trials on this subject. In the meantime, User:Lupo abused his admin powers by editing a protected page (MediaWiki:Licenses) only because of his own interest. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Editing a protected page as an admin is not forbidden. There is a reason why Admins are given that power. Werdna_Tc@bCmLt 17:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yea... the only thing Lupo has done wrong so far is to not completely allow or follow consensus... I can't say he's right or wrong but the vote and the discussion seems unclear and the action may have been premature. As for the personal attacks by Kuban kazak, he definetely should be blocked. Looking at the block log he seems to not have learned his lesson from before. Therefore, I am giving him a 48 hour block. Sasquatch t|c 19:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't five months of arguing long enough to allow for consensus, especially considering the deafening silence of all those editors who now have stepped forward and who all knew very well (or let's phrase that more carefully: who in some cases knew very well, but in all cases should have known very well) that a discussion was going on? Gimme a break! Lupo 08:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Lupo's RfC

WRT to the conversation above, can people please comment on this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lupo--Kuban Cossack 13:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Help at WP:SUSPSOCK

Hi there everybody. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets is a page which was created few weeks ago when WP:SOCK was rewritten. The point of the page is to collect evidence that a user is a sock and then take action. And for action to be taken we need admins. For now, only admin taking part in this project is me. So I'd like to see some more admins participating and giving me a hand there :-) If anybody's interested, it'd be nice to put the page on your watchlist and to comment new cases as they appear. Concerning currently open cases, if you wish, you can take a look at this one as I'm having problems deciding what to do about it... Participation of non-admin users would be just fine too. Since non-admins cannot block, I invite them to comment, propose action or just give their view. --Dijxtra 16:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo

This case is closed.

Terryeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from articles related to Scientology and Dianetics, placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation and Personal Attack Parole. The usual enforcement provisions apply. See the link above for details.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 17:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Another potential open proxy \ backslash case

The only edit of new user User:JackieChansBiggestFan seems to have this classic signature. [18] This seems to be exactly what User:Cesarb describes above. If this can be confirmed, someone should probably indefinitely block. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I blocked indefinetly and will post something at checkuser to tell them to look up and block the IP. Sasquatch t|c 19:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Mackensen (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Guanaco

I have blocked Guanaco for three hours [19] for repeatedly making an edit describing other editors as bullies [20] [21] , despite being politely asked (by editors other than myself) not to do so. --Tony Sidaway 20:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with this block. I was one of the people who saw the potential edit war brewing; Guanaco first placed a comment saying "And practice should reflect consensus, not the demands of bullies." in the talk page of the CSD earlier today. Doc glasgow noticed this comment and left a message on Guanaco's talk page, explaining that the comment could be "interpreted as a personal attack" and urged Guanaco to withdraw it. Guanaco replied on his user talk page, refusing to withdraw it. Following this, Doc glasgow rolled back the edit by Guanaco and left a message, saying that he had reverted (removed) Guanaco's comment "for him". Guanaco then reverted Doc glasgow's rollback and replied on his user talk page, asking Doc glasgow not to delete the comment. At this point, I sensed that I could try and prevent an ugly revert war and calm things down; I left a message for him politely requesting that everyone tone things down. There was no more reverting from this point onward; Guanaco replied to me, saying that "out of respect for your request, I will try being politically correct one more time," a postive response. Doc glasgow also left a message after that. That was at 18:21 UTC; Guanaco had no contributions between then and 19:58, over an hour and a half later, when Tony Sidaway blocked Guanaco for 3 hours and then removed Guanaco's comments from the CSD talk page 10 minutes later. Guanaco only reverted once and had stopped doing so over an hour and a half later; in addition, he had promised, in his reply to me, to tone things down. While I'm not condoning Guanaco's or anyone else's actions, I don't think this block is necessary or proper, given that Guanaco had only reverted once, was actively engaged in discussion, had promised to tone things down, and had not edited for over an hour and a half before his block.

I hope I've outlined the whole situation correctly above; Tony Sidaway, I urge you to reconsider this block. Comments from other people would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

(IANAA) I think Flcelloguy's summary accurately and fairly represents the situation, and I concur in his conclusion that Tony would do well to reconsider the block. Joe 21:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It may be worth adding that in his response to Flcelloguy, "out of respect for your request..." which Flcellogu describes as a 'a postive response', Guanaco actually unrepentently repeats the very agressive words to which I had initially objected. Rather than debate the issues he snidely and unhelpfully refers again to 'some people' as 'bullies' - and their ideas as 'bullshit'[22]. Repeating the incivility is hardly 'trying to be politically correct' - he is are still attacking people without havin the courage to name them. --Doc ^ask? 22:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

True; I'm not condoning Guanaco's actions here. I personally feel that he was incivil as well. But I'm disagreeing with the block because Guanaco had only reverted once when his comment containing a borderline (i.e. not clear-cut) personal attack was removed, and had not edited in over an hour and a half prior to his block. Blocks aren't supposed to be punitive, and I don't see a justification when the editor had stopped reverting after he had reverted only once and wasn't even editing. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to register an extremely strong disagreement with Flcelloguy. Calling a fellow editor a bully is not borderline. I felt, and still feel, that Guanaco's deliberate and premeditated rebuff to some polite requests, and his repetition of the original attack, merited some kind of preventive. I blocked Guanaco at 1958 UTC, putting a note on his talk page at 1959 and on this page at 2003 and 2007. I chose to remove the personal attack some time afterwards--over an hour afterwards, at 2109 UTC. --Tony Sidaway 22:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I am definitely not condoning Guanaco's actions here; I urged him to not use such terms as well. There is no excuse for personal attacks of any kind. However, a block when he had neither reverted nor edited for over an hour and a half, had only reverted what he perceived as the removal of his valid comment once, and had not reverted since being asked not to, was inappropriate in my view, especially since the comment was not a clear-cut personal attack (i.e. "so and so is a bully or idiot!" versus "And practice should reflect consensus, not the demands of bullies," which while is still incivil, is not as egregious as an outright insult or personal attack). Blocks are not supposed to be punitive. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The "personal insult" was at best/worst indirect and to me at least came across as a criticism of behavior - it is not a personal attack, after all to characterize behavior as bullying, if such a charge can be substantiated. Sidaway, on the other hand, blocked without getting familiar with the specifics, including efforts to mediate and reciprocal efforts to calm down. Unless he actually intended it as a punitive measure, the block was unfounded. --Leifern 02:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot accept that "And practice should reflect consensus, not the demands of bullies" is not a most egregious and unacceptable personal attack. The block was intended to prevent further escalation of this repeated personal attack, which was defended in the most disingenuous and back-handed manner [23]. --Tony Sidaway 00:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree with this statement. While - I repeat - I'm certainly not condoning Guanaco's actions or statement here, his comment was not a direct personal attack; it was simply a statement, that while possibly uncivil, did not warrant a block at the time. A direct and egregious attack would consist of saying "so and so is a bully"; his statement neither named a specific person or group of people nor called anyone any insults directly. Nevertheless, regardless of whether you felt that the comment was a personal attack, I don't understand the justification of the block when the user had not edited in over an hour and a half prior to being blocked (and had not edited the page for an even longer period of time), had only reverted once in what he perceived was an unjust removal of his comment, and had promised to tone things down. A block isn't supposed to be punitive. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Uofakevo's user page

I got a message from Uofakevo stating that he was going to "shoot" on Wikipedia on his user page, namely say that Wikipedia is "whack". I told him as long as no personal attacks were made, then he could say whatever he wanted. I got another message from him today saying he posted his "shoot". I read the complaint on his user page and I feel they are personal attacks towards myself and another user, Feydey. Can someone remove them and warn him of his actions? DGX 20:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

In pertinent part, the "Wikipedia shoot" notes that, ...Wikipedia is run by the biggest gang of geeks to ever walk the face of God's green Earth. Some of the people here (DGX & feydey being the worst offenders) decided to wreck unnecessary havoc and remove a perfectly fine and noteworthy entry and that DGX, feydey, and any of you other tools here: you're on notice. The former, although likely indecorous, isn't, IMHO, a personal attack, inasmuch as the focus is on the (altogether correct) conduct of particular users, rather than on the users themselves; we generally, I think, look with disfavor on user page criticisms of individual editors (here, he could criticize the deletion of his vanity bio without referencing the other editors with whom he clashed), but the former criticisms are not particularly strident or vituperative (similar, in fact, to those many listed on their user pages w/r/to User:Kelly Martin during the Userbox Wars). The latter, though, terms editors as tools, and so is likely a personal attack; even as I have many problems with WP:NPA, I recognize that the policy generally enjoys wide support, so, in view of NPA, I'll remove the offending sentence from Uofakevo's page; I can't imagine that anyone would think further action (e.g., short block) would be appropriate, but surely others may disagree. Joe 20:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If someone could watch him so he doesn't make anymore personal attacks that would be great. Although I don't particulary liked being called a geek on his user page, it didn't strike my attention as much as the comment that I was a tool (which was removed). Thank you. DGX 20:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I just want to let it be known in advance that I am a proud geek and tool. I haven't looked into this case, but I find having a sense of humor about it really helps when others make themselves look terrible by namecalling or other forms of PA. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: OK, I looked. This newbie doesn't need much help to make himself look terrible so far. No contributions but those related to a clear cut nn-bio vanity page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, nobody looks at my side of the story. Figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uofakevo (talk • contribs)

If you feel like sharing your side of the story, by all means.. go ahead. DGX 20:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Constant Page Blanking on Bolo Yeung

An anonymous IP address (82.7.136.2 is blanking the Filmography on the Bolo Yeung article. Right after I revert it, he vandalises it again. Assistance would be helpful. Cracker017 00:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for a short while. Stifle (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Appeal

Can I appeal to any admins with some spare time to spend it clearing the image dumping categories Category:Images with unknown source and the other categories linked there? While nowhere near as badly backlogged as they used to be, there's still upwards of a thousand images to be speedied.

Additionally, when you've done that, or if you're not an admin, please consider going on new image patrol for a while every couple of days. While OrphanBot picks out most untagged images, it can't deal with the images that have some copyright tag but no source, or which have a fair use tag and aren't in any articles, or which have a completely irrelevant fair use tag.

And when you're bored of that, would you consider taking a look through a random fair use image category, like Category:Fair use magazine covers and doing random fair use audits? A magazine cover can be fairly used in the article about the magazine, but generally not in an article about the person depicted on the front cover.

Now, back to your regular speedying... if you have any time left, that is... Stifle (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I will conceed that this is a fairly effective method of keeping a reasonabley high deletions per month average.Geni 11:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Minimum age for wikipedia?

Is there a minimum age for wikipedia? I'm a bit fuzzy on the subject, but I thought there was a minimum age required by law (COPPA)? I'm not sure if Wikipedia falls under this however. I ask because User:Bugman94 admits on his user page to being only 12. I don't know what should be done if anything. Could someone look into this? Thanks a bunch --Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 01:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no minimum age to edit Wikipedia. Raul654 01:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Not minimum age to edit, but minimum age to create an account. He could have given his real name, as well as email address during the signup process. A few FTC links about COPPA: [24] [25]. I just wanted to make sure that Wikipedia is has its bases covered. --Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 01:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What about people not in America? --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no minimum age for anything. Wikipedia is the "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", so no matter who you are, as long as you follow the policies, you can edit. Prodego ^talk 01:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't refuting the part that anyone can edit, just anyone can create an account and give their personal information. Although it would help if I read the text of COPPA better and saw "does not include any nonprofit entity that would otherwise be exempt from coverage under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45)." Wikipedia is under the Wikimedia Foundation which is non-profit right? So I don't think we have to worry about this. --Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 01:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we are exempt because we are a nonprofit (although I saw no clause 5 in the FTC act), but COPPA is pretty clear on the matter: (1) IN GENERAL.—It is unlawful for an operator of a website or online service directed to children, or any operator that has actual knowledge that it is collecting personal information from a child, to collect personal information from a child in a manner that violates the regulations prescribed under subsection - The only things we ask are for a username, password, and an optional email address. Thus, we do not knowingly collect information from children. Raul654 02:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, I'm glad. Thanks for your help Raul, Mark and Prodego! --Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 02:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a maximum age of 22 years. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to edit as much as I can in the next 11 months, just in case I become ineligible at that point via Knowledge Seeker's rule proposal. ;o) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think there should be a minimum age of 21 years. It seems to me that the younger users tend to either (1) use Wikipedia as their message board, sulking around pages like this, (2) vandalize pages randomly until they're blocked, or (3) write articles that only teenagers care about (e.g., non-notable bands or anime characters.) I find it disappointing that many of these younger users tend to become administrators simply because they're good at popularity contests. The older users never get praised because they aren't "cool" enough, I guess.--67.15.183.8 02:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

A minimum of 21 and a maximum of 22... this is starting to sound like the wikipedia triple crown where editors can work for a year and then either are bred or turned into glue :o) --Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 02:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If this were true, we'd have a lot less vandals. Given the choice of a year of hard work and a lifetime of breeding, or a year of goofing around and a lifetime of being an adhesive, I think I know what most people would choose. :o) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

We're not going to geld any users, are we? I'd like to opt out of that. Joe 02:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

We'd have to rename the place Logan's Wiki. --bainer (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I NEW someone was going to mention that!!!Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 06:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I got lost somewhere

Someone needs to help this clueless newbie... I tried deleting this page and restoring it, but I think I accidentally restored some previously deleted edits. (I think it went from 28 deleted edits down to only the two I wanted to delete.) Is there someway to fix what I did? I'm so disappointed in myself. Please help! I don't know what I may have restored... :-( --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What page is it? There should be, let me have a look at it. Snoutwood (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

He meant this page, as in the AN. ~MDD4696 04:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks O.K... what's the problem? There's a total of two deleted edits, both should be deleted. Am I missing something? Snoutwood (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh... got it. I'd do it, but MDD46 seems to already have the reins. Snoutwood (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna give it a go. Give me a few minutes. ~MDD4696 04:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes... There are only about 20000 versions though. Argh! I'm so mad at myself. I'm done for awhile. See you soon. --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't do it, and I'm confused how you could, LV. I kept getting the Wikimedia error message (the one with the dark cyan text in multiple languages)... oh well. Anyone else know what they're doing? ~MDD4696 04:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted the AN, and it nearly crashed my computer. Try e-mailing Brion and see if he can help. Snoutwood (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What happened was that edits which were deleted have now been restored. I'm going to attempt to find them. Ral315 (talk) 08:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• And Voldemort- don't worry, it seems other users have done this as well. Ral315 (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Username blocks

Hey -- I haven't been meaning to patrol this, but in the last few days I've come across at least 3 editors who have been username blocked and were confused as hell and wanted to be unblocked, some specifically offering to get a new username. Anyway, it's not that big a deal, but I just wanted to remind the admins who do username blocks to please put {{UsernameBlocked}} on the user's talk page, so they have some clue what has happened. It explains what the block is for, and what they can do to solve the issue. Thanks! Mangojuice^talk 04:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In case you are not aware, I'll inform you that using {{UsernameBlock}} or similar as the block summary (example: [26]) affects what the user sees when he or she attempts to edit. The "edit this page" screen is replaced by the MediaWiki:Blockedtext page. The "$2" parameter on the latter is replaced by whatever the block reason is. If it's a template, the contents of the template are displayed inside the pink box. Thus, if I blocked you for an inappropriate username, it would look something like this:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Freakofnurture for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Your username has been blocked indefinitely because it is either inappropriate or too similar to an existing username (see our blocking policy for more information). You are encouraged to create a new account and contribute to Wikipedia under a more appropriate username, and in a constructive manner. See Wikipedia:Username for guidance on selecting an appropriate username. You may also edit Wikipedia without creating an account. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia under an inappropriate username. If you would like to discuss the block, you may edit your talk page or email the administrator who blocked you. Due to Wikipedia's mechanism for enforcing name changes, your IP address may be temporarily blocked. Unless you have also been engaging in vandalism or impersonation of another user, we will remove that block as soon as possible—if this doesn't happen within an hour or so, please email an administrator and explain the situation (see the list of administrators). If you want to keep the contributions from your old account for your new one, leave a note on Wikipedia:Changing username. This can only be done before you create the new one. If you wish to create a new username, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username for information. Your IP address is 127.0.0.1.

If the user doesn't understand what's going on after reading this message, an identical note on his talk page won't do a damn bit of good either, especially since the message above will appear every time they try to edit, but the "new messages" banner will only appear once. — May. 15, '06 [05:22] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Internet slang

How about a permanent semi-protect for this page? It's subject to a lot of IP's vandalising it by adding extremely obscure abbreviations, that sometimes aren't noticed and removed for months. There were a few that a channel in the US made up (yes, literally, it was on Digg) for a news-report. +Hexagon1 (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have died down for now. If it is happening at a high rate please post on WP:AIV. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. +Hexagon1 (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Move Rename

A small MediaWiki proposal [27].Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 06:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Probation of Shultz IV (talk · contribs)

I have been attempting to mediate this user, and as a reward I got a picture of myself uploaded and personal information posted on my user talk page. This user has a history of such behavior, and so I have placed him on probation here. The terms are that the mediation ends if he (1) uploads any personal pictures which don't have connections to the purpose of Wikipedia, (2) "outs" anyone's personal information, or (3) engages in personal attacks on other users, especially if those attacks involve the personal information of another user.

As my mediation was a term of his being unblocked, I think that if this mediation fails we would be looking at a community-supported indefinite block, which was where he started. Failing that, I suppose we could consider Arbcom. In the short term, any admins who find Shultz in violation of those three terms should feel free to block as they feel necessary. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

IP Vandalism

Hello WP:AN, I'd like to report User talk:217.33.207.195. As some of you may be aware, this is an IP adress (some school, or group of schools it seems) with many users; including vandals. Has anyone thought about contacting whomever owns and runs this IP adress, and informing them that one of the students is vandalising this site. I'd've thought that a little "scare" from the owners or someone of authority (A headteacher or whatever) should help to sort out the behaviour of any scoundrels (as it did for another ex-Wikipedia-vandal who shares an IP Adress with many others *cough*.) It is a suggestion. --Wonderfool 19:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you want abuse reports :) Petros471 19:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It just so happens this very IP is one of the range being discussed right now at Wikipedia:Abuse reports#Internet for Learning--woggly 11:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Almost Famous and copyvio tags

User:Almost Famous has uploaded a number of images that were subsequently tagged as copyright violations by User:Econrad and myself. Both of us tried to explain the copyright policy on his talk page.

He then stated that he received permission to publish some of the images and removed the copyvio tags from those that he says he got permission for. I understand that like AfD tags copyvio tags are to stay up while the image is under review and explained this to him.

Could someone explain what the procedure really is and if necessary put the tags back - I don't want to get into an edit war over half a dozen copyvio notices. Dr Zak 19:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless the user provides verifiable proof that they have the right to publish the images and release them under GFDL, the tags have to stay, and the user should be blocked if they continue the behavior. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Moe Epsilon's Userspace

I request my Right to vanish be fulfilled and ask the first admin to see this message, to delete my user and user talk pages. (you may also want to delete all my redirected sub-pages too). Thanks, and goodbye friends! Moe ε 22:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on the user pages, but I won't delete the the talk page. Someone else might, but it isn't covered under WP:CSD, so I don't feel comfortable doing it. Prodego ^talk 23:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I did it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all deleting my pages. I hope to return one day, but for now goodbye! Moe ε 23:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You still have quite a few pages under your old username. Delete those too? NoSeptember ^talk 23:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I undeleted the talk page just under the assumption that it had been deleted by an administrator who didn't know that many disapprove of deleting user talk pages. I tried to cancel my deletion but it was too late. I came here to report it, but see there's already a section. I do believe that user talk pages should not be deleted, but will leave it to others to decide—it is not my intention to wheel war. Was I incorrect to do this? — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It states in Right to vanish that I can have my talk page deleted, so It's a matter if you feel it's the right thing to do. There's nothing really important in the talk history, so I don't see a reason that it can't be deleted. To NoSeptember: Yes, everything. ;-) Moe ε 23:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes people want thier talk pages to be deleted to hide evidence of warnings etc. In that sort of case then clearly we should not delete thier talk page in case they return and cause more trouble. This doesn't appear to be the cae here (unless I missed something). If Moe Epsilon wishes to dissapear then we should grant that wish. I too will not will war, but urge other admins to delete the talk page unless there is good reason not to. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This would be a lot of pages to delete. Prodego ^talk 23:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but all of these should be deelted too. (SWD316 is my old username). Moe ε 23:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I am unclear as to what extent m:Right to vanish is Wikimedia policy and to what extent it binds our activities on here en. I don't believe it assert any right that one's talk will be deleted (and only mentions talk subpages), though I am unclear how carefully the procedure was discussed. A significant objection to the deletion of talk pages is that they are primarily the contributions of other editors that a user should not have the ability to have deleted. Those edits then disappear from the contributions of other editors as well (for instance, if someone undergoing a request for arbitration had made inappopriate comments to Moe, they would no longer be accessible). I re-deleted since I would rather come to a consensus first. I still feel that it should be undeleted; it can be blanked and protected if necessary. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually blanking and protecting seems reasonable enough. Moe is there any particular reason that you must have your talk page deleted? I think the idea of a right to vanish comes from meatball wiki. But you can't really vanish since contributions are spread all over the wiki. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, nothing to hide. I figured since I was leaving Wikipedia for good then I would get all my pages deleted. To clarify: I want to have my talk page deleted, but it's ultimatly up to those who have the power to delete/undelete my talk page. If it's restored, I won't hold anything against anyone, it was just my request for it's deletion. Moe ε 00:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, I will restore the deleted talk page, blank it, and protect it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Babolatace510 and copyvio material at Dansette

A copy/paste of the article http://www.dansettes.co.uk/history.htm was created at Dansette. It was copyvio'd by User:Heycos and I placed a copy of the nothanks template on the user's page. The same article was then copied and pasted at Dansette/Temp. I copyvio'd it. Now, the identical article has been copied/pasted at Dansette/Temp/Temp. I'm not quite sure what the correct procedure is for addressing an issue that is obviously ongoing copyright violation, but is not eligible for a speedy because it's not from a commercial content provider. (See also user contributions) BigDT 23:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have speedy deleted all copies of the copyvio page on the grounds that they are replicated content and we don't need more than one copy. I will have a word with User:Babolatace510. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• FYI, it's back up at Dansettes BigDT 23:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Well darn, you guys do some fast work ;) BigDT 23:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• • It is back up at Dansette/Temp/Temp/Temp, though. BigDT 23:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sexual harassment article

This is a minor matter, but I'd like some wisdom from someone. I am slightly irritated by recent edits from sockpuppets of Aine63, as shown here. I've given a couple of warnings to the IP users concerned, but I'm disinclined to get "heavy" at this point, and besides I don't want to use admin powers over a content dispute that I'm involved in. OTOH, I feel that being an admin shouldn't mean having to put up with another user's sockpuppets continually deleting sources and sourced information, adding back deleted unsourced information, or simply acting uncivilly. Does anyone want to offer a suggestion or take an interest in this article? Feel free to drop a note on my talk page. Metamagician3000 00:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

For the moment I've semi-protected the page. The next sockpuppet revert would have been a 3RR by Aine63. I'll leave the page alone for now and let someone else unprotect it at their discretion. Let it stay for awhile, though, please. Metamagician3000 00:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Theresa Knott helped me out after Aine63 made a third reversion. I've just thanked her for that. For reasons that I hope are obvious, I don't want to be the person to block Aine63 but I do note that there is now soon to be a clear 3RR violation by this person and his/her sockpuppets. Not only are the reverts all in a period of a few hours, in each case they delete sources and sourced comment while adding back dubious unsourced material. The user concerned has apparently also filed some kind of request against me somewhere. Metamagician3000 02:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction - there have only been three reverts so far. The next one will be a clear breach of 3RR. We'll see what happens. Metamagician3000 02:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

And now a fourth revert. Metamagician3000 04:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

For the moment I'm satisfied. User:Kimchi.sg has slapped some tags on the unsourced material, so I'll accept it staying there for awhile on that basis, and I've done more work on my sourced material. No block necessary on this occasion, but note that Aine63 has gotten away with four reverts in a very short time thanks to my patience and concern not to abuse admin powers. I thank the others who stepped in and dealt with the immediate problem. I hope I didn't try your patience in asking for assistance from uninvolved admins for such a trifling problem, but it seemed like the right thing to do. Metamagician3000 11:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, Kelly Martin and images in signatures.

Cyde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Kelly_Martin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are bullying me, attacking me and are both constantly incivil because I refused their demands to remove images in my signature.

I quote WP:SIG: However, these elements in the signature are discouraged for several reasons:

Discouraged does not mean disallowed or prohibited.

I call for a block on Cyde for his constant personal attacks and incivility (which has migrated from my talk page to his) and a warning for Kelly Martin.

This has gone too far and I'm seething.

See: User_talk:Cyde#Excuse_me and User_talk:nathanrdotcom#Images in sigs.

What should have started out as a polite request for me to change my signature has degenerated into incivility and personal attacks. As an admin, Cyde should know better than to engage in such behaviour. Bullying is a violation of WP:CIVIL thus against Wikipedia policy. He is antagonising and provoking a confrontation and I would rather post here than give him what he wants. — nathanrdotcom|talk 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I reproduce here what I wrote on Nathan's talk page:

Nathan, you should remove the images from your signature not because it's "required by policy" but because it's the polite thing to do. Being wilfully impolite, as you are doing, reflects poorly on you as a Wikipedian and will tend to bias people against you. It's your call (for now); I'd strongly suggest that you stop thinking about your "rights" and instead focus on how you can behave in a manner more conducive to maintaining a friendly, productive environment in which to write an encyclopedia.

I'm sorry if Nathan considers this a personal attack. It was intended as friendly advice. In any case, I wilfully submit myself and my conduct in this matter for judgment by my peers. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was attacking in tone. You could've done so much better. Nathan 05:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any "bullying", personal attacks, or incivility here at all. And no, Cyde should not be blocked. All I see is Nathan being stubborn after he was confronted about his rather—to put it lightly—elaborate signature. This is a supreme overreaction to an exceedingly minor issue.--Sean Black ^(talk) 03:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy that Nathanrdotcom has finally removed the images from his sig. Guess I won't have to "bother" him about it anymore. --Cyde Weys 03:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, you don't come out of this smelling like a rose either. You attacked repeatedly, there is no excuse for this. Admins are the public face of Wikipedia. You should know better. Nathan 05:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Having reviewed the conversations to which Nathan linked, I must say that I am quite disappointed in Nathan's behavior, and I find neither personal attacks nor uncivil behavior from Kelly Martin nor Cyde Weys. Cyde's first comment to Nathan, as far as I can see, was "Please remove the images in your sig. One is already beyond the bounds of what is expected; three is entirely beyond the bounds of what is expected. See WP:SIG." Nathan responded quite emotionally, implying that even were it policy he would only remove the images is MediaWiki disabled them, and protested perceived blocks and orders. I see no evidence that Cyde or Kelly ever threatened a block, issued an order, or made any other statements besides requests. To me, Nathan's reaction seems quite over the top. If I have missed the incivility or personal attacks, I'd appreciate them being pointed out. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? You're disappointed in me, did you? Two admins ganging up on me, throwing around insults, personal attacks and I'm the guilty party? I don't think so. Nathan 05:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm allowed to edit here, since I am not an admin, so if you need to, revert me.
Reply to Knowledge Seeker:
Kelly Martin said, "Being wilfully impolite, as you are doing, reflects poorly on you as a Wikipedian and will tend to bias people against you.". That means that Kelly Martin is calling Nathan "willingfully impolite" or "rude". And Kelly Martin is saying he is not a good wikipedian. So, calling someone rude and a bad wikipedian can be considered a personal attack. Right?. Also, Kelly Martin said, "I'd strongly suggest that you stop thinking about your "rights" and instead focus on how you can behave in a manner more conducive to maintaining a friendly, productive environment in which to write an encyclopedia.". That means that Nathan doesn't have rights, because Kelly Martin quoted them, which is implying that "rights" are a joke. Also, Kelly Martin is saying that Nathan is not friendly or productive. Nathan is very friendy, because he has many friends. Nathan is very productive, because he has over 6100 edits.
Thanks, --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 03:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

George, you seem to be laboring under at least one misapprehension of the truth: the words you above attribute to Cyde were in fact said by me. I would advise that you retract your comments about Cyde's conduct, given that they are founded in falsehood. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Rights? What rights? You only have two rights on Wikipedia:

1. To fork.
2. To leave.

User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, 6100 edits may mean you are productive, but does not automatically mean you are constructive. Editcountitis (looking at the quantity of edits) may affect the judgment of the quality of the edits. Let's not forget. --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Nathanrdotcom blocked for persistently flaunting a stupidly large and garish signature

Enough is enough. I have blocked Nathanrdotcom for twelve hours for "Persistently flaunting a stupidly large signature with multiple image inclusions". --Tony Sidaway 04:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the block should be removed as soon as he removes the images from his sig (which he can demonstrate by posting to his talk page). --Cyde Weys 04:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an unnecessary escalation. I ask that you reconsider. There are better ways to handle this than blocking Nathan. -- Samir 04:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you think you could do something about that monstrosity of a signature? --Tony Sidaway 05:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the image. But I think your behaviour and your current tone is less than civil -- Samir धर्म (the scope) 06:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This was a massive, massive abuse of power. Thankfully, Tawker overrode the block; however, Mr. Sidaway, blocking someone just because you don't like them is not a valid reason. Please, next time consider acting like a true Wikipedian instead of flaunting your stupidly large and garish power in front of others by attacking innocents (note for the sarcasm deprived; I'm not making any personal attacks. I'm just trying to outline that if you block someone because you don't like them... well. You know.) Mopper ^Speak! 04:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

IANAA, but I concur entirely in MOP's comments. Joe 04:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sadly Nathan does not come out of this looking too good, but frankly his stubborness is trivial, while Tony's overreaction is worrying. I don't see anything here that warrants a block. Gwernol 05:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The blocks are becoming a bit too agressive ... and blocking someone who has a signature with 3 small flags in them (as seen in User talk:Nathanrdotcom) should not happen. Personally I don't find it too garish ... I've seen worse. Or was it some other signature from Nathan? In any case, the sig looks fine to me, and as long as the user is not breaking up anything, I don't see a reason to block him for that. Thanks. --Ragib 05:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh I "don't come out of this looking too good", do I? Two admins ganging up on me and bullying me into changing my sig and I'm the guilty party? I thought as much. Ragib: I never used more than three images in my sig. Nathan 05:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

-Ril- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for having a confusing signature... Alphax ^τεχ 05:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that interestingly enough, this is a pretty big violation of WP:POINT. I leave it to Nathan to decide if he'll pursue action or not. Mopper ^Speak! 05:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, calm down. This is hardly a "massive, massive' abuse of power, nor was he blocked because Tony "didn't like him", nor was it a violation of WP:POINT. I don't have any particular opinion on this block, but Master of Puppets, please do not overreact to such an absurd degree. If you want to criticise someone's actions, do it politely instead of ranting incoherently.--Sean Black ^(talk) 05:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you suggest I react to it? Calmly sit down and chat over tea? I mean, I'm sorry, but last time I heard blocking someone because you don't like their signature is an abuse of power. Maybe not massively massive, but massive. And this ties into WP:POINT; Nathan was blocked because Tony wanted to illustrate the point that he doesn't like long signatures. Clear enough? Mopper ^Speak! 05:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The signature (the one with three tiny flags in it) was fine. There was nothing wrong with Cyde asking Nathanrdotcom to remove it, but the block by Tony Sidaway was uncalled for. Silensor 05:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I aggree with Master of Puppets. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 05:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, he wasn't disruptive and he wasn't breaking any rules. How could he have been rightfully blocked? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 05:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it was a good block. I am confident that it could only have accelerated nathanrdotcom's urgent effort to achieve the Holy Grail: a signature significantly less than three quarters of a kilobyte in size. --Tony Sidaway 05:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. Care to explain how your block was justified? I'm just curious. Mopper ^Speak! 05:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you have to ask. Have you seen it? The signature is unnecessarily large and garish. It is stupidly large, at about 730bytes. It contains several switches of font and mode and three included images,and it also breaks vertical spacing, It distracts the eye and thus makes discussion more difficult to follow,. Nathanrdotcom had been politely asked to change it, but persisted in flaunting it while complaining about those who had requested the change. The degree of disruption caused by this ongoing monstrosity easily merited a brief block to persuade the obviously reluctant editor to stop inflicting it on the shared environment of the wiki. --Tony Sidaway 05:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for your insight. Yes, I have seen this "stupidly large" signature. So now we can cut to the chase; Nathan is asked ordered into changing his signature. Then, when he protests and simply asks for people to consider politely asking, this whole fuss comes about, and he ends up getting blocked. Why? Do I really have to ask? Yes, I do. You blocked him for bringing up a valid point, and then you have the guts to say that he was disrupting Wikipedia? Well, for future reference, trying to defend yourself politely isn't disruption. Just thought I'd let you know. Ironically, know what is disruption and violation of some Wikipedia policies? I know, blocking someone because you don't like what they're doing! So please, stop this conflict; try to apologise, as things are bad enough already. Mopper ^Speak! 05:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

And did any admin (or user) whatsoever come to my talk and explain this politely? No they did not. I had to hear it from another user (Charlie) after the fact. Oh and let me guess, two admins ganging up on me, bullying me and engaging in repeated incivility and personal attacks is perfectly fine, but when I respond to them, it's "disruption"? Riiight. I see how it is.

My entire point is: Cyde or Kelly Martin could have rephrased their request into something a little more tactful like "Your signature contains images which are not against policy but discouraged. This is why they're discouraged: They're a strain on the servers, etc etc. Could you please change it?" instead of "Your sig is against policy. Change it now or else." My thanks go to Charlie. More admins should aspire to be as tactful and polite as he is. — Nathan ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 05:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read what I had to say to you? It seems to me that you must not have, if you think I was ordering you to change your sig. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That block is one of the largest violations of WP:POINT that I've seen in quite some time. Three small images does not an "insanely long signature"" make. You can't block someone just because you don't like them, or don't like something they're doing. Follow process. For the record, I'm on Wikibreak and I've been trying to draft a new signature, as can be seen from some of my recent posts in my talk. I would like Mr Sidaway strongly cautioned on his use of power in the future. I will also not drop this matter until he is so cautioned. Nathan 05:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm for banning all fancy-ass signatures. Some of them aren't that bad I suppose, but when I got to post a reply to someone and am faced with 5 or 6 or 7 lines of gobbledygook á la ;^{[[User_talk:XXX|YYY]]·[[ZZZ|???]]}</font> it's more than a little annoying. And having gone to his page to look at this user's sig, I'll add that it took some time to load. Exploding Boy 05:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's an actual example: — <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>[[User:nathanrdotcom|Natha]][[User:ILovePlankton/My_loyalties_to_my_friends|<font color="#336666">n</font>]] ^{(Got something to say? [[User talk:nathanrdotcom|Say it]].)}</b></font> 05:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC) , 4 lines, and that's just the user's sig. Exploding Boy 05:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, did anyone come to me and explain about signatures (the way it needed explaining, not making threats and accusations while doing it) before the fact? No, they didn't. — Nathan ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 05:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did. In my very first post to your talk page (apparently what started this off), I told you to look at WP:SIG, which very clearly addresses the issue of images in sigs. --Cyde Weys 09:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Without taking sides here, I'd like to point out that the above signature actually intrudes into the text of your own post, making it hard to read. Quite apart from the fact that it can be annoying to scan all those lines of code when posting a reply, and aside from the fact that fancy signatures can be distracting, there are some contributors whose vision problems would make reading the above post near impossible. Just a thought. Exploding Boy 06:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm for stripping admins who disobey policy of their sysop status. But hey, Wikipedia isn't governed by "personallies"; its the community that decides. Mr Sidaway should probably start fixing this by composing a nice, fat apology. Also, remember that WP:BEANS is there for a reason; if the guidebook says, "Don't push the big shiny block button unless you have a good reason to do so," that doesn't mean push the button to annihalate all people you don't like just because you can. Mopper ^Speak! 05:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mopper. Tony Sideawy has not been desysopped for unjustly blocking a user, but Jimbo Wales desysopped a user for unblocking someone. Look at this block log. Maybe we should get Jimbo to come and desysop Tony S. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 05:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Gwernol hits the nail on the head supra; neither should Nathan have been blocked (or been coerced into changing his sig, even as such changing might have been decorous) nor should Tony be desysopped (though he certainly ought to apologize to Nathan in specific and the community in general, inasmuch as his block of Nathan surely disrupted Wikipedia more than did Nathan's using his sig). Joe 05:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I'm sorry, but I also feel that blocking was uncalled for in this case. While the situation did get a bit out of hand, blocking for a 1.5KB signature size is uncalled for because if you want it to be fair, you would need to block everyone with a large signature. There are cases where 1 image is larger in bytesize that 3 are. I feel a user should be free to to express themselves (within reason) in their signature and on their user page. To be fair to nathanr: Samir, I'm not sure if you realized this, but the one image in your signature (as downloaded) is 7.2 KB in size, it would be awesome if you would consider removing or replacing it (see my comment in User talk:nathanrdotcom#Images in sigs for reasoning) but again, it's only a humble request and observation. --Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 05:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Charlie said it best here. The block was not warranted, not to mention that we have and have had dozens of other Wikipedians, administrators included, with equally large signatures. Silensor 05:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no good reason not to block users who persistently flaunt egregiously large and distracting signatures on discussion pages. It's not something to do often, but sometimes it is necessary. I suggest here that Nathan should be commended on his new signature, brief and uncluttered as it is. --Tony Sidaway 05:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I see a reason; policy. Find somewhere where it says you're allowed to block just because you see no reason not to do so, and I will worship you and cover the earth you walk on with rose petals. However, the sad truth is that in order to be an administrator you should obey policy. And you should know this. Administrators are the face of Wikipedia; they represent us. But thanks for apologising, and I also suggest you look over WP:BEANS and WP:POINT for some tips for the future. Also WP:SIG for those specific guidelines. Thanks, Mopper ^Speak! 05:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It is policy that says that an administrator may block a disruptive editor who has been warned. If you believe that I have apologised, you have either misread something that I have written or misattributed something that someone else wrote. Please do read the documents you have cited, with a view to understanding them. --Tony Sidaway 06:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

And I think you should apologise to me and the community for such a blatant violation of WP:POINT. I will accept no commendations from you until you make such an apology and admit that the situation could've been handled a lot better. You don't block for an imaginary violation of policy. — Nathan ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 06:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do read WP:POINT. Please do read the blocking policy. --Tony Sidaway 06:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do read this: I'm not a n00b. I've read said policies several times. I'm not an idiot. Blocking me because of an imagined violation of policy (that doesn't exist) is a violation of WP:POINT - disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. And your point was: We will block those who disagree with us, whether we are right or not. Fact is, you broke WP:POINT. You had insufficient cause to block me. I deserve an apology. Will you admit to all of us that you made a mistake? — Nathan ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 06:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have read WP:POINT and believe that it applies here, then you have not understood it. --Tony Sidaway 06:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Without taking sides here, I'd like to point out that the above signature actually intrudes into the text of your own post, making it hard to read. Quite apart from the fact that it can be annoying to scan all those lines of code when posting a reply, and aside from the fact that fancy signatures can be distracting, there are some contributors whose vision problems would make reading the above post near impossible. Just a thought. Exploding Boy 06:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, you may want to consider changing your signature again, since the current one is obviously problematic. Exploding Boy 06:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that figures: I make the sig shorter as requested/demanded (depending on who you ask) and again someone complains about it...

I see nothing wrong with it. It's short and sweet, uses a different font, has a few links, no images.... — Nathan ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 06:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it definately makes sense. Now that its not even touching any policy (WP:SIG says use of images is discouraged; well, no images), you still complain? Hmm... Mopper ^Speak! 06:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:SIG actually isn't the relevant policy on sigs here (it's only a guideline). The policy principle, which is otherwise unwritten, was actually formulated in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril-. User:-Ril- was an editor who used an unsuitable signature and was required to change it. --Tony Sidaway 06:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at it. See how it forces part of your text to superimpose itself on other parts? Getting rid of the <sup> part would probably fix that. Exploding Boy 06:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Added: also, the post right below yours is tangled up with it too. Exploding Boy 06:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats your browser, I think; it looks ok in my browser. Mopper ^Speak! 06:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at it. I'm using Mozilla Firefox. It looks fine. — Nathan ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 06:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's fine in my browser too. I have firefox at 1024 x 768. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 06:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I switched the rendering engine in Firefox to MSIE. It looks fine there too. — Nathan ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 06:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but "that's your browser" is no excuse, is it. I'm sure a lot of people are using the same browser. And it doesn't look fine in my browser. Looking at the above exchange is making me crosseyed--why should I have to suffer so a few users can have a special signature? What's wrong with the standard sig anyway? Far better to distinguish yourself with your excellent edits than your awesome sig. Exploding Boy 06:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Holy sweet mercy! That sig still eats up several lines! Seriously, Goodness. Back in the day, folks sometimes used blocks as a wake up call. Actually you're still only supposed to use them as a wake up call, not a punishment.

Nathan, I'm seriously not talking with you until you drastically shorten that signature. Not because I don't like you, or because I don't want to talk with you, but ... right now it's like "Hi, my name is Nathan <insert several lines of gobbledygook here>" and I can hardly find what you actually said between all the markup crud, especially if you were to answer several times in a row.

KISS:

• Keep It Simple, Stupid
• Keep It Simple
• Stay Simple
• Simple

Make everything you do on wikipedia as simple as possible, not as complex as possible, else you're making a lot of work for yourself and others.

Kim Bruning 06:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well then suggest an alternative on my talk and we can talk about it there. I don't want the boring default. — Nathan ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 06:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the issue. Provide a link to the userpage and one to talk. None of this link farm nonsense. -Zero^Talk 06:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Current sig aside, I really do think Nathan is owed an apology for the block. Tony Sidaway didn't even contact him prior to blocking him. There are many interpretations to WP:BP; in this case, I think there were avenues short of a block that were available to Tony to solve the dispute -- Samir धर्म 06:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A quick look at Nathan's contributions shows that he's made next to no edits to actual articles in the last week or so. Too much worrying about signatures=not enough editing an encyclopaedia. Exploding Boy 06:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Exploding boy. In fairness for Nathan, his user page says he is on wikibreak so he's only coming back in limited capacity (unless he's a wikiholic like myself). Out of curiosity, Might I ask which screen reader(s)/browser(s) are you using and would you be able to point us to compliance guides for them? I'm sorry that my viewpoint on signatures continues to be it's a way for wikipedians to establish their own identity and give first expressions of themselves. For example in mine, I include my talk page so it'd be easier for people to respond to me or something i've said, as well as a link to My Bio on my research lab's site (As it's important to me and also happens to be how I got into editing wikipedia (as I installed the MediaWiki software and loved it)). Kim... I'm sorry I also have to admit I'm still a bit confused by your arguments against his signature, are you referring to how much space it takes up in edit mode? Thanks --Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 06:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Does absolutely no-one care that Nathan has posted on his talk page that he's having a bit of a hard time at the moment? Will wikipedia cease to function because a user has 3 images in their signature - I don't think so. Should shorter signatures be encouraged - maybe - but projects like Esperanza positively encourage you to link them in your signature. They may not be visable but when you edit the text you get the same long text problem mentioned above. I have a long signature as there are a few things that are important to me that I want people to be able to link to. If the community has a real good reason for wanting this to end then fine - lets have that community wide conversation as was done over the user boxes. It is totally unacceptable in my view to make a point by picking on someone who doesn't need it at this time. I think Nathan is owed an apology and maybe Tony should start a project to discuss the simplification of signatures. If the community wants or needs this I would comply immediately. Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 06:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous signatures simply serve to discredit us as a serious enterprise. I support Sidaway on the block and see no reason, even with the change to the current signature, that the block should have been reverted. 12 hours is no biggie of a block it should have stood.--MONGO 06:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there has to be policy backing it. I see a block where the admin did not speak to the user in question about the issue and characterized his signature as "stupidly" large. Inappropriate in my eyes. -- Samir धर्म 06:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The editor in question had been politely approached by several editors who asked him to change his signature. His response was to continue flaunting the stupidly large signature, and to make inappropriate complaints about the manner in which he was approached. This was an unacceptable response to a serious request. --Tony Sidaway 07:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I'm just trying to make the point that signatures should be the least of our concerns here, and that exotic signatures can actually cause problems for some users.

As to your questions about my browser, I'm using IE6 and that's about all I can tell you. ("Compliance guides"?)

In terms of my issues with signatures, they are, I suppose, threefold: first, all that extra code in edit mode is distracting and confusing; second, they cause problems in regular mode ranging from buggering up how text is displayed to making it confusing to identify a given user, to distracting the eye when you're reading; third, I just don't see why it's necessary to modify the basic signature at all. If I want to know about you, I'll click your user name and read your user page. If I want to talk to you I'll navigate from there to your talk page. What could be more simple? And actually, fourth: I agree with the above user; whimsical signatures do nothing to promote our image (to readers or potential users) as a serious enterprise; it's bad enough we get to edit anonymously... Exploding Boy 06:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Large sigs distract when in edit mode, and if it is long in rendering length, are annoying and distrating when reading pages. This user may be too inclined to get into fights with "the oppressor admins" while not doing much editing, like many semi-trolls here, but he may also just have had a long silly sig and found him self making comments at the wrong time. A good talk comment supported by several (2-3) admins should be given, and then blocks may be handed out if a day goes by and no change. Nevertheless, lets avoid the next pediophile template level drama and let him stay unblocked. His sig still renders to large, so it really should be trimmed down.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 07:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually "A good talk comment supported by several (2-3) admins [28] [29]...and then blocks may be handed out if a day goes by and no change [30]" is precisely what happened here. --Tony Sidaway 07:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Those were my general conditions for such a block. So if that is what happened, as it seems, then I don't have much of a problem with the block. Nevertheless, it is a contraversial block and was undone, so as I said I wouln't reblock (though I doubt many people are considering that).Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 14:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I was going to reply to Nathan here again, at the appropriate location, but I got lost in all the massive signatures. I think I can see the bias in this particular administrators noticeboard post quite clearly. ;-) Would some of the folks here please consider sanity and maybe re-adopt the "boring default". Thanks. Else I'm seriously going to support a ban on sig customisation :-P Kim Bruning 08:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we please calm down the vitriol? Anyone saying Tony needs to be blocked or desysopped is just making themselves out to be reactionary and unreasonable. Let us not forget that this whole thing would've been avoided in the first place if Nathan had simply modified his sig to conform with the established guidelines upon first being asked. It's not too unreasonable to expect that editors don't have sigs that take up five lines of code in the edit window. --Cyde Weys 08:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC

Tony doesn't need to be blocked or desysopped; at least, not yet. Yes, this did start partly because of Nathan, but thats a point of view. For example, had you asked politely, this also could've been avoided. Not saying its your fault, but look what happened when Charlie asked; he suggested a compromise, and voila! A reaction. I realise you may think you didn't bully him or anything, but if you want someone to do something the best action to take is to try to be polite. So to sum up, lets forget the could've-been-avoided-if thing, as that won't help, and try to drop the conflict. Tony still hasn't apologised, by the way. Mopper ^Speak! 08:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I did ask politely. There was not a hint of malice in my initial contact. I simply explained that his sig was far beyond what is generally accepted on Wikipedia; this isn't an accusation against his person, it is a simple fact. He is the one who assumed bad faith and immediately responded in a negative manner. Don't try to pin this on me. --Cyde Weys 08:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not pinning this on you, but you shouldn't pin it on Nathan either. Alright then, they weren't negative; there are still ways of trying to calm someone down instead of continuing on the bad road. Again, something like "Hi, I just saw your signature and it seemed a little disruptive... I was just wondering if you could remove the images, as they can slow down load times, etc. I respect that it is your property however. Thanks, ~~~~". Something like that would've gone a long way. Again, comprimise is a gift. Mopper ^Speak! 08:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"I respect that it is your property" ? Whatever gave you that idea? --Tony Sidaway

Wikipedia isn't the property of any of us. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. Userpages and custom signatures are privileges granted to encyclopedia editors as thanks for their work on the project. --Cyde Weys 08:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume Exploding Boy was being ironic when he said fancy signatures call into question wikipedia as a serious enterprise. Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 08:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Exploding Boy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a coloring book. Simple = Better. Ral315 (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to be a bit of a devils advocate in this segment of the discussion: according to WP:OWN the signature is a place to "own" your input on a discussion or vote. It's true that the content of wikipedia and even of this discussion is GPDL licenced, but like a regular signature the text signature here I feel is akin to a calling card. Hypothetically If i changed my signature to read "Jimbo Wales" with a link to his user page, that would get me banned for impersonating another user, likewise if I started forging others signatures on checks or illegitimate paintings I'd be thrown in jail. While I may find some signatures to possibly be in poor taste (l33t is just of my peeves), I recognize the fact that they are how that user has chosen to portray themselves in the community and barring impersonation, extreme bandwidth load, and breaking of other text and formatting on the page, I feel a signature should be how the user desires it to be. I do not understand the argument that over the top signatures reflect poorly on wikipedia, because I see it as a reflection of the individual. Someone reading this discussion could see that there is a pretty good balance between those with fancy and rather plain signatures, so I don't think large signatures reflect poorly on the community as a whole. --Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 15:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way: Hey Exploding Boy, with respect to "compliance guides", I thought you were using a screen reader as you mentioned people with visibility problems and these screen readers usually have guides on how to program for them. --Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 15:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to register my support for this block, and note that blocks do not mean that administrators hate you, nor do they mean that you're naughty children. It was a "wake-up call" for a signature that was too long and against our signature guidelines. It's perfectly within administrator's rights to block a user for disruption (even minor) where the user had been asked to stop and failed to. Ral315 (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony, like many of us here (including myself) has issues with civility and tact—his choice to involve himself in making user conduct blocks is a questionable decision given these facts. This block, whether justified or not, was unnecessary and caused more damage to the community than good. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 09:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Strike my last. Nathan was being a twat and I would have done the same thing. Good call, Tony. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 09:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Phil, you know better. Name-calling is unfair regardless of circumstances. It's heaping insults where some (including myself) think they are unwarranted -- Samir धर्म 09:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't help feeling if Nathan had said that about anyone else he would have been banned - am I wrong? Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 09:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I humbly apologize. Nathan was acting like a twat. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 09:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This discussion didn't seem long enough ... I'm no fan of Nathan's (old) sig, or many other sigs I see, but was a block justified? IMO, no. Colonel Tom 12:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony's block seems fine to me. Posting a lot of useless, space-consuming crap on many talk pages seems to fit the definition of disruption. In this case, we even have a specific guideline on the issue, which means it's doubly bad. If you keep being disruptive after being warned, you'll be blocked. And if you keep doing it after that, you'll be blocked again. The lesson: don't disrupt Wikipedia. This doesn't seem very complicated. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I also humbly disagree with the block of Nathan. Please try resolving the dispute instead of blocking incoherently. If you were blocking him because of what it said on WP:SIG about images in users signatures, then one should read it again. It states that using images are discouraged, not banned. To Tony: Please try to be as WP:CIVIL as you can with situations. I read the heading of this section was already upset with the choice of words used by yourself. I think an apology to Nathan is in order. DGX 20:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The block was unnecessary. Cyde's original message was brusque and it's understandable that Nathan took offence. As soon as someone explained nicely to him why long signatures were a bad idea he shortened his. Haukur 20:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry I'm a little late to the discussion, but I feel that this block was also unnecessary given the circumstances. Blocks are supposed to be a last resort and are not supposed to be punitive; generally, you warn people that they will be blocked if they continue (i.e. the {{test}} system, etc.). While I also frown upon images in signatures (I've also asked a few people in the past to modify their signatures), a block for having a heated discussion was uncalled for at the time; though I'm not condoning Nathan's actions here, the fact was that his signature and his actions were not disruptive enough to justify a block, given that he disagreed with the guideline and was talking about that with other people on his talk page. For what it's worth, I thank him for finally removing the images, and feel that the two people who initially talked to him were perfectly civil; Kelly Martin was especially tactful and correct. Finally, just a note: "persistently flaunting a stupidly large and garish signature" is an opinion, and comparisons to Ril's signature aren't valid because Ril's signature was mimicking wiki-syntax (~~~~), while Nathanrdotcom's was not. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If anyone would like to discuss imposing technical restrictions on signatures, I'd encourage you to respond to my proposal over at WP:SIG. ~MDD4696 21:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a RFC on my conduct as an administrator in this case. --Tony Sidaway 18:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin harassment block

Phil Welch has blocked Aksi_great for 15 minutes with the reason "harassing an admin." People may please look at the discussion on Phil Welch's talkpage to see if it was indeed harassment. I don't feel it qualifies and believe it to be a roguish act. Even if it were harassment, I believe this is the better place to raise the issue and ask other admins to look at the issue and block the user, if required. Please comment. TIA, --Gurubrahma 10:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The block has been undone but the conversation on the talk page makes disturbing reading for how an admin should behave. Sophia 10:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I am User:Aksi_great. I have recently been blocked by User:Philwelch first for 15 minuted and then the block was extnded for 3 hours. The reason given was harassing an admin.

If you visit Philwelch's talk page you will understand the whole sequence of events. User:Samir asks him "Phil, please don't call him names. Thanks." for whichhe replied "Who the fuck asked you to come to my talk page? I really like being lectured by clueless newbies. Go find yourself a better hobby". At this point I put a no personal attack warning on Philwelch's talk page and I was blocked and asked by him to "Leave me the hell alone! ". On posting a noblock template on my talk page I was further blocked for 3 hours. - 203.88.151.10 10:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

His block was extended because the first block failed to correct his behavior, as can be evidenced by his dialogue with me on his talk page. It had nothing to do with his request for being unblocked. This individual was the third person to come to my talk page and lecture me about policy, starting an entirely new section about it to boot. Yes, I made uncivil remarks and I appreciate those sensible users who came to my talk page to inform me of it. However, the sort of piling-on that Aksi and Samir were engaging in is nothing less than harassment, and is completely unnecessary. If Aksi promises not to engage in such harassment in the future I will unblock him and put this behind me. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 10:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sophia, While I could unblock, I wouldn't, as a matter of principle, since I have raised the issue above. Now Phil Welch has gone ahead and blocked an IP, saying block evasion, an IP from which Aksi_great had contested the block. This is sad because the block on the user itself has been undone by another admin. I request the other admins to view the situation on the talkpages of Aksi_great and Phil Welch and lift the block ASAP. From my limited interaction with Aksi_great, i've found him to be a good user who just completed 2k+ edits. It is very frustrating to be blocked for what is not an offence. Admins should be in a position to take criticism in their stead and maintain civility, not block non-admin users who leave civil messages on the admin's talkpage. --Gurubrahma 10:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict again) In my opinion a totally inappropriate block. I would have removed it myself if it hadn't already been by User:Sundar. I've also give Phil Welch another warning for personal attacks (the ones on his talk page, not the ones here). Petros471 10:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sending an {{npa}} warning to someone who wrote this is definitely not grounds for a block. Although wheel-warring is discouraged under normal circumstances, on this occasion I congratulate the admin who undid the block. AnnH ♫ 10:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, Nathan is a blatant troll, and his posse came to harass me about the blunt manner in which I came to that conclusion and supported Tony's action above. Yes, I should have been more civil about it. But I'll be damned if someone from the troll posse is the one to tell me that. I've accepted Gurubrahma and Petros' recommendations since I actually trust and respect their judgment. People who come to my talk page to stick up for trolls don't get that trust and respect, and I'm sorry it has to be that way. Furthermore—I'm an administrator. I've been here since November 2004. If you're going to come to my talk page to tell me off, have the common decency to do so without a goddamn template. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 10:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

So you regard template warnings as an insult but "mere" users have to accept them as you are an admin - is that it? If you have power and you use it you will be questioned sometimes - deal with it politely and firmly but never rudely as this looks as if you've lost the logic of the argument and are just lashing out. Sophia 11:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a difference in the amount of respect that should be afforded to people who have been here for almost 2 years vs. brand new account holders. I don't use template warnings myself, and would never use them to warn an established user, although for an anonymous IP or brand new account I might. I don't mind my actions being questioned. I do mind being harassed and condescended to by people with less experience than I have. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 11:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I love the new sig. Much cleaner, yet still personalized :) — Phil Welch (t) (c) 11:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You have to learn to live with it. Otherwise we end up in the interesting position where there are a few users who really have been around forever who would be a bit tricky to find someone to critise. Your are a long term admin. Like most you have probably been on the reciving end of every kind of wind up tactic known on the internet. Learn to ignore them. You will be on the reciveing end of plently more.Geni 11:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Philwelch has also blocked Garglebutt over these two edits. While I don't condone the two edits, they don't seem sufficiently abusive to justify a block without warning from the admin he made them to — especially from someone who had just called other editors "twat" or told them to fuck off. AnnH ♫ 12:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Since when has being intoxicated been an blockable offence?Geni 12:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith on that one. THe way he was going off on me, I certainly hoped he wasn't sober at the time. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 12:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the abuse was not enough to justify a block without warning. Phil please consider undoing the block. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It was a three hour block to give him a cooldown period. If it was 24 hours I would definitely unblock, but a three hour block *is* a warning. Incidentally, I never told anybody to fuck off, and I've taken back calling Nathan a twat. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 13:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that you may have been enforcing a cooldown period on him whilst being upset yourself. Who will enforce you to cooldown when tempers get hot? If he needed to cooldown some other admin could have done it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern. But I quite honestly do not believe I would have done differently had the target of his attack been someone else and had my mood been at its best. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 13:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The blocking of Aksi great is completely unwarranted. All Aksi great did was to place one warning template on Phil Welch's talk page & he got blocked for harrasment. In no way does this action constitute as harrasment under Wikipedia:Harassment. Infact Phil Welch has violated WP:NPA several times as shown below;

• Calling nathanrdotcom a troll & Samir & Aksi great troll posse.[31], [and above]
• Calling Nathan a "twat" several times [32], [33]
• Calling Samir a "clueless newbie" & asking him to "fuck off". [34]

Here we can see that Phil Welch has violated WP:NPA several times, not to mention abused his powers as admin by blocking Aksi great twice. Also the person you are calling a "clueless newbie", Samir, has infact got over 2300 edits & has been with Wikipedia since July 2005. I suggest that Phil Welch apologize to Nathan, Samir & Aksi great immediately. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 13:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer not to respond to every delayed reaction on this topic, but in my defense: I never told Samir to fuck off. Not once. Check the diff yourself. I unblocked Aski before you even made that comment. Samir and I have reconciled, as anyone can see by reading my talk page. Finally, I didn't call Nathan a twat, I simply said he was acting like one. There is a distinction, which I've clarified more than once. I do think Aski was acting in a harassing manner towards me for reasons I've already adequately explained. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 14:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

See my comments below. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Philwelch is an admin?

I just got in a huge fight with User_talk:Philwelch, he ignored a {{inuse}} tag and then started a revert war.[35] [36] His behavior above, and his behavior to me today shows that he obviously is not up to admin standards. How does someone go about getting an admin demoted? Isn't the first step a discussion RFC on User_talk:Philwelch behavior? I am shocked this guy is an admin.Travb 14:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Great, my very own lynch mob. I thought we'd settled this, but apparently you can't let go. Go ahead and file an RfC. In fact, print it out and mail me a copy—I'm running low on toilet paper. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 14:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Your contempt for RfC illustrates the underlying problem.Travb 15:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering that I've had to warn Travb about civility and personal attacks before to other users (his response was to blank the warnings), he should put his own fused silica domicile in order before tossing missles composed of crustal material. ;) --Syrthiss 14:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Your right. You warned me about messaging vandals to stop vandalizing and I called them idiots, and I did erase those messages. But aren't we talking about User:Philwelch here, his verbal attacks, his 3RR, his disregard for wikirules? My misbehavior should be punished, I agree. If there is a punishment for my behavior, please do it. All I am asking for is that the rules be applied fairly and equitably, and in this case, the obviously are not. There is one standard for admins, and another standard for everyone else. I have seen so many people get booted for 3RRs, and yet Phil gets off scot free with an weak apology. Travb 15:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

My point was everyone can have a bad day. I didn't keep after you for blanking the warning since I felt you had agreed and would make an effort to improve. The 3rr situation with Phil appears to the outside exactly the same: he agreed you were correct about the 3rr and blocked himself, but since blocks aren't meant to be punitive we can assume he's going to make an effort to avoid that. If he's going to avoid it, there's no reason that he needs to be blocked...and if he happens to go back to the reverted article, then we can deal with that situation at that time. This seems like a lot of energy being expended by editors who could be moving on. Syrthiss 15:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, file an RfC or get over it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Third Party Opinion

Well, I missed all the foofaraw about this when it was happening, and I've never had any interaction with Nathan before. Furthermore, I think that most people would agree that I'm not exactly the president of the Tony Sidaway Cheerleading Squad, so I hope my opinion on this carries some weight: this is a good block. Reading through the talk page it is clear that Nathan is simply spoiling for a fight. Several polite requests were made on his talk page, and he characterized them as acts of aggression and began, metaphorically, shouting "Murder! Theft! Arson! Dictatorship!" We have a word for that kind of behavior: disruption. Nathan wasn't simply blocked for having a stupidly large signature, he was blocked for being disruptive. The best way to avoid being blocked for disruption is to avoid engaging in disruptive behavior. Hopefully he has learned his lesson, and it won't have to happen again. Those of you who are defending Nathan's behavior in this matter should be asking yourself why you are wasting your time on this instead of editing an encyclopedia. Nandesuka 14:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, you did a much better job of stating that than I did. I'm not even REMOTELY a Tony Sidaway fan, but I agree with his judgment here. I stated this opinion in a slightly less civil way earlier, and that led to consequences—I think I can take back what I said earlier and just add a "me too" to Nandesuka's opinion. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 14:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I am back (before the 4 hour period, but even then...). Today has been a bad day for me. I seem to have got caught up in something which I never knew about (the sig. image issue). But still, I feel that I did what was right and am not going to apologise for what I have done. It was within the rights of User:Samir_(The Scope) to have aksed Phil to be civil. But instead he was abused and called a newbie. Everyone know what happened next. I never was the one who lost my cool. In fact, I eve wrote on Samir's talk page - "You probably caught him at the wrong moment. Don't lose your cool. I am sure he will regret saying that once he cools down.". That was just moments before I got blocked.

I understand that Phil is an admin, and that he has been here 1 year before I have been, but I too have been doing my part to build an encyclopedia. It feels bad to be called a troll, and to be blocked. When I used the unblock template on my talk page, I was further blocked by Phil (to correct your behavior - accroding to him). What behavior is he talking about? I agree that the talk page is a personal page, but he has no right to abuse others on that page. I also agree that it may have been unwise to use a template for an experience user, but why waste time on writing what is already written. If a warning template cannot be used on an admin then it cannot be used on anyone else. I am not going to take this anywhere else and this is probably the last time I am writing here. How can I be acting in a harassing manner when I made a single remark on his talk page. This is the first time I ever heard about Phil. I feel that I should atleast be given an apology, considering the fact that my block log is an open notebook. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the above before Phil apologised to me on my talk page. I accept the apology and request other users not to carry on this discussion forward. It serves no purpose as it wastes my time and Phil's time too. Let us do what we have come here to do. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel this is a great example of how a potentially explosive situation was settled very peacefully by a few mutual apologies & reconcilations. I must commend all the parties involved for settling this issue with civility. I feel that I too owe an apology to Phil Welch for posting my comments behind the pace of the ongoing discussions. I had written that section when it was relevant & forgot to hit "save" then later mistakenly posted it. Now let bygones be bygones & as Phil has quoted on the Incidents page "Lets write an encyclopedia". Thanks Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 14:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Russoc4

This user received a warning for vandalising my userpage, which he afterwards removed. I thought that there was a rule about removing warnings from talk pages, so I restored the warning to his talk page and commented on him removing it. He afterwards responded angrily on my talk page, saying that he could do whatever he wanted to his talk page and telling me to leave it alone. Could an administrator please talk with him about the issue of talk page warning removal?--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 10:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If someone removes a warning, they have taken an action to deal with it. You can safely assume that they have seen the warning, and continue on that basis.Kim Bruning 12:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Decision not to have a fellow admin blocked

Jareth decided to have a fellow admin, User_talk:Philwelch not blocked for a three revert rule which User_talk:Philwelch admitted to. User_talk:Philwelch blocked himself, then after two minutes, unblocked himself. After User_talk:Philwelch incredibly uncivil behavior, he realized that he was guilty of 3RR and to avoid getting booted, he apologized. The bottom line is that User_talk:Philwelch broke the 3RR rule and should be blocked. It is not fair to have different standards for different people, and after what User_talk:Philwelch did to me today, starting a revert war, ignoring my inuse tag, and ignoring my admonishions to please stop, he should be booted for 24 hours, just like everyone else.

Supporting info: [37] [38] Travb 14:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As Jareth says, blocks are preventive, not punitive. Philwelch can be trusted not to continue reverting the article in question. This is a good thing, not something to get upset about. Henry^Flower 14:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What happens when he reverts again, will you personally boot him? He already broke the 3RR rule once.Travb 15:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Phil Welch didn't unblock himself. Jareth unblocked him 5 minutes after Phil blocked himself. --Syrthiss 14:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

My complete block log reiterates Syrthiss's remark. I'd also like to mention that Special:Contributions/Travb shows that Travb's most recent edits have shown an inability to let go of this dispute and an unhealthy obsession with me. Nonetheless, I still hold out hope that I can work constructively with this editor. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 14:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

All I am asking for is that the rules be applied fairly and equitably, and in this case, they obviously are not. There is one standard for admins, and another standard for everyone else. I have seen so many people get booted for 3RRs, and yet Phil gets off scot free with an weak apology. Travb 15:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I was mistaken about Phil unblocking himself, for that I apologize.

Please keep in mind that Phil initiated this entire episode. He started the revert war, he ignored my inuse tags, he ignored my plea to stop reverting, and he had uncivil behavior. What was the reaction: the admins gave him a free pass. As shown above with other users, this is not the first time Phil has abused his powers as an admin, nor is it his last.

Phil instigated a Personal attack on the intervention board, and yet he is the only one being abusive, he has called me a tempermental child, has said that he would use my RfC as toilet paper, and now he says that I have an "unhealthy obsession". Above he said: "Who the fuck asked you to come to my talk page? I really like being lectured by clueless newbies. Go find yourself a better hobby".

If I said, for example, that his picture is insulting every time I go to his wikipage because he is not very good looking, that he needs to buy accutane, and that he is obviously an immature loser who is obssesed with his insignifgant power, what would happen to me? Would the admins simply let it go if I apologized as User_talk:Philwelch did, and forget the whole thing happened? Well, now we can find out.Travb 15:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If Phil Welch apologised, there was no need to block. Blocks are never punitive. --Tony Sidaway 18:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Stillstudying

I'm sorry for posting this here, but I really get upset when something like this happens, and I can't find a notice board for Esperanza's currently. It seems that Max (as his signature reads) came, was quickly suspected of being a sock puppet and was driven away. Could others help in a last ditch effort to get him to say? User talk:Stillstudying Thanks --Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 16:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

User:204.133.228.253

He has continually vandalised Gamer.tv and other articles, and he has been warned more then enough times for doing so. ILovePlankton ^{(T—C—U—L)} 16:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. In the future, please take this to WP:AIV. :) RadioKirk talk to me 16:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, and I will. ILovePlankton ^{(T—C—U—L)} 16:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A strange log?

Hello! I just saw the strangest log for a user today, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Profilevoter -- is this a new software feature for MediaWiki now? --HappyCamper 19:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like maybe a vulnerablility in the MediaWiki software? --Syrthiss 19:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[39]. It appears to be when an account is created when you're logged in. Will (^E_@) T 19:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see. Wacky. --Syrthiss 20:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

See? It's something really really weird. I've never seen it before. I'm logged in, but I don't get that. Any other ideas? --HappyCamper 20:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It worked for me: [40]. And I got promptly blocked! Curps, you are awesome. My first block! Oh, I should also note here that I unblocked myself. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Errm, why did Curps block you and not your sock? Anyway, is there some way of harnessing this feature for serious sockpuppet detection? Petros471 20:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That would only work if they were logged in when they created the sock. ILovePlankton ^{(T—C—U—L)} 20:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now I understand...I had to read this at least 15 times before I understood this. Basically, if you create a new account while you're logged in, you'll get those entries in the log. Ah! That makes sense now...I had no idea the software kept track of this. --HappyCamper 21:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I had seen it for a little bit, but was a little confused. But there I went and made Lord Voldebot [41]. :-) --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[42] I have also created many accounts while logged on. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 00:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a good way to make sure that doppleganger accounts are easily intentifable as such and not imposter accounts. Could someone who understands this add instructions and give a brief explanation at WP:DOPP. Thryduulf 07:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

…and remind people about {{doppelganger}} also, which is in the instructions but seems to slip past most people's attention. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde again.

I posted to Cyde's talk that his actions thus far have been incivil, attacking, bullying and he broke Wikipedia policy.

Apparently, I'm a troll and a stalker for telling him he's wrong.

When are some admins around here going to realise that WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL apply to them as well? You can't break policy just because you feel like it.

I urge someone to strongly warn Cyde that his behaviour is beyond the boundaries of what is acceptable. - Nathan (now redirecting en.wikipedia.org to 127.0.0.1 so I don't post anything) 02:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Despite your protests to the contrary, Cyde's request was hardly uncivil. Indeed, I'd considered asking the same thing of you, but he beat me to it. Your response to his and other users' reasonable requests has been nothing short of astonishing. I cannot fathom why you've reacted so badly. Mackensen (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you felt it was necessary to post these attack messages on my user talk page today (and attack messages they were, you were accusing me of all manner of things). There was no need for it. You had already said that you felt I was bullying you, and guess what? I was leaving you alone. But for whatever reason you felt like you had to start it up again by posting more of the same personal attacks thinly veiled under allusions to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Frankly I'm starting to think you're looking for a fight. --Cyde Weys 02:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

And yes, I do think saying "Are you going to block me now for disagreeing with you?" is trolling for a block. --Cyde Weys 02:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

CAT:CSD

The backlog is now over 200 pages, somebody might want to clear it out. --Rory096 05:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been pretty much taken care of. Snoutwood (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Back up to over 100 now. --Rory096 07:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for block review of Lulu of the Lotus Eaters

• Crossposting is bad, so I'm moving this thread to join it's other half at wp:ani. Please don't comment any more here. - brenneman^{L} 08:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism - LIST BACKING UP

Big back up starting guys - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 08:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again as above - list growing - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 09:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparent impersonator blocked

Earlier tonight, I blocked User:LeFIyman indefinitely for being too similar to (and probably an intended impersonator of) User:Leflyman. It just occurred to me that I probably ought to note it somewhere, but I wasn't sure where was the best place. Anyway, here it is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

24.12.158.51 continues vandalism

User 24.12.158.51 seriously needs to be blocked from further editing. He has previously been blocked under his sockpuppet User:Atticus765, and multiple other sock puppets. He continues to delete information from various band articles (including No Doubt, The All-American Rejects, The Used, Weezer, and many more), as well as musical genre articles (Classic rock, Emo (music), List of pop punk bands, etc.), and replaces it with his unfactual perceptions of what genres said artists fall in. He was warned multiple times by multiple users on all of this user talkpages. My last attempt to list him on WP:AIV fell on deaf ears as he was said to "have stopped". His contributions history proves the contrary. --HarryCane 09:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now blocked 24.12.158.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for a week for block evasion (it looks static, so might be appropriate to extent if he returns to using it). I've also placed an indefinite block on Atticus765 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for repeated block evasion and showing no sign of changing editing habits decide numerous warnings and previous blocks. If people think that this indefinite block is too harsh, I won’t object to it being shortened, so I’m posting this here for review. Petros471 10:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Pi

Just out of curiosity is this allowed? I quote:

The result of the debate was speedy keep the content. As comments overwhelmingly addressed the content of the box rather the status which it occupies, I'm closing this as a subst the content and delete the actual template. No actual content is lost in the process, and the removal of said code to a user's page places it beyond the bailiwick of TfD and CSD. Mackensen (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That seems like the admin is just interpreting the vote in a way he likes, but I'm not entirely familiar with policy in this matter, so I'm asking here. +Hexagon1 (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

xfD discussions are not votes, and admins are not required to give a damn about the tally (I make a point of never knowing how many users "voted" one way or another when closing these sorts of discussions). Mackensen closed it with a solution that, he thought (based on how he read the discussion), would satisfy all participants. This was entirely appropriate behaviour on his part.

Of course, the magic word "delete" appeared and so, regardless of the practical effect of the TfD close, we now have a swarm of userbox fans on DRV saying "you're deleting our userbox even though we had a majority of votes to keep!". And people say AfD is bad! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

20+ people voted keep, 12 of whom said in no uncertain terms that they were talking about the template itself. In the ensuing discussion on WP:DRVU, I added up the votes from the TFD. 12 people said unambiguously keep, meaning keep the template itself. 6 people said unambiguously delete the template itself. 11 said keep and didn't specify what they meant by "keep". This is a real problem we have here. If anti-userbox administrators are just going to delete userboxes, in clear defiance of a supermajority or they are going to speedy userboxes they don't like for no particular reason, why are we even having a discussion? They're doing the same thing whether the vote is keep or delete. Regardless of your opinion on userboxes, out of process deletions are dead wrong and need to stop. To delete userboxes out of process or, in this case, flying in the face of overwhelming consensus, is arguably an abuse of administrative powers. BigDT 12:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

One thing I should add here, since not everyone reads DRV and elsewhere, User:Mackensen said on WP:AN/I, "I'm halting all further administrative action on my part regarding userboxes" and agreed on WP:MACK with a statement of mine about out-of-process deletions ending as a part of the policy discussion, so as far as I'm concerned, there is no longer an administrative issue to be dealt with - it's not in danger of happening again, so there's no incident to be dealt with. BigDT 12:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This close was in line with current closing practice on xFD; needless to say, all closes are subject to review. I like it for its solomonic quality, keeping the content (which is perfectly acceptable for a user page) and disposing of the problematic template. --Tony Sidaway 18:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• • But that's the problem - this "current closing practice" is inventing a new policy that doesn't exist and is reading into the votes something that isn't there. Rather than assuming good faith, the administrators are assuming that everyone voting is a mindless robot who will vote keep arbitrarilly on every userbox. BigDT 00:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Bug?

Check this version of Macedonia (Greece) vs the next one. The image (flag) dissappears if it has 195px width, and reappears with 194px. I hope the problem is less significant than a narrower flag by 1 pixel!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried purging the image (the trick which usually fixes these thumbnail problems), but it didn't solve the issue. You should ask on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), where there's a greater chance someone who knows how to fix it will read about the issue. --cesarb 18:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it's already been reported at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Bad thumbnail. I will copy your message to there. --cesarb 19:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to ban User:KDRGibby under the terms of his General Probation

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby

In his arbitration case, KDRGibby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was found to have shown extreme discourtesy, failed to assume good faith, indulged in personal attacks and tendentious editing, edit warred, blanked large sections of articles on controversial articles without discussion, acted immaturely and made specious complaints.

Since his arbitration case, KDRGibby has been blocked for personal attacks, general incivility, tendentious editing, attacking administrators when warned, and edit warring. He has been banned from two articles under his probation. He has repeatedly violated the ban on one of these articles. He has been blocked eight times in the past ten weeks, the last two times for one month each. His behavior shows no improvement and his talk page is currently protected after his continued incivility and personal attacks on the talk page while blocked.

The above two paragraphs comprise a summary of his case, full details of which are at the case page of his arbitration, linked above.

I have contacted all of the administrators involved in enforcement of this case, suggesting that, in view of the failure of the enforcement measures so far to improve his behavior, and the lack of any sign that he is both capable of and willing to reform, we should invoke the General Probation remedy of his arbitration case, and ban him from Wikipedia.

KDRGibby is placed on general probation. Any three administrators, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban him from Wikipedia if his general pattern of activity is unacceptably disruptive. Such a ban and the basis for it shall logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby#Log of blocks and bans.

Two of those administrators have responded so far, each indicating that he has no objections.

Accordingly, I open the proposal to further discussion. KDRGibby is currently blocked for one month, and the block terminates in mid-June. --Tony Sidaway 14:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• I haven't yet reviewed his recent "contributions" in detail (hadn't realized he was back until informed by Tony), but if this sample is anything to go by, he's back to exactly the same stuff that had him on probation, and then blocked for a month, last time. If we're serious about enforcement of such rulings, he must merit at least a longer block this time, and I'd find it hard to argue against a permanent ban. Alai 14:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Here's what I said in February: It's pretty much a waste of time to put him on any sort of parole -- he knows full well he's under close scrutiny, and continues the same nasty ways. If the max period is one year after five blocks, ok, but it's a foregone conclusion the more drastic remedy will be applied; he's been given plenty of chances. I don't see any change for the better and don't expect any. If there was some chance a one year ban would have some useful effect, I'd recommend that; maybe that would give him time to mature a bit. But I'd back a full ban as well. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support year long ban, failing that permban. - FrancisTyers 15:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Scanning his list of contributions reveals that he is loath to add proper edit summaries; those he does bother to add are often insulting and bad-tempered. A quick sampling of edits reveals that the content of his comments to other editors are often off the same calibre. If this is the behaviour of someone currently on parole, then he needs to be taught a stronger lesson. Endorse ban. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. —Ruud 18:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support - He will make for an excellent indefinitely banned user. --Cyde Weys 23:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse indef block, as I was the one who talked about it in IRC. KDRGibby had quite a few chances to redeem himself including a prior one month log ban, but as soon as that ban ended, KDRGibby started edit warning and severe personal attacks in his talk page again. Gibby doesn't look willing to learn and already lost most of the communitty paintence. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've enacted the ban. --Cyde Weys 23:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've recorded this as an indefinite ban, and told KDRGibby on his user talk page that he can appeal it to the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo. Please note that this is a General Probation ban, not a community ban; it cannot be summarily rescinded by a dissenting administrator. --Tony Sidaway 00:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Creation-evolution controversy

Would an admin please revert to the the state the article was when it was protected and protect it again. We have not reached a consensus. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, someone posted an unprotect request on this article and I unprotected it earlier today. It appears, judging from the talk page, that pretty much everyone but Ems agrees on compromise language. I don't think the article needs to be protected over one person's disagreement. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 16:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Kate seems properly to adjudge the situation, IMHO; protection seems unnecessary. Joe 17:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have sourced Judaism beliefs to be different to what the article claims even in the apparently "consensused" form. Currently most Jews are busy because of Lag B'omer. The unprotection request was a very sneaky one because they should know that we are away it was even published on the Main Page. Please revert and protect it. I don't not want to break WP:3RR. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please protect the article already. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 17:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If enough other people disagree with you that you are in danger of violating the 3RR, perhaps you should accept that your viewpoint may be in the minority. If you are still dissatisfied, use dispute resolution. An article cannot be protected because one out of many editors working on an article disagrees. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 17:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked Cathytreks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for legal threats

I have blocked the above user for one week for threatening legal action against Wikipedia and Jpgordon (talk · contribs). Please review - as always rescind if appropriate to do so. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this block. I warned the user shortly before ESKog blocked, so I agree with the block totally. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 18:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Since she immediately rescinded the threat once informed of the policy, I think she should be unblocked, along with a warning that her repeated posting of the same text on Talk:Abraham Lincoln is disruptive behavior that will be cause for blocking. Obviously, I'm involved in the dispute, so I'd rather someone else do whatever. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

LordDeskana has unblocked, but has promised to keep an eye on him. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Error on frontpage

Can someone please fix an error on the frontpage? See Template_talk:In_the_news#Error_on_Hirsi_Ali. Gerrit ^CUTEDH 20:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Has been fixed by another administrator already. For future reference you may report errors on the main page to WP:ERRORS. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be dense...

but is there an easy way of undoing an autoblock other than blocking and unblocking the IP? I had an email from a university user who was caught up because a vandal had been using the university's proxy. Times like this you find out how little you know... Just zis Guy you know? 21:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You can find it on the Ipblocklist (off Special pages, along the left rail of monobook) and click on unblock. I'm not sure that this method is any easier, though... · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 21:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This tool is linked at the top on Special:ipblocklist. As long as the autoblock is long enough ago to have made it past the toolserver replication lag, it makes finding the autoblock easy given the IP or the admin that made the block. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't actually rely on the toolserver replication at the moment but periodically "scrapes" the logs, so provided its more than say 10 minutes old it'll probably be there, similary if they get unblocked quickly they never show up there. --pgk^(talk) 22:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have also heard that just unblocking the IP (no need to block it before) is enough to clear the autoblock. I never tried to do it that way; I usually go to the Ipblocklist and unblock from there. --cesarb 22:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Losing my patience

Can someone more patient than I help out Iloveminun (talk · contribs) with copyright, template, and category issues? Said user is making many redundant templates and categories, as well as repeatedly asserting {{GFDL-self}} on an image that is derivative of a copyrighted images. I'm at the end of my rope. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh most of the stuff I could find by him in template space seemed to be either redundant or unwikipedian, so I just deleted it. --Tony Sidaway 23:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images on user page

Could someone kindly explain to Tarikochi that images with a fair use copyright are not allowed on his user page. The only place (some of) the images go is his user page and are orphans if they are not linked to an article. I already extensivly covered that these images are not allowed on his page, but he reverts to the previous version stating it's his page. Someone wanna take this one? DGX 01:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Message left. Prodego ^talk 01:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! DGX 01:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood--a case for a temporary ban from Wikipedia under his General Probation?

Instantnood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been a frequent client of the Arbitration Committee and the administrators who voluntarily enforce their remedies:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_3
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al.

Unfortunately the scope of the specific remedies in his cases do not yet seem to match the scale and inventiveness of his disruption. Typically he will choose a dozen or so articles, edit war on them over some detail of nomenclature, get banned and move on to another set of articles where he'll edit war on the same point.

This absorbs an appreciable amount of administrator time and it can be rather demoralizing to realise, a couple of weeks later, that one has only succeeded in moving the venue of the disruption. It has also become all but impossible to track the articles from which Instantnood has been banned as a result of remedies in those of his arbitration cases that reached completion (2 and 3).

A General Probation applies in Instantnood's case. I propose to use it in the hope of convincing Instantnood that he cannot continue in this way.

The probation reads as follows:

Instantnood is placed on general probation indefinitely. Any three administrators may, for good cause, ban him from the site. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3#Log of blocks and bans.

I open this to general discussion. My own thoughts are that a two week ban from Wikipedia might serve to convince Instantnood, a certified Wikipediholic, that he cannot continue to edit war indefinitely. But I'm not set on this. Perhaps there is a better way of handling this. --Tony Sidaway 01:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)