Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:39, 5 February 2006

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

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, Requested moves, Overpopulated categories and Copyright Problems.

General

==Requested Lock of Kurdistan Article by Administration--

ADMIN badly needed in Kurdistan someone keeps writing political propaganda saying Kurdish flag is criminal and banned in Iran which is false. They even add a fake link which has nothing to do with the flag to make false justifications.

Checkuser lite

Since it involves admins in gereral, admin opinion on this is more than welcome. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 12:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Samscone

The only edits this account makes is to vandalise the Sam Sloan page and to remove references to Sam Sloan in other articles. Isn't this the kind of impersonating account which gets blocked from Wikipedia? Surely, it's just been made to rhyme with Sam Sloan's name? - Hahnchen 17:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a block is justified yet. I left another warning on his talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't mean blocking for general vandalism or anything, he isn't that prolific. I thought that this was a candidate for one of those "username blocks", like Jimbo Whales, or when people replace an l for a capital I to impersonate people. - Hahnchen 18:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked him for twenty-four hours. I'll look into permanently blocking. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spamscone (note the additional "p") is the Screen Name for Neil Brennen on the Usenet group rec.games.chess.politics . The name "Spamscone" is a spoof on my name and Brennen has attacked me hundreds of times there. I do not know if the Spamscone there is the same person as the Samscone here, but he is probably the same person as he follows the same pattern. Sam Sloan 11:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Mr. Sloan is a paranoid idiot. I am not "samscone". That Wikipedia continues to allow the Sam Sloans of the world to post their drivel is but another reason to ignore this site. Neil Brennen.[reply]

Jason Gastrich

Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) has been warned a few ties about civility; this [1] seems to me to be unacceptable. Any reason I should not issue an npa3 warning, and act on it if he continues? I have an ongoing dispute with Gastrich (see also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich, which shows some history of attacks) but this is neither to or about me, so I see no reason not to issue a formal warning, but I want to do the right thing. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ongoing discussion about this fellow on WP:AN/I plus a RfC at the obvious place. I blocked him for 24 hours earlier for various stuff. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I think a block now would hinder the RFC process. I will leave a not on his Talk page to that effect. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 11:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to give Jason a short leash at this point. We've indefinitely blocked users (BigDaddy777 comes to mind) for far less than what Jason has done. So right now I say let RfC work and see what happens. But there has to be a point where we say "enough". --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jaulern is yet another sock of his. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich is sufficient to indef-block the known and suspected socks, only one of which (Turkmen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) is currently active anyway. For values of active which encompass being temporarily blocked for disruption, obviously. I will do that now. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revealing deleted content to non-administrators

I'm not quite sure what I should do here. I recently speedily deleted a page for nn-bio; the page was written by someone other than the subject of the article, and the subject of the article wants to see what was there before it was deleted. Quoting from my talk page:

... another reason as to why i would like to see the material is to determine if malice was intended. i have been getting quite a bit of flak from people who have seen the article and seeing the content would hopefully enable me to identify the person who posted the article and hence, pursue the appropriate courses of action.

So far, I've been politely refusing to do dig out the deleted material. However, what's the relevant policy on this? Thanks. enochlau (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My view is, what would it hurt? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be a mis-use of admin powers though? I mean, we don't have the ability to view deleted content for the pleasure of non-admins. enochlau (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to these admins who have put Template:User recovery on their user page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back to your question, you might want to read WP:DRV#Content review. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for the links! enochlau (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not every user who can be trusted to view deleted content is an administrator. Whether or not to reveal deleted content is a choice you've gotta make — ably guided by Zzyzx11's links, of course — but I don't think it's a good idea to hide everything from non-admins just because they're not admins. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is a good reason not to release deleted content (copyvio attack page) I've never seen a reason not to. The content is under the GFDL after all.Geni 12:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the good reasons would be things like copyright violation and libel, etc. So if the information could be considered as libel, then revealing it after deletion could be contributory in that. - Taxman ^Talk 15:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A similar incident occured before. What I did (at someone else's suggestion) was undelete the page, move it to my userpage, delete the redirect, protect the page in my userspace, and give the url to the interested party. This lets them view the whole history and all the information we have, but also prevents it from looking like a real article. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some, but not all, deleted content is sensitive. For instance, if a copyvio or attack page is deleted, recovering that content for a non-administrator might in effect constitute copyright violation or defamation. However, if a nonsense or fancruft page is deleted, recovering that content wouldn't cause any problems. Use common sense. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 03:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users can ask for undeletions at WP:DRV, including having the info moved to their User space. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Category: User undeletion comprising administrators who will undelete stuff of send its contents in email (provided it's not objectionable or illegal). --Tony Sidaway 19:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soapboxing and user pages

User:KJVTRUTH is using his page to soapbox about an issue he hasn't been able to get consensus on. A one of the editors on the consensus side has taken it upon himself to remove this information from his userpage, and another has MfD'd it outright, citing [2]. Is this appropriate use of WP policies? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 18:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do I understand correctly that someone has listed this guy's user page for deletion because of a content dispute? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's been listed on MfD as a breach of Wikipedia:User page, namely for being used as a soapbox for matters unrelated to an online encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly -- he put content on that page that in part violates WP:V, since it got reverted every time he tried to put it in List of Freemasons, and WP:NPA, for the same reason. See this diff for the version prior to the MfD.--SarekOfVulcan 19:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute - listing on MfD looks petty. Secretlondon 23:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said "stupid and obnoxious", myself. Stupid and obnoxious in the best of good faith, of course. And people wonder why *FD gets a bad reputation ... - David Gerard 13:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closed by Tony already. Not like it would have been deleted anyways. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me

Hello, I am blocked user Jimbo Wheels, and would like a way of proving that I am certainly not Willy on Wheels so that I can be unblocked - how do you guys suggest I go about this? The current way I am trying on my talk page doesn't seem to be all that productive. (Posting this from an anonymous ip - 84.9.94.232 - but please reply on my talk page.

Cheers,

Seymore

Oh, and also - first of all why were my edits to Huntingdon Life Sciences reverted by that guy, and secondly the link to Huntingdon's stance on ethics is a 404 - it should point to http://www.huntingdon.com/index.php?currentNumber=4&currentIsExpanded=0 and as I was clearly saying I was trying to do that until I was banned. This stinks of knee jerk reactions and a refusal by you guys to even countance that I might be acting reasonably just because of some mindless vandal. Why the hell should I be presumed a vandal without making edits like a vandal? You are letting the vandals win. I am pretty annoyed by this, but even more annoyed by the way that you are ignoring me.

You are illustrating the definition of disingenuous. Arriving in this community with that user name is like showing up at a synagogue social hour with a nametag that reads Jesus Hitler. If your name choice had been an unfortunate coincidence, you would have thanked the person who suggested you change it and quickly complied. I am aware that I have just fed an obvious troll, but will happily extend the block as an act of contrition. No more conversation. alteripse 12:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well for the moment I will use this username, and I think you will be able to watch my contributions over time and see how wrong you are. But the synagogue thing is an interesting comparison. It would indeed be a silly thing to do going to a synagogue called Jesus Hitler if one were named Francis Drake. But if you were actually named Jesus Hitler, it would be reasonable to expect perhaps some disbelief, but also for this to be suspended if you were to produce (for example) a driving licence. The same applies here. JW2 12:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I for one believe that your name really is Jimbo, Seymore. Oh, wait... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seymore is my nickname. Seymour is my middle name. JW2 12:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a good faith request. If the guy's a wrong un then he'll be blocked for more than just having a name that spooks people. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guy's last name is Wheels? I don't think so. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dissinterested third party here, but I also run a forum website. Banning someone just because their membername is similar to a (or some) membernames of those that have violated the ToS (Terms of Service, or site policy) seems rather unjust. I fail to see why anyone would be banned just for this kind of similarity. Similarities do not prove that they are the same person, this seems more like a corrupt administrator who's policy is ban first, ask questions later which is also rather detrimental to the community. This looks more like a power-trip than anything else. Ask me about how we deal with repeat trollers at Varus Online. (Lady Serena 21:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Deletion gordian knot

We've been discussing the merits and suggesting changes to AFD for at least half a year now. So it's about time we stop talking and actually do something. The simplest variant to AFD would be to list all proposed deletions, and delete all that nobody objects to within several days. Since about 80% of AFD are obvious keeps or obvious deletes, we can accomplish the same with far less bureaucracy and negativity. Wikipedia:Proposed deletion does just that, and is intended to go for a test run very soon. Please join the discussion there. Note that this should solve the issues regarding deletion recently raised by Jimbo on the mailing list. R adiant _>|< 17:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like this. With the current system, I can skim the day's AfD page, and if it seems like there is a strong consensus, I don't have to vote at all. With your proposed system, someone checking AfD would need to read every proposed article before knowing whether the article should be deleted. (I hope that wasn't confused... what I mean is I trust the AfD voters, and they save me time. With this, there are no votes to "trust"). -Greg Asche (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you're saying that people on AFD vote, and that they do so without actually reading the article, and that this is actually a good thing? By this proposal, you're not supposed to look for issues to vote on - you're supposed to find articles with a problem, and fix that. R adiant _>|< 01:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think he is sayign that when he sees a dispute, he reads the article and votes, but when he sees a clear consensus forming, he trusts the other voters, does not read the article and does not vote. But simce with Wikipedia:Proposed deletion there would be nothing but the nom, someone who wants to avoid improper deletions must check every case, or assume that someone else that s/he trusts has done or will do so. Of course the same problem exixts now with speedy deletes. DES ^(talk) 01:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, fair enough. But if there was a dispute about an article, it would have at least token oppoistion, and thus would no longer be listed on Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Radiant_>|< 01:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - True. The real question is the risk of no one looking at a tagged article, and it thus beign deleted when it would have been disputed had anyone looked. but if it is that obvious, no admin should delete it. DES ^(talk) 02:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the intended form for PROD is that the only people who need to look at proposed articles are 1) people watching or coming across a page(or category) with a tag in it (who, in nearly every case would remove the tag, unless they are watching it to prevent the page from being created); 2) people deciding if the page should be kept or deleted (i.e. people with the delete button, i.e. admins); it is intended that people don't just go through the list of tagged pages to verify that the nominator was right, unless they are going to act on their judgement. Of course, such review is acceptable, but the idea is that it is not necessary; so not being able to view the consensus is not a fault. AfD will still exist, it will be used for any nomination with at least one keep vote, in effect. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Special:Listusers

I was just looking through the List of User accounts and was wondering if there was a way to de-list indefinantly blocked accounts so we go straight to a list of user accounts without going through the vandals. SWD316 ^{talk to m}^e 01:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

first page isn't vandles. The first page is accounts created to keep page 2 accounts off the first page.Geni 03:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you better clarify your statement above? I didn't understand a word of it. SWD316 ^{talk to m}^e 04:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What he means is that some admin (Curps, IIRC) intentionally created a bunch of nonsensical usernames to fill up the first page of Listusers, to prevent e.g. "!!! (foo) is an idiot" from showing on the first page. Yes, that's a hack, and yes listusers could stand from improvement because at present it's pointless. R adiant _>|< 12:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't me that created all those "!!!" users. -- Curps 15:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any case can I suggest that the Listusers be broken-up into users and indefinantly blocked users. It would help identify users from vandals better. SWD316 ^{talk to m}^e 15:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use listusers to find if someone is an admin, bureaucrat, etc. If there's some other convenient way of going this, I don't know it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use the bureaucrat log at Special:Log but either way works. Superm401 - Talk 07:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

log wont cover our older admins.Geni 03:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GNAA member account

I'm just letting you all know about what is probably a GNAA account on Wikipedia that was created a couple years ago and has become active: GaryNigel (talk · contribs) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-29 06:11

It's Popeye again. What's his block status? If Popeye (under whatever name) is blocked, this should be too - David Gerard 07:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional Staffer Edits / 143.231.249.141

In order to centralize this section has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/United States Congress

Protect-and-forget

I've spent time recently trying to make sure we don't keep articles semi-protected longer than is reasonably necessary. I've noticed that a good number of admins seem to semi a page and then never return to unprotect it. Please make sure you do. Imo, if we're protecting against simple vandalism (the only use of semi) then the teenager will have got bored within a few hours most times, so there's really no need for these 7 days of protection that we're getting out of forgetfulness. -Splash^talk 19:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd much rather we were more careful to list on Protected pages, where we can all review them, rather than asking the protecting admin to do it. Any system based on asking people to remember to unprotect will result in people forgetting to unprotect.Mark ¹ 19:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those that aren't manually listed are auto-added to CAT:SEMI, but that doens't seem to be making any difference. There are, I think, about 3 admins that regularly look through that category to find forgotten protects, and a good number who regularly add protections but never remove it. One or two are particularly bad culprits of doing this. -Splash^talk 19:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth getting somebody with bot skills to write a script to compare the categories with WP:PP and add a section for pages that were not added to the list by the admin applying the protection? That might be easier to work with than slogging through the category. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slogging through the various protected-article categories and comparing them to WP:PP/WP:PPP is easy; I can hack up something pretty quickly to do it. The real problem is finding protected articles that are neither listed nor have a {{protected}} or variant. There's some notes on it on my user page (under current tasks). —Cryptic (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From anecdotal experience, there are fairly few such articles. -Splash^talk 21:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice having a complete list on WP:PP because it saves having to look through the logs to see when something was protected, saving many redundant (if brief) investigations. It will not, however, solve the problem of protect-and-forget. -Splash^talk 21:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little word on their talk pages may help. Contact me if you need some help in the persuading department. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if the devs change semi protection to expire, or have it so admins can set a protection length like bans. That way a page can be protected and forgeted!! Mike _{(T C)}

20:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was actually discussed in an early draft of WP:SEMI and didn't make it into the eventual version because of the desire to ask for as little possible from the devs and to have as few things for people to disagree with as possible. Additionally, a hard-expiry has the problem that it will be either too short or too long in most cases, and an admin shortening a variable-length protect is likely to run into the kind of shtuff we get on AN/I about shortening blocks (I think I irritate people enough by just unprotecting!). This may be worth thinking about though, but in the meantime, diligence from protecting admins will have to stand in. -Splash^talk 21:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way it works at present means that getting a list of protected pages is quite messy and inefficient. I'm going to push for a schema change that will make it a bit easier to retrieve such a list and filter according to the restrictions, but that isn't going to happen for at least a week. Rob Church (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meantime, per a request from Dmcdevit, I've set up a caching report on all semi-protected pages, which can be seen at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~robchurch/semiProt.php and one on all protected pages, at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~robchurch/fullProt.php. Rob Church (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listing on Protected Pages

Regarding Mark1's statement above, I'd much rather we were more careful to list on Protected pages, where we can all review them, I'd like to say something that I've said before, and which I suspect will be as unpopular this time as the first time I said it. Listing things on Protected pages is make-work. It's is forcing people to do something manually which can be better done automatically. The templates already put things in categories, and the category mechanism already maintains the lists without need for human intervention. Any process which involves people doing some manual step which could be automated is silly. It's especially so when the automated process already exists, and the manual process just duplicates the automated one. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the categories give no indication of how long the page has been protected, and so no indication of whether it's time to consider unprotecting. Mark ¹ 15:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit logs have all the timestamp data. It's just a matter of coming up with some automated process to make it presented in an easy to use way. Manual processes just don't work. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebate article move

user:Nightstallion suggested I ask this question here. A while ago, I moved the Rebate article to Rebate (marketing) and created a disambiguation page at Rebate. The word rebate has two main definitions, one being as described in the article currently at Rebate and the other as described at Rabbet. Over the weekend, this was all reversed because an anonymous user asserted that there was only one definition of Rebate. I have quoted the Macquarie dictionary definition on the Rebate talk page as an alternate definition and I'd like to have it all put back the way it was. What is the best way to approach this? SilentC 21:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main point seems to be that of the two uses of the term, neither is distinctly more relevant than the other. Your point thus becomes that a disambiguation page would give neither meaning preference, and thus would be preferable.

In this case, I'm inclined to prefer the current solution, in which a simple disambiguation notice on Rebate to refer users to Rabbet. If only because a disambiguation page for just two items seems silly. Obviously, it is still perfectly possible for you to link to Rebate using a piped link.

If you can show that a majority of the world's English speakers don't use the term rebate to refer to a promotional tool, but rather to refer to the woodworking term, the articles should be switched. If Australians use the term rebate to refer to promotional tools as well, I'd say the current status quo isn't bad. -- Ec5618 01:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing about the status quo is that it never stays the same! I didn't think there was anything wrong with the way it was prior to the move either, but there you go. Regarding disambiguation pages, how many items would you consider enough to make it less silly? As I explained on the talk page, my take on it is that if a term with identical spelling can mean more than one thing, I'd prefer to see a list from which I can select, rather than being taken to the one that someone else thought was more likely or important. Perhaps I have the wrong idea.

I don't see how I can show that a majority of the world's English speakers use the term one way or another. It's in the Macquarie dictionary, which is the standard reference for Australian usage. The fact is, there was no need to change it - it was changed because someone assumed that my alternate definition was invalid (he said that the marketing version was 'the ONLY definition' of rebate) and the change went ahead without my being aware of the vote because it took place on the marketing page, which I was not watching, not the disambig page. Perhaps I could have swayed people before it went ahead if I had known. It actually took quite a bit of work to set up the disambig page in the first place.

Shall we see how the votes pan out? SilentC 01:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see tree for an example. It discusses the wooden forrest dwellers directly but refers to a disambiguation page for other meanings. Such is common on Wikipedia, since when most people say 'tree', they mean 'large, perennial, woody plant'.

Let's not continue this discussion here, though. -- Ec5618 01:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just two uses of the term, it's the fact that one of those terms has two, equally valid spellings. The dab link at the top of the current rebate page links to one variant (rabbet), the current debate is as much about equal time for the other variant (rebate), as it is about a disambiguation.

While there may be only two terms to disambig at the moment this could well change in the future. I believe a reader may be more inclined to edit a {disambig} page than to disrupt a fully fledged article, so there may be more entries added later.

A case in point being the lathe article. Ignoring its current status (it's had at least one extra prod since), this article was moved by an editor to create a disambig page for the term lathe. At the time I felt it was unnecessary however the dab page eventually accumulated a few other meanings that I'd (obviously) never heard of, the end result being an overall improvement to wikipedia. It could be reasonably argued that a simple {otheruses} or {disambig} at the top of the original lathe page would have the same result, after all lathe tool is the one true meaning of lathe (if you'd have asked me a couple of months ago :-) but I'm happier with this approach - it's less territorial and allows others their view to be unobstructed by my (and others) presumptions. I believe you should catch and present the reader with alternatives earler in the browsing process. — Graibeard^(talk) 02:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Turkish related pages

I thought I might want to bring this up. Several articles related to Turkey/Turkish peoples have been vandalized/POV written. Can I suggest the following pages be protected:

Only for a while. There has been a strain of vandals/POV pushers lately that have been in reverting wars with other users. As many as 8-12 IP addresses/User accounts are involoved and a few have been blocked and I think everyone could benefit if they are protected. The article Turkish people already got protected because of this dispute. SWD316 ^{talk to m}^e 22:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should semi-protect rather than full-protect. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the US Senate edits

Centralizing discussion: moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/United States Congress. Keywords for ctrl-f: 156.33.0.0, Marty Meehan, United States Senate, etc. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 09:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Apcbg

This user is creating a huge string of copyvios, possibly using a bot. contributions Kappa 01:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User states on his talk page that an email was sent to permissions at wikimedia.org. Why people would care about hills in Antarctica is beyond me. Then again, I feel the same way with all the Pokemon articles... — TheKMan^talk 04:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned that the place names the user is adding are not particularly well known names for the locations in question. According to the COMPOSITE GAZETTEER OF ANTARCTICA, the places all have alternative US and GB created names. While more information is better, I'm concerned that we should mention the synonyms, too. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Bulgarian names

JtKiefer goes off the deep end

See User talk:Freestylefrappe. Block him. freestylefrappe 02:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be joking. Initially I defended your mistakes as being those which anyone could make, but your behaviour quickly spiralled into what is describable as ludicrous and downright disgusting. Frankly, you're lucky no-one's gone running to a developer or steward at the moment, because you would have lost your delete/block/etc. buttons at high speed.

I don't condone Jtkiefer's mildly abusive language, but I echo his sentiments 100%. Rob Church (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now he's started a harassment campaign against me as can be seen here. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Freestylefrappe has to cease his own incivility, otherwise strip him of his powers as this could get very out-of-hand. NSL E _(T+C) 恭喜发财! 02:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom have already voted to strip him of his powers, though I don't know exactly when enforcement is allowed. (Not until the case is closed I believe?) —Locke Cole • t • c 02:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous: Hes allowed to tell me to shut the fuck up but Im the one who's out of line? NSLE, Robchurch, who do you think you're fooling? freestylefrappe 02:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the STFU but the fact remains that you were and still are way out of line so I suggest for your own good you be quiet before you cause more problems for yourself, and I say that with absolutely no malicious but for your own good. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something very silly is going on. Calm down. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 02:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly call it silly, it's fairly serious. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't claim to have an indepth knowledge of the exact dispute (it seems to have been going on for a while), someone is getting very angry, and we probably know that this anger is sincere. If this keeps up, we will have one very alienated former admin. And that's just silly (perhaps silly is not the best word). — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 02:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. You can bait me all you want. The diffs dont lie. Removing my comments is just immature. freestylefrappe 02:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serious or not, it's poor form to kick a guy when he's down, even if he kicked you first. I realize you two have a problem with each other, but could you both cool it a bit and make a deliberate effort to be more courteous than you want to be? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this - let's not escalate this conflict even more. Jtkiefer, you've made your point. There's no need to continue saying "good riddance" on his talk page. Remember the golden rule - if you can't say anything nice, then don't say anything at all. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freestylefrappe has now left a short notice on his talk page and protected the page (another abuse of his powers). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Jtkiefer for three hours to take some deep breaths. This is over the top; when a decent editor (terrible admin in my opinion, but mostly good editor) says he's leaving, have a little decorum. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Update: Right before the block, Jtkiefer elaborated on the the insult [3] "Good riddance to bad rubbish". Perhaps three hours is a little short. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what Jtkiefer's up to. This stuff just makes it worse. Incivility in non-negotiable, even to people you don't like, or abusive admins. "Good riddance" is over the top. I can't object to this short block. Dmcdevit·t 03:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, and FSF said i'd unblock him if Jtkiefer was blocked awhile ago[4]. Ultimately, I understand Jt's consternation, FSF has brought out the worst in alot of people, including himself. I hope FSF can finally edit with a new peace of mind with his new screenname if he does in fact come back. Karmafist 03:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jtkiefer's response is understandable, but as far as I can see, that was just a cheap shot. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 03:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jtkiefer left this note on IRC (times are -8:00 UTC):

[19:15] <Jtkiefer> I apologize for losing it
[19:15] <Jtkiefer> I don't know what got into me
[19:16] <Jtkiefer> please feel free to convey those sentiments wherever necessary on Wiki
[19:16] * Jtkiefer has quit IRC (":(")

In light of this I'd stick with the 3 hour block. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, but have to note that fuddlemark has extended the block to 12 hours. (He's also blocking Freestylefrappe.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see Jtkiefer's comment on IRC (was away at the time). I think a 12-hour block is still warranted for both (for extreme incivility on the one and abuse of admin powers for the other), but feel free to undo my actions if you wish. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I've reverted FSF's talk page and protected it for the time being as tempers are running high. Mackensen (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that it's come to this, but these blocks are probably sufficient to cool tempers down. FSF looks to be leaving, likely in response to the voted-for desysopping. We'll see what happens, but in any case, the RfAr still needs to be carried on to its conclusion, IMO. --D e ath phoenix 19:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, do you think it would help to tell FSF that Jtkiefer is also blocked for the same period of time? Let's not give him the impression that we're condoning actions by either users (I ask because the user talk page is protected: I'd rather not post to a protected page unless you agree that what I plan to write is okay). --D e ath phoenix 19:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is good to have User talk:Freestylefrappe unprotected as soon as possible. Protecting a talk page is a bit too much I think, especially that the parties in question have been blocked anyway, and that those parties are admins who would be able to edit the page if they really wanted to. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the protection. Thanks for your feedback. --D e ath phoenix 20:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock User:Elonka

This user, who I've known online for a couple of years, has been attacked and banned for no apparent reason, more info at her website. Tordek 03:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

try here.Geni 03:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Her page somehow fails to convince me that any of the alleged statements about her are false - David Gerard 07:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no real interest in pursuing this matter further myself. However, I've exchanged email with both Elonka and Solipsist on this matter, including suggesting (based on my experience of how the Wikipedia social dynamic works) that removing or severely toning down the page linked above would be a very good idea to further a happier involvement with Wikipedia - David Gerard 11:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if we Wikipedians would remove or severely tone down our mistreatment of good-faith contributors, that would further a happier involvement with Wikipedia. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 16:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C. (second nomination)

This deletion nomination was made because a first nomination, which resulted in no consensus, is being appealed on Wikipedia:Deletion review (DRV). Because DRV is not a consensus-based forum, I obviously decided that it would get a fairer discussion with a second run on Articles for deletion. I made the second nomination and so far there are six votes in addition to my nomination, in which I gave a recommendation to keep. I made the nomination in good faith, and all six votes so far favor keeping the article.

However, R. Fiend has delisted this. He states that a second nomination cannot proceed while the first is under review. I find this unconvincing. It would be extraordinary if two discussions on AfD gave strong indications of absence of consensus to delete an article, but the article was deleted by deletion review as a result of refusal to permit the second deletion discussion to proceed and a decision to ignore the non-consensus to delete in the first.

I invite discussion on how to resolve this problem. I'm sure R. Fiend is sincere in his belief that the second AfD would be wrong, but I do not think it can be right to use deletion review to overturn a no consensus keep result while refusing a simple rerun to determine whether a consensus can be raised. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review and AfD measure two very different things. Deletion review is an evaluation of the decision made by the closer, while AfD is an evaluation of the article itself. I see no reason why the two cannot be conducted at once. That the results of the first AfD may have been misinterpreted in no way affects the quality of the article. - SimonP 05:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restorng it. R. Fiend has removed it again and closed the nomination for a second or third time, I've lost count), claiming that it was a bad faith nomination. Oh well, I'm not going to get into an edit war. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to place a notice on DRV that it's been re-opened, plus the incredible nomination itself, it strains credulity to ask us to consider this nomination as having taken place in good faith. Can a week go by without a tempest in a teacup being raised by Mr. Sidaway? The discussion at DRV had failed to date to get the super-majority required for deletion, and would almost certainly have resulted in relisting regardless. Yet again, the path of maximum disruption has been chosen. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the AFD because it was obviously bad faith, in the same way it would be bad faith for me to nominate George W. Bush for President saying "Here's why you should vote for him: 1. he's a liar, 2. he's an idiot, and 3. he's a war-monger." What's this? No one is supporting him? How odd. DRV is discussing whether the first AFD was closed correctly, Tony trying to undermine this by engineering a keep consensus at an unrelated vote is not good faith. But Simon's right, DRV and AFD measure 2 different things, and there shouldn't be votes going on at the same time in both places. Which takes precedence? If DRV decides that the first closure was incorrect, then I guess it would be deleted, and the AFD would be closed, because the article would already be deleted, and if recreated could be a speedy G4. If having more discussions at more places inevitably gives us better results should I open a concurrent 3rd and 4th AFD for the article? As long as I get one consensus I could then claim a valid delete, right? In any case, I'm curious to see whether AFD is a vote or not. Everyone says it isn't, but I suspect it really is. -R. fiend 05:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm here to tell you that it wasn't in bad faith. I'm not going to re-open it since you've speedy kept. Of course AfD will always take precedence, because it's the consensus-based forum. There is enough rancor on Wikipedia lately without you and Aaron spilling this extraordinary bile aroumd. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DRV is also a consensus-based forum. And you really shouldn't be accusing other people of spreading rancor. Pot, meet kettle. R adiant _>|< 07:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remind me again why AFD/DRV as they now operate should be spared from being nuked from orbit? - David Gerard 07:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likely because of the fallout, earthquakes and tidal waves resulting from such a nuke. However, do note that there will be an alternative available soon, as I've said on your talk page. R adiant _>|< 08:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who told you that DRV is a consensus-based forum? 50% to endorse, 75% to overturn doesn't sound like consensus to me; it's just vote-counting. No, AfD works by consensus, doesn't have quite so paranoid an atmosphere, and could easily have handled a rerun of this debate, and there was no reason why that debate could not run in tandem with the DRV discussion, over which it would of course (being consensus-based) take precedence. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that DRV was created by, and is supported by, consensus. The individual discussions there are technically vote counting, but people do make more sensible comments than on AFD, and take each other's opinion into account more than they appear to do on AFD. R adiant _>|< 18:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Predicted result of this kerfluffle: creation of a faith-based deletion page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I think you may be trying to have your cake and eat it here. When you want something kept, you (not for the first time) bypass DRV, and appeal to xFD (where it is easier to get a 'keep'). But when it came to userbox templates, you ignored TfD and speedied them, and then listed on DRV (where it is easier to get a deletion endorsement). XfD is derided when you don't like its results, and upheld as essential when you do. I'm not accusing you of bad faith, but this gives the impression of gaming the system. And, yes, the system stinks, but the only other thing on offer seems not to be so much a 'faith-based' deletion system as a 'Tony-based' one--Doc ^ask? 20:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a headache here. David Gerard might have a point. I'll see if Burt Rutan has any spaceship kits out yet. Who's bringing the nukes? ;-) Kim Bruning 21:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, you're right that I took a pragmatic approach on userboxes. I would not trust DRV to make a good call on article content, because there is a tendency there to ignore or downplay the importance of content. As userboxes are pure vanity and have no encyclopedic content I will trust the judgement of DRV more than I trust a TfD, because it's in the nature of userboxes to be placed in prominent positions on people's userpages, resulting in an unconscious and unavoidable skewing of TfD votes where userboxes are involved. Those who tend to their userpages spot the tfd notice and click the link--I can't blame them for doing that but it does create an artificial keep vote which is not representative of consensus. According to my survey of--to date--more than 200 userpage contacts from my watchlist, only 10% of active Wikipedia editors have political or religious userboxes (which is not to day that the other 90% are opposed to them, but I expect they might be include a lot of people who are less in favor of them). --Tony Sidaway 19:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving of Article

I need an administrator to help me move an article. The artice Dorset Premier League should be moved to Dorset Premier Football League. The lattar article is now blank. The two articles were existing for at least 6 months and they deal with the same subject. Thank You. One with Her 06:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but in the future please post that on requested moves rather than here. R adiant _>|< 07:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freestylefrappe block

I've indef blocked Freestylefrappe until his RfAr is over, due to NPA violations among other things. Any questions can be directed to my talk page or in this section; I've temporarily put this page on watch. WikiFanatic 07:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the idea of his being blocked for the duration of a RFAr. Are his attacks so bad and so likely to recur, that he cannot be permitted to participate? If necessary, couldn't you apply for a temporary injunction to stop him attacking people? A block is probably too blunt a tool for the circumstances. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Indefinitely blocking someone while he is under an RfAr seems very heavy-handed. --D e ath phoenix 12:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... it does make it difficult to try and defend oneself, NPA violations notwithstanding. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 12:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry too much about it. The "indefinite" block will only last until 15:27, when MarkGallagher's block expires. I suggest we just let that happen. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I'll undo the block. WikiFanatic 13:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tommstein injunction

The following injunction has been passed in the Tommstein arbitration case:

Tommstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned, until the conclusion of this Arbitration, from editing any page except those directly related to Arbitration involving him, and his own User and User Talk pages. He may be blocked for a short time, up to three days, for any edit violating this injunction, and all such edits may be reverted by any editor without regard to the limitations of the three revert rule.

Dmcdevit·t 07:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian

This arbitration case has closed.

The indefinite block will remain in place and the remedies will apply if and when Gibraltarian (talk · contribs) is unblocked by an administrator. It is recommended that he not be unblocked unless he has assented to the conditions imposed by the Committee's decision.

The remedies involve a personal attack parole and two forms of probation on Gibraltarian. In extreme cases he may be blocked for up to one year if he breaks probation or parole. These remedies apply to his sock puppets also. Please see the final decision for full details.

A notice has been placed under the block notice on his user page, and the usual notice of the final decision has been placed on his talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee. Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, this is the page where you want to record blocks. He's hitting us once or twice a day, every day. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. That was my first arbitration case close. I'm a veteran now--three cases! Woohoo indeed, Kitty! --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James John Parker

An unregistered user whose IP belongs to Qwest keeps making a series of changes to the article on a candidate for Congress in Ohio that are the sort of things one would say on a campaign site. I keep reverting and have posted a notice on talk pages of the article and of the IP addresses, but it appears every new session gets a new number. Has anyone else been seeing this sort of thing? PedanticallySpeaking 16:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a case for semi-protection if he keeps editing anonymously from dynamic IPs. Thryduulf 17:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I've done just that. PedanticallySpeaking 17:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Code of Conduct

This has been put together from a large number of opinions and feedback given on the admin accountability poll. Most of it should be commonsensical and/or based on existing practice. Comments welcome. R adiant _>|< 17:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate image on the Qur'an page

Greetings. On vacation, I took a lot of pictures of exhibits at the Smithsonian gallery and uploaded them to Wikipedia, releasing them under both the GFDL and a cc-sa license. One picture in particular was Image:Big Quran page.jpg, showing a folio from a very large Qur'an, with my wife in the photo to show scale. I added the photograph to Timur, the commissioner of this historic Qur'an.

Someone added the image to the Qur'an article, and controversy quickly ensued (see Talk:Qur'an/Picture Controversy). The photo shows my wife in clothing that would be considered normal in Washington D.C. in the summer, but which is scandalously immodest in most of the Muslim World. Qur'an desecration is an extremely high offense is Islam, of course, as can be seen in recent history. Now there's nothing wrong with having such a picture on Wikipedia -- we have much more racy pictures -- but to have the picture in the Qur'an article was offensive to many Muslims, and several complained. A vote was held. Many supporters of the image's removal wanted to avoid being offensive unless it was necessary, or simply felt the photograph was not of sufficient quality to warrant its inclusion. Many opponents of removal wanted to take a stand against what they saw as religious censorship, or noted that no similar replacement is available. Feelings were strong, and bad faith was assumed by many on both sides.

When I found out about the incident, quite by accident, my wife and I sat down and talked about it. She is very saddened that her likeness is being used in such an insensetive way, and we both agreed that it was unacceptable for this image to be used. I noted this on the the controversy page, but by then many people's feelings had solidified, and no votes were changed as a result. After two weeks, the vote was closed, but consensus had not been acheived: there were 20 keep votes and 16 remove votes. As could be expected, both sides feel that the lack of consensus validates their own position.

As I stated on that page, "The fact is, I'm just not comfortable having an image of my wife misused in this way. Yes I uploaded the photo, but I never intended for it to be used in an article on the Noble Qur'an, so I'm going to remove it. I know that many of you will disagree with me, and I respect that, but I'd ask that you use a photo of your own wife, and leave mine out of it. It pains me to be so stubborn about this, but I take this very personally."

Now there is something of a mild revert-war going on. This is an extremely important issue to me, since I feel that my family has been brought into a very unfortunate situation here, and my wife is understandably insistent that her image not be used to cause religious offense in this way. I'm not sure how to handle this. I'm obviously far too involved to use any of my admin abilities to deal with the situation. Any advice or assistance by other admins would be appreciated. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone else has it archived, delete the image. I believe WP:CSD G7 criteria applies (author requests deletion). Since images are un-undeletable, the image is "gone" forever. People can rail back and forth about whether you commited some grave injustice, but in the end you hold the original copyright. My $0.02. --Syrthiss 19:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm so involved, I'd feel better if someone else did this for me. (Deletion is an admin tool.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion is governed by Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Images.2FMedia, not WP:CSD. In future, don't GFDL your images unless you're happy with them being used by the Klan, etc. ;) Mark ¹ 19:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That had been done, but many objected (understandably) that without the person in the image, you don't get a sense of the scale of the folio. So the image was reverted back and forth a bit under several different names. :( – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, took a look at the image history and you are not the only editor...so the CSD doesn't apply in this case anyways. :/ --Syrthiss 19:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite tempted to boldly delete. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps list on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion or Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, because the photographer didn't get the subject's permission to release the image? Mark ¹ 19:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thats kind of the problem. Since others have uploaded their revisions to the photo, and because of the way you licensed it, not only do other copies certainly exist but you aren't the creator of the revised images. If you do delete it, the revisers could re-upload the image still under gfdl and use it in the article. You could of course ask them not to...but they are under no obligation to do so I don't think.

I'm hoping that one of the more senior admins wander by and have a good solution. I'm not going to say that you shouldn't delete the image / ask that it be deleted...because frankly I would consider doing that myself (as I stated above naievely, and now knowing more about the situation) if it were my picture...but know that there could be penalties to pay. :( --Syrthiss 20:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (after edit conflict)[reply]

You could possibly try appealing directly to Jimbo. He's a busy man but it's a non-trivial issue and it touches on issues of privacy or personal information, which he has shown sensitivity to in previous cases. -- Curps 20:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold. I hope this ends it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quadell, that was really inappropriate. I understand that you and your wife are upset about this, but you have an ethical obligation not to use your administrative powers to decide cases in which you are so personally involved. As far as I can see you have no legal grounds to control the photo and while you might have a reasonable case for convincing others to remove it, you certainly shouldn't just delete it yourself. Dragons flight 22:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more complex than that. Generally, it has been considered kosher for users to remove most kinds of content they added (except en-masse deletions). Note that if it were re-uploaded by someone else, it would be inappropriate for Quadell to remove it again, but this particular case is at least murky ground -- I don't think it's clear cut that he was acting wrongly, and I think it is a far cry from abuse. If you want the content, re-uploading it should be ok and simplify things. --Improv 23:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm do you think we could find a photo of someone reading the bible in a bikini?Geni 23:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for citing it, but that really would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Apart from that, Christianity actually doesn't necessarily ban such garb, so the point isn't quite the same. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Islam doesn't necessarily ban sleeveless tops either). Mark ¹ 23:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously argueing that wikipedia doesn't need more pictures of women in bikinis (the bible/bikini thing was used in the photo debate)?Geni 23:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this could be considered abuse. Quadell made an unwitting mistake. He publicly requested that the community correct the mistake. There may have been a split consensus, but that means that a substantial portion of the community acknowledged the mistake. The community sat in paralysis for almost three weeks debating the mistake. Quadell finally fixed the mistake himself. Fine. We should help people correct bona fide mistakes. The controversy was turning into a real life version of Bleak House. DrWitty 21:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the above situation has resulted in an RFC filed against me. Feel free to stop by and leave comments, whether critical or supportive. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Apparently the RfC has been withdrawn as of earlier on Feb 1, 2006. --Syrthiss 21:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish Articles

There are individuals who are adding points that are past POVs. They are simply and untrue and based on political agendas and motives at the expense of the truth. People come on Wikipedia to learn not to be be misguided. Established facts are systematically be represed. Please read the discussions on Kurds, Kurdistan, and Iranians. Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group and it is an established fact in the academic world, through language, ancestry, culture, traditon, and history, but there are individuals who are systematically deleting this information and even attack other articles to cut all ties and assocation between the definition to validate their agendas. They have even gone far enough to claim that Kurds are Jewish just to disassociate Kurds from being an ethnic Iranian peoples. In reality Jews are a religious group and not a race. There are Black Jews, Asian Jews, European Jews, and so on. The Kurds ancestors were Aryan peoples who were Zoroastrians and have a language that can be mutually understood in portions by other Iranian peoples. Please we need ADMIN. They are even swearing in the history saying (KHarr) in Kurdish just to force their agenda atr the expense of facts. PLease read the discussions in relations to Kurds. Thank you. 69.196.139.250

Seems like typical edit disputes to me...nothing that warrants AN/I. One of the pages have already been protected, and Kurdistan might end up so as well, as the edit summaries there are quite nasty. You need to discuss this on the talk page if several others disagree (or to avoid a revert war). Please add ~~~~ to the end of your comments to sign them. Thank you.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 23:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The welcome template

There are some disagreements about what would be appropirate to have on {{welcome}}. I started a poll about this, at template talk:welcome. Opinions would be most welcome. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional Edits / 143.231.249.141

(moved it to the rfc's talk)

Singapore proxy vandalism; did I call this one right?

I just removed the following entry from WP:AIV:

165.21.154.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Vandalizing after fourth level warning. Has been blocked thrice before. Royboycrashfan 05:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last vandalism from this IP was over three hours ago, and it has made one minor non-vandal edit since then. The IP resolves to "bbcache-115.singnet.com.sg" and appears to be part of an AOL-like shared proxy setup. The block log shows four blocks and one unblock with the comment "singapore proxy? shorten block".

Since I've been doing this admin thing for less than a day, I'd like to confirm whether my decision not to block was correct. Also, from this edit, it appears that there is indeed a persistent vandal using these IPs. Since individual blocks seem ineffective and a range block would likely cause massive collateral damage, what should be done? Contacting the ISP? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore ISPs are irritating like AOL, so I'd rangeblock 15 minutes increasing double upwards, they do stop when you hit, say, the 1 or 2 hour block. Don't block too long, though, it hampers innocent users like how AOL does. NSL E _(T+C) 恭喜发财! 08:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Since, judging from the talk pages, many of the users behind these IPs also seem to be confused by this, I went and forked {{AOL}} to {{Singnet}} and tagged all the existing user talk pages in the 165.21.154.0/24 range with it. We'll see if that helps at all. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I myself am on Singnet (203.124.2.0/24), so it sucks when I get caught in the autoblocker (has only happen thrice so far, thankfully), what you did may have no effect; I myself honestly don't see what the tag will do :P NSL E _(T+C) 恭喜发财! 10:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the series of efforts that may or may not accomplish anything, I just submitted the following report to Singnet:

The English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) has recently experienced petty but persistent vandalism from someone accessing the site through the Singnet proxiesat 165.21.154.0/24. The vandal has boasted of their ability to evade Wikipedia's IP address -based blocking system, since their requests come from multiple shared proxies. I have included below a list of recent vandalism events; I hope that this information may allow you to identify this user by your proxy logs. I believe the activities of this user are in violation of your AUP, and would like to ask for your help in ensuring that this vandalism will not continue.

Vandalism via 165.21.154.115:

05:34 (UTC), 31 January 2006:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fungus&action=submit
23:19 (UTC), 30 January 2006:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:165.21.154.16&action=submit
04:20 (UTC), 30 January 2006:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newbie&action=submit

Vandalism via 165.21.154.113:

05:20 (UTC), 31 January 2006:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anglo-Chinese_School_%28Independent%29&action=submit

Vandalism via 165.21.154.112:

23:15 (UTC), 30 January 2006:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:165.21.154.16&action=submit
05:03 (UTC), 30 January 2006:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:165.21.154.112&action=submit

There are more, but these should be ought to do for a start. We have, of course, no way of being sure that these really are all the same user, but there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that at least most of the vandalism is made by a single user. Unfortunately, attempts to stop this user's vandalism by IP-based blocking are not only ineffective, but are harming all Singnet users who contribute to Wikipedia. I therefore sincerely hope that you are able to resolve this issue at your end.

Thank you,

--

Ilmari Karonen, administrator on the English Wikipedia

(Yes, the e-mail address given above is valid.)

I suppose it's a bit of a long shot, but I felt it was worth a try at least. Who knows, maybe something will come of it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Drawings

This has been under heavy attack and is linked to from the front page. I've semi protected which has calmed things down a little but people are still removing the images from the article. Could someone keep an eye on it as I have to go now? Thanks Secretlondon 09:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked User:Qatarson for 24 hours for WP:NLT for threatening to report us to the authorities, repeatedly. Secretlondon 09:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Woohookitty has un-semiprotected. Secretlondon 10:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Augh. This article's talk page makes my head hurt. If someone uses another exclamation mark or hastily constructed analogy, I'm going to vomit. --DDG 20:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repair my botched move please (apologies!)

A botched paste has meant I've just moved Pierre Gaultier de Varennes et de La Vérendrye to Ierre Gaultier de Varennes, sieur de La Vérendrye rather than Pierre Gaultier de Varennes, sieur de La Vérendrye (so that the article's title matches name given in opening sentence). Unfortunately the article's history prevents my correcting it, so I'd be grateful if someone could do it for me. Apologies and thanks in advance, David Kernow 15:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS Yes, once renamed I will return to the article to check for and remove double redirects to it. Thanks again, David Kernow 15:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done though I didn't see any discussion about what the correct way to name the article is. Some justification for the new name would be good. And go ahead and fix all the links to the article to bypass the redirects. - Taxman ^Talk 16:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Taxman. I've just finished updating the redirects. I didn't propose a Requested Move as I think the name change is uncontroversial, in view of (a) the article's opening sentence; (b) my recalling how this name was expressed in a couple of history sources I've referenced, (c) backed up by (non-Wikipedia-based) results from an internet search. Best wishes and thanks again, David Kernow 16:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Med-stub

Please use File:Star of life.gif for the image. Thanks. Also consider semi protecting rather than complete protection. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That image looks awful at the size rendered (terrible scaling artifacts). Maybe I'll try to do a SVG version tonight. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is better than the alternative currently --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 12:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest informal WikiDefcon 4 for US Congress Articles

As more news stories are being published about the Congressional IP kerfuffle, I'm seeing occasional messages on various message boards discussing their own new edits of various articles about Congressmen and Senators. Some are legit, some aren't. In any case, I suggest admins pay special attention to any edits to such pages for the next day or two, as vandalism and POV edits are going to be somewhat more likely for a little while. --Aaron 17:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't say "WikiDefcon". It makes my eyeballs itch. Thanks, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fix of a Botched Page move

I have just tried to fix a botched page move/archive on Talk:Friends of the Western Buddhist Order. Please see User talk:FWBOarticle#Misplaced archive for an account of what I did. I think there may still be discussion lost. I would appreciate a more expereinced admin looking at this page to dewtermine if there is any way to retrive this missing content. DES ^(talk) 17:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions

How does a naming convention get from proposed to accepted? I posted Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ohio school districts) in April 2005. Nobody has objected to it and I've been using it to rename articles covered by it. Though I'd feel more confident it were official policy. So how do I make that happen? PedanticallySpeaking 17:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you originally did not follow the steps listed on Wikipedia:How to create policy back in April. Thus nobody was notified, nobody really commented on it, and therefore it was eventually marked as inactive. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, just like that. To advertise such, put a link on RFC, the village pump, WT:Naming conventions, and the talk pages of relevant high-activity pages or wikiprojects. Get consensus. I marked this as historical because (1) there was no active debate, and (2) there was no real feedback whatsoever, thus no way to tell if it's consensual. R adiant _>|< 22:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD closings

A non-admin has closed a number of AfD votes, blatantly out of process attempting to railroad through his desired result. I have created a list of those closings, here: User:Jonel/Review. Administrators are asked to review these closings. -- Jonel | Speak 21:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then the non-admin should probably apply to RfA if they want to do tasks normally left to admins. Or they should go to RfC. They shouldn't strike poses about it here, though. -Splash^talk 21:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The non-admin had been under the impression that adminship was no big deal. He noted that there was a two-day backlog on AfD closings and decided to try to help out. He realizes the error of his ways, and will not close any more AfDs. -- Jonel | Speak 21:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The non-admin should be encouraged to close unambiguous "keeps" (or similar, such "merge", "transwiki", "redirect" etc), as it says in Wikipedia:Deletion process. When the non-admin closes ambiguous debates, the non-admin must reasonably expect that an admin (not this one, incidentally, who doesn't recall overruling an AfD closure) might amend that closure. -Splash^talk 21:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the non-admin had been told that instead of being accused of blatantly circumventing process to railroad through a desired result, and the admin amending the closure had not deleted the article three times without any discussion whatsoever, the non-admin would have retracted his closing. What do you recommend be done about the other nonambiguous closings listed on my subpage? -- Jonel | Speak 21:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by your list: are these AfDs those that were closed by any non-admin, or by the non-admin in question? Some of these are very old and I don't think require any sort of review. --D e ath phoenix 21:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all the AfDs that I have closed (I am the non-admin in question). -- Jonel | Speak 21:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. I'll take a stab at some of the newer ones. I'll endorse any I agree with, but I won't yet mark any that I disagree with yet. Some of the older ones (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet keyboard) don't appear to be closed by you, however. --D e ath phoenix 21:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, that should be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet keyboard (2nd nomination). I'll fix the link. -- Jonel | Speak 21:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to help. We don't all have a ramrod up our behinds.;) --Tony Sidaway 21:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little while ago, when I first tried to help out on the VfD backlogs as a non-admin, I closed a lot of ambiguous VfDs as "no consensus" and there wasn't an explicit note telling non-admins not to do those types of VfDs. If those closings were to occur today, I'm sure I'll get a lot of angry messages demanding that I only close unambiguous AfDs. :-P --D e ath phoenix 21:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The explicit note is on the Wikipedia:Deletion process page, which I missed while reading Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. The closest thing I found on either of them to non-admins closing discussions was this paragraph on the Guide to deletion page:

An AFD decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep". The AFD decision may also include a strong recommendation for an additional action such as a "merger" or "redirect". In many cases, the decision to "keep" or "delete" may be conditional on the community's acceptance of the additional action. These recommendations do represent the community consensus and also should not be overturned lightly. However, these are actions which can be taken by any editor and do not require "admin powers". If they are challenged, the decision should be discussed and decided on the respective article Talk pages. A second AFD discussion is unnecessary. (Italics mine)

I've closed 95 AfDs, many of them less than perfectly unambiguous. This is the only one for which I've yet caught any flack. If DollyD hadn't recreated the article, I would never have even noticed that I was doing anything anyone had a problem with and would still be closing AfDs. Having now been pointed to the Deletion process page, I would like to make sure that the AfDs I have closed have been properly closed. -- Jonel | Speak 21:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mis-read that paragraph. Let me highlight:

In many cases, the decision to "keep" or "delete" may be conditional on the community's acceptance of the additional action. These recommendations do represent the community consensus and also should not be overturned lightly. However, these are actions which can be taken by any editor and do not require "admin powers". If they are challenged, the decision should be discussed and decided on the respective article Talk pages.

Thus, the actions that "can be taken by any editor" refer to "additional action." For example, votes to "keep pending verification" implies that anyone can go and verify the article content. howch e ng {chat} 22:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading that again, yeah, I definitely misread it the first time. Sorry. -- Jonel | Speak 22:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few that some issues. I'll discuss them on your talk page. howch e ng {chat} 21:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Jonel | Speak 21:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing an obvious keep as a keep is something anyone can do. Closing an obvious delete as a delete is something anyone can do; non-admins should just tag the article for deletion with a note about the AfD result--but they should probably say "closed by non-admin" because a review of such a deletion would be in order and any deleting admin should be warned that he needs to do that.

Ambigious cases? I'd say that most of those can be closed "no consensus" too. If there is no subtantial agreement on the correct action (absent copyright infringements, which must always be deleted) then the deletion policy applies: "If in doubt, don't delete." But such actions can be fairly controversial, and if you really can't wait for a deletion discussion to be closed it's best to ask an administrator experienced in AfD closes to do it for you, --Tony Sidaway 15:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another set of eyes, please

Turkmen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - do we think this is onbe of the same sock farm as (for example)...
Dr._Turtleton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
God's child (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
HRoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
LinkChecker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TonyT5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wiggins2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and the proven or self-admitted socks at:
Adelaey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Big_Daddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Big_Hater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Big_Lover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bobby Lou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Chacha1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Chochi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Neutered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am being urged to block, and I am inclined to block all the suspected socks indefinitely. There is an open RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich, pretty solid consensus behind dealing robustly with the guy, but I am new at the mop-and-bucket game so I'd value a second (or more) set of eyes. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blackworm

Hi, can the folks here please keep an eye on Blackworm (a computer worm) and the various pages which I've redirected to it [5]. I'm concerned that external links to download a removal tool should only go to extremely reputable sites. Kappa 23:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD move

The article nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buffyverse:_See_also_(complete) has been moved by user:paxomen in the middle of the nomination. It would be great if somebody could move it back, as it seems to hinder the AfD process, per some comments I read last time s/he did this (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Buffyverse Wikipedia articles).

Also, when the first AfD was successful, s/he simply recreated the list in a different title. Can it just be speedied?

Thanks. Dave 23:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A recreation of deleted content can be speedied. Apply {{db-repost}} plus a pointer to teh Afd if it isn't at an obvious location, please. DES ^(talk) 00:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dave 00:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the AfD discussion has been fixed after the move, so ther is really no problem with teh move that i can see, as far as the AfD process goes. The only reason moves are discouraged is that they often break such links. DES ^(talk) 00:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, it wasn't moved; it was cut-and-pasted before. I forgot. Dave 00:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it based on discussion with others in the deletion forum since it would seem the new title would be more appropiate, and made the move very clear in that deletion forum. Also the claim by Dave that I simply recreated the list in a different title is completely untrue, and Dave knows this having closely looked at both articles. In fact the new article which Dave has once again nominated for deletion contains hundreds of links and is now a comprehensive list of every topic relating to Buffy/Angel (the old list contained about thirty links). The article List of Buffyverse-related topics is more appropiate as an alternative to categories as it offers links to discussion pages, links to 'revision histories', red links of articles yet to be created, and potential annoatation by myself in the weeks to come. Dave, you have already nominated the article for deletion, please do not intentionally mislead people. -- Paxomen 17:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MonkeyCMonkeyDo

I'm not sure where to report this, so if there is a more appropriate place please let me know. The Green Day article has been vandalized several times, and it has been protected on and off. Earlier today user MonkeyCMonkeyDo (talk) vandalized it again. What troubled me is the message he left on my talk page. He said "you ya know. I have this strange problem where i can't control my urge to vandalize the green day page, as well as its subordinates. so if you dont put the block back on the page i might lose myself and vandalize it a whole bunch." I think this can be solved by having an admin talk to him and decide if the problem is with the page or the user. Jtrost 02:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep an eye on this user's contributions over the next couple of days. --Madchester 05:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

systemic attack on castro related pages

Just bringing attention to User: 205.240.227.15 aka "El Jigüe" aka "at the Bay of Pigs I was jailed by Castro"

Under an anon account El Jigue has been inserting counter-revolutionary propaganda several times a day since 15 September last year. All his edits have been related to Cuba, and most use Miami dissident websites as a source. Unlike most with a pov campaign, he has avoided edit wars, and has gone relatively unoticed. I don't know how you folks deal with this, may I suggest an exploding cigar?--

Colle 03:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The sooner an admin gets on this the better! Take a look at the recent edits (still not reverted as of now) [6]. Random older example: [7]. Here is a recent example of the systemic bias taken in his edits. [[8]] An elementry knowledge of Cuban history is all that is needed to see how this statement is plain wrong. The editor has made thousands of edits, I have only spent a few minutes scratching the surface. I picked these examples out of the blue in order to show what is going on here, these are not the worst cases. Good luck.--

Colle 09:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some weeks and months ago this anon was misbehaving... re-creating AfD'd articles under new names (not just once but multiple times, and with unencyclopedic titles), vandalizing Sweden to make some point about Cuba [9], adding an out-of-place link to espionage in Castro's Cuba to American Civil War spies [10], editing the James Bond and Ian Fleming articles based on some apparent conspiracy theory of his [11] [12] [13]. The latter egregious stuff was a few months ago, I guess he doesn't do that anymore, but apparently the POV editing has continued.

Back in December he took exception when I speedy deleted his fourth or fifth re-creation of an AfD'd article, and some discussions ensued, see Talk:Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity revised. At the time it was clear he didn't believe in WP:NPOV, believed he owned the articles he created, and most significantly, did not believe his contributions were covered under the GFDL. He appeared to be quite suspicious of the motives of others and not easily won over to Wikipedia philosophies and principles.

After that I moved on, it was mostly the stuff I considered egregious that I was concerned with (re-creation of deleted articles and adding Cuba stuff to non-Cuba articles), and I didn't really care to get involved in content disputes over Cuban-related topics. For those who would wish to do so, there's Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Curps 23:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sea of Japan, East Sea, &c.

Tonight, we got a new user (User:Mjump) who's pushing POV on those pages -- but as I was trying to get him/her to understand more about discussing changes, &c., I effectively entangled myself into a dispute as to whether there is a consensus as to whether East Sea should redirect to East Sea (disambiguation) or Sea of Japan. Since I am stuck in the middle of the dispute, I'd like some people to examine the situation to see if you think any of the related pages should be protected pending dispute; I am now myself uncomfortable doing it since I may be accused of doing it to preserve my own POV. --Nlu (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting all this time for an admin to see what User:Appleby did, and I'm surprised it took so long. I hereby request any admin to check carefully the edits done by Appleby on Dec. 18, 2005, the timing, and whether he had any concensus at all in the first place. Sea of Japan, East Sea, etc. are very controversial topics, and concensus is vital before doing such controversial page moves. Perhaps he didn't know that such multiple page moves can be very harmful. But please warn Appleby of any such unilateral edits again in the future, explain how to discuss with others, take votes, etc.--Endroit 01:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Vandalism is in progress by Appleby now. See East sea (small letters) and East Sea (capital letters) pages. Appleby was warned of Wikipedia:3RR in the East Sea (capital letters) page.~~--Endroit 17:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since then, Appleby has continued to unilaterally impose changes on East Sea and East Sea (disambiguation) as well, making edits that are calculated to evade 3RR. I'd very much like to request, again, that someone other than myself look into this. --Nlu (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Appleby just broke the Wikipedia:3RR rule in the East Sea (disambiguation) page. Plus he has been involved in at least 2 other Wikipedia:Edit wars (other than Sea of Japan/East Sea) in the last 24 hours.--Endroit 03:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just reported it in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. As a general comment, it is very difficult to edit pages when there are people like that reverting others at will.--Endroit 04:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair

This arbitration case has closed. User:Copperchair is banned indefinitely from editing Star Wars and War on Terrorism. He is on indefinite Wikipedia:Probation. These provisions are to be enforced, should he break them, by blocks. The full details are in the decision (linked above).

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 04:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silly NPOV addendum

Some people, including infamous vexlit Zen-master, have put together Wikipedia:Information suppression, which in their own words is a proposed policy in addition to NPOV. However, of special interest is the phrase near the bottom, "Note that science ... when used to emasculate other views ... is also POV suppression." In other words, this is really a stealth proposal against using scientific facts to discount an article on pseudoscience. This was pointed out on the talk page, but of course it's not being listened to. Can I get some additional input there on why this is a bad idea? >Radiant< 11:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to its best ability." (emphasis theirs) Proponents are by definition not neutral and this is saying that the article should read as if a proponent wrote it. Proponents contributing is fine, but the article should not look like it was written by a proponent. It should be written as if by a neutral observer instead. Arguments in favor and against a position should be presented. Every article should be neutral in itself, not by the inclusion of other non-neutral articles in the encyclopedia. -- Kjkolb 11:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, reading it again, I think I misunderstood their position. So each side will get a chance to state its case, or something? Still, I think an article should be completely neutral and not switch back and forth between POVs. Each side's case should be presented, but it should be presented neutrally. -- Kjkolb 12:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV/Vandalism from proxy

What do you think of a block on this (very well known) IP? Here's some edits they have made since being unblocked:

Blanking part of Jim Nussle [14]
POV pushing / removal on Marilyn Musgrave [15] (see further revisions for sources)
Blanking part of James K. Polk[16]
"Greatest President ever" on James K. Polk [17] (Unsourced, untrue, testing?)
Removal of true statements ~~Tony Trupiano [18]~~ Thad McCotter [19] (see further revisions for sources)

~ Cheers User:Αchille

I don't think a block would stand for long, based on the last unblock. Has anyone made any progress talking to the network admin's and working out a solution to bypass the proxy so that more fine grained blocking can be done? If not, someone with the necessary skills should. - Taxman ^Talk 14:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP was blocked for 3 hours User:Αchille

Post blocking there is still more vandalism: In the article for Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) removing references[20] to Tom DeLay:

"Musgrave received $30,000 in campaign contributions from former majority leader Tom DeLay's ARMPAC."

This violation occurred 14:16, 1 February 2006.

In the article for Congressman Dan Lungren (R-CA) removing references[21] to percentage of vote received in defeat for for Governor of California:

"Lungren received 38% of the vote."

This violation occurred 01:05, 2 February 2006.

George W. Bush's Sixth State of the Union Address

Bigtimeoperator continues to vandalize George W. Bush's Sixth State of the Union Address by moving it to incorrect titles and insisting that it's actually the fifth. He insists that Wikisource is somehow making up Bush's 1st state of the union speech, or implies that it was not technically his s. of the u. speech. He also keeps on changing the content to say that this is the fifth, even though there is already a separate page for the fifth - George W. Bush's Fifth State of the Union Address. Please block him. KI 17:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute, not vandalism. If he commits a 3RR violation, I'll block him, but otherwise work it out on the talk page. Personally, I agree that using the year makes much more sense than the ordinal number. howch e ng {chat} 17:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a content dispute. He's lying about plain facts. Whether or not 2006 is used in the title is irrelevant. Neither one of us cares. He's just trying to use the wrong number, 5 instead of 6, in the title. KI 20:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I bothered to intervene in what was at first a mistake and now a silly, petty debate is that I didn't remember any inaugural SOTU. Upon investigation, I found that it is a fairly common idea that officially there was no SOTU that year. Now, there was an address in 2001 that played the same role as a SOTU and for all intents and purposes was a SOTU. Except it wasn't, officially speaking. It was in fact called by another name. To call it a SOTU without explanation is a statement of error.

Beyond the fact that last night's address was officially Bush's fifth State of the Union, I agree with every other editor that it just makes more sense to categorize them by year.

But I'm curious... can you provide any documentation that the "official title" of last night State of the Union address was "Sixth State of the Union Address" as you claim in your revert? Any authoratative source at all?

Seeing as I'm the only one who has bothered so far to provide any citations whatsoever to bolster my claim, I'm guessing that you can't support your position. But hey, calling me a liar and a vandal works too, I guess. Bigtimeoperator 20:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Times, USA Today (caption), and the Atlanta Journal Constitution disagree with you. This took 5 minutes of Google searching. The other side is no longer completely wrong, the question is do you chose to acknowledge it and leave the debate to discussion or not? DrWitty 21:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockfest

Following the deletion of male bikini wearing for the eighth (or is it ninth?) time, and the sockfest at DRV, I have gone through the contribs of those users with edits in the deleted history; Here they are:

Glenzierfoot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Muillern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Rulcliffe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Rahlmanik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Guvan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Corn_Blade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bonfireman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Kinghorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Julia_Redmare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Anilocra_II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Having reviewed the edit histories and failed to find a single good-faith edit from any of them, and some already indef-blocked because of p[revious incarnations of this article, I have indef-blocked the rest. Potential for collateral damage seems low: as I say, not one of them has any evidence fo good-faith edits, and a couple of them have a lot of vandalism. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur --Doc ^ask? 23:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Safe Sex

I wanted to draw some attention to a struggel I've been having with an anon IP on the Safe Sex article. I was trying to make the page more neutral getting rid of pharses like "Use a Condom" and be objective - as an encyclopedia should be. But I keep getting reverted, along with anyone who believes the same as me. I have used up my 3rvts and don't want to exceed it so I was wondering if there is a compromise that could be made. Chooserr 00:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes, you kept tyring to slip in comments about HIV and AIDs being unproven, and this isn't the place for this anyway--205.188.116.200 00:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just making a point, read the conversation, before making snide remarks. Oh and at the end of the conversation the IP 64.12.116.198 accused me of Trolling, which is a Personal Attack. Chooserr 00:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not if you're a troll, which you do seem to be--205.188.116.200 00:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please stop making personal attack, I'm not a troll. I've contributed whole articles to wikipedia, and I don't make personal attacks. Chooserr 00:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Really, so you're not currently in the process of spamming all the users in the Catholic Wikipedians Category to reinsert your HIV comment?--205.188.116.200 00:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not spamming them all look for yourself, I've just posted comments on the pages of the few who've helped me in the past. And I'm not attempting to restore anything about HIV but just to make the section on bodily fluids more neutral and objective. 64.12.116.198 doesn't appreciate this, and is reverting (he's exceeded 3rvts by the way). Oh yeah, it also seems that you might be him under a dynamic IP. Maybe an Ammendment should be made the the 3rvt rule for reverting IPs who often attempt nothing but vandalism. Chooserr 00:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not feeding anymore--205.188.116.200 00:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a Troll and you are a non-user. You can't even get an account. You have to hide behind a dynamic IP making things harder for real users who like to follow the rules. Please can some real user help me out, or review the case. I'm not a troll. Chooserr 01:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's AOL, which sucks. I'll rangeblock both ranges. NSL E _(T+C) 01:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was a horribly inappropriate response--64.12.114.9 01:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please STOP...

Stop protecting articles linked from the main page. This is not a new policy and yet it's becoming a daily problem for those of us who patrol WP:PP and WP:RfPP. I don't care if the article is being hit every minute. Pages linked from the main page can only be protected to clean up lingering vandalism. That is all. I know. There's an edit war going on as well, but honestly, SP wasn't meant for that anyway. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection was used for an edit war? Absolutely not. WP:SEMI is not for edit wars, much less for articles linked from the Main Page. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! Anything linked from the main page should not be semi-protected. Please see User:Raul654/protection. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happens if George W. Bush is linked from the main page? enochlau (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then we don't protect it.--Sean Black (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think most folks just don't realize what's linked off the main page. There are, after all, quite a lot of things with links on any given day. I think it'd be a good idea to have soem sort of "quickref" box on WP:RFP that's somehow updated with all the articles that are linked off the main page on any given day. Maybe one of you technowizards can figure out the best way to do that? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 01:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that sounds terribly complicated. We only have Special:Whatlinkshere, not Special:Whatlinksgofromhere, after all ;).--Sean Black (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, would it be? Is there anything similar anywhere? Maybe like the open tasks template? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 01:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, that would be nice, but I fear at the moment we'd have to do it by hand unless someone writes up a bot to do it. Hands up, anyone? Also, we'd need a suggestion for making the backwater that is RfP more prominent, or having said box appear somewhere prominent. We could transmit it into admins brainchips, I suppose, when the Foundation gets around to issuing them. Absent a technical solution, I suppose reminders on talk pages of thusly protecting admins, and notes like this on a periodic basis are the best means of alerting people. I imagine it's usually an honest enough mistake. Oooh, perhaps we could add a list of "current mainpage articles" to the CVU's messagebar thingy? -Splash^talk 01:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All good ideas. On the aforementioned cartoon article, we have people who are reprotecting the page despite being told of the policy. I like the CVU idea, especially since we know what the FA is going to be ahead of time. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been protected again by User:Durin. I have not unprotected it yet because I am not as familiar with main-page politics, but I was under the impression that this was frowned upon, and this discussion seems to confirm that. --DDG 21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As have I. *sigh* Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, where is this policy? I've never come across it before. Mark ¹ 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "policy", but the reasons can be found at User:Raul654/protection. --bbatsell « give me a ring » 21:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is also in the protection policy itself. And it's followed by all of the RfP patrollers I know of. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's back...

CAoW--64.12.114.9 01:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion at WP:MFD. Though after it was deleted from the Wikipedia namespace, I wonder if it's not eligible for speedy deletion... —Locke Cole • t • c 01:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John, you can pay attention to a private page on someones own account, yet won't give a damn about me? Please this is upsetting, and distressing. Chooserr 01:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My name is not John and I have no idea what you're on about. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was using it to mean anyone as in general - as in Jimmy which is what I meant to say, and I've taken a short break to calm myself, but what I mean is that I have been hounded by IPs and have written out several complaints and no one cares. Could you please take a look at the section below. Thanks, Chooserr 01:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need help

This is a copy from LNSE's talk page:

== Not blocked ==

64.12.116.198 has by far exceeded the 3rvt thing, and has now vandalised Safe sex yet again. Could you block him for me? Oh and can I revert it without getting blocked? Chooserr 01:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point--64.12.117.9 01:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He also vandalised the create an account page Chooserr 01:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as I said, you're dealing with a troll, who first calls me a coward for having a dynamic ISP, then blames 6 day old vandalism on me, yep--64.12.117.9 01:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please someone help me! This IP is very upsetting, I've just been trying to contribute, and then every IP in town, or atleast all IPs operated by this one person, have come after me joining up, and calling me names. Being called "Troll" doesn't usually affect someone, but when it's said repeatedly and no one does anything about it it starts to hurt. Please could some admin help me, Chooserr 01:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Just been trying to contribute" doesn't exactly sum up your edits. "Trying to push an anti-contraception POV" is rather more accurate. --SarekOfVulcan 01:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Yes it does. I may have a bias, but if the information is firmly grounded should it be ignored??? Chooserr 02:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can somebody remove this nonsense from here?--64.12.114.9 01:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

64.12.x, please don't call User:Chooserr a troll. And please don't take advantage of your dynamic IP to break WP:3RR. User:Chooserr, if you're exasperated with a content dispute and the edit-warring is out of control, please feel free to list the article at WP:RFPP. Jkelly 01:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a good idea--152.163.100.200 03:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summaries were inappropriate, but the anon didn't violate 3RR, as far as I can see. AnnH ^(talk) 01:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my first change

Changed 3 words, his response, which I still don't have the slightest idea what it means--152.163.100.200 02:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you can drop the whole damn thing, I'm going to play in the corner you and your dynamic IPs immaturely boxed me into. Chooserr 02:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite know what that means either--152.163.100.200 02:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't quite know the english language, do you? Chooserr 02:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

personal attacks aside, what if anything does christmas have to do with birth control and quotation marks?--152.163.100.200 03:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski

This request for arbitration is closed. Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. The article may be unprotected (and reprotected) at the discretion of any admin who deems it safe to do so.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute! Semi-protected permanently?! That's a violation of WP:SEMI. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only wording that could be construed to cause a violation is that it says "A page can be temporarily semi-protected". That doesn't actually prohibit longer term use of it. And nothing says semi prot in this case is permanent either. - Taxman ^Talk 19:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: "The article may be unprotected (and reprotected) at the discretion of any admin who deems it safe to do so." That's a normal application. Dmcdevit·t 19:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have indef blocked KAJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet of Johnski Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 Tools

(moved from AN/I)

I recommend that admins add my monobook.js code to their monobook. I currently have Lupin's anti-vandal tool (which IP and fitltered edits), an Auto-AFD lister tab (when you click edit), EDIT: Afd closer and relist tabs, and a "revert as vandalism" link that appears near rollback but has a vandalism summary, other than the more vague rollback summary, so you can use either when fit. Have fun on RC patrol :)!Voice of All^T|@|ESP 06:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not related at all to this, but do you have an automatic AFD closer too? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opps, this should not be on Incidence, I'll move it. And no I dont, between auto-AFD list and AllayUnion bot, I think we can manage. I'll move this though.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 06:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnleemk has an auto-AFD closer. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Automating_AfD_closing. howch e ng {chat} 07:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, added to monobook.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 15:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I modified that afd closer to do cfd closings, but didn't take the time yet to make it autoselect between afd / cfd...since I do cfds all the time but haven't done an afd in forever. Its near the top of my monobook if someone wants to combine the two. --Syrthiss 16:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you have developed a tool for suppressing large and garishly-colored signatures on discussion pages! ;) j/k. --Tony Sidaway 15:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you refering to in specific?...I can think of a few names. I don't mind pics in sigs, just tiny ones :).Voice of All^T|@|ESP 16:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony is of course just unsatisfied at his boring sig and this is a cry for help to spruce his up. I think blinking pink text with a handfull of images would be much better. ALKIVAR™

02:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try Lynx in monochrome mode :P >Radiant< 02:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure when it started, but all my script tools stopped working after a while and my monobook.js file doesn't even display properly when I try to view it. In a strange twist, I can view other people's monobook.js files, and I can only view my own when I log off and view it anonymously. Can someone point me to an appropriate help page, or should I be posting this on the technical village pump? (I'm using Mozilla 1.5, BTW) --D e ath phoenix 18:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried refreshing your cache? (hold shift and click "reload"). >Radiant< 02:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Turkmen

I have blocked Turkmen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for disruption and as a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Turkmen is edit warring to insert special pleading into LBU and Pacific International University, two unaccredited universities. Turkmen denies being Gastrich (he may indeed be a meatpuppet not a sock) but the pattern of edits, comments and general behaviour is highly suspicious. He asserts that I am part of his war, but I'm not, I'm just cleaning up after Gastrich's sock-fest a couple of days ago. Both articles are semi-protected, which means the usual technique of creating a sock and piling right in no longer works.

Latest on LBU is to add some "notable alumni" previously added by a Gastrich sock, claiming "consensus". I've re-read the Talk page several times and can't see that consensus. I am taking that up with the other editors in the article.

Anyway, it may be seen as contentious, so I'm bringing it to other admins' notice. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: "Turkmen" just added the webpage http://michaelnewdow.com to Michael Newdow (an atheist)[22]. Who owns http://michaelnewdow.com? Well a quick search at http://www.checkdomain.com/ shows it's registered through www.godaddy.com, which "Domain servers in listed order: NS1.JCSM.ORG, NS2.JCSM.ORG" Yes, Jesus Christ Saves Minsitries (i.e. Jason Gastrich). It's cybersquatting. Same at Anthony Flew [23]. Jason Gastrich owns anthonyflew.com ; also documented re the skeptics annotated bible. It seems reaosnable to conclude that Turkmen is a sock (in fact probably excessively naive to conclude anything else). - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

10:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bling-chav

This user ought to be blocked. He goes round randomly nominating people, including himself, for adminship and votes willy-nilly on RfA. Whilst he has nominated me, I was going to wait a bit longer before nominating myself for adminship. Also, he puts the welcome template on userpages and usertalkpages of users who are not new. To me (although I have no proof) he could well be a sockpuppet of User:Piedras grandes, best known as inventor of the horriffic Template:bad, Template:Sm and Template:Good. --{{subst:user|4836.03}} 16:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We not going to block someone for that! His votes on RFA will be ignored. I suggest that you refuse the nomination and ask for it to be deleted. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question on the new "Belvedereposter" sockpuppet

A certain user "Mrbelvedereposter" has for some time contributed nothing but errant nonsense with his multitudinous sockpuppets (See Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts#Mr Belvedere poster), but now one of his accounts User:Mrbelvedereposter25 is trying to claim he's not that bad...? Etc...? I don't know what to do in this case so I'm asking here. If this is the wrong location, I request someone let me know so I can ask wherever's best. Thanx 68.39.174.238 20:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. I suggested that if he wants to contribute usefully, to use another nickname. Ral315 (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are also some weird edits made by User:Helpfulposter on that page. He moves and comments about the MrBelvedere and technically speaking there's nothing wrong with those edits, but it is strange since his only edits involve comment and moving the posts. Dr Debug (Talk) 22:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not block me. I was just trying to be helpful. I want to fight vandalism, not make it. Helpfulposter 02:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as Helpfulposter will not vandalize, I see nothing wrong with his participation, even if he was Mr. Belvedere. As far as I know, he's not BANNED, so he's welcome to come back under a different name. Ral315 (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:PPEist

I'be blocked this user for 24 hours for legal threats here--Shanel 23:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He/she is still making legal threats on their Talk page. If they continue when the block expires, it should be extended. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have indef. blocked since he is still making legal threats and standard practice is to block people who threaten legal action until such time as they have withdrawn their threats and/or the legal action has ceased. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An indefinite block hardly seems appropriate here. WP:NLT specifically says that blocks are considered on a case-by-case basis, and the comments on the user's talk page are a discussion of the reason behind the original 24 hour block (which would have been appropriate in any case for disruption). Physchim62 (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standard practice is to block until the threats are withdrawn or the legal action is over and this user has seriously threatened to report Wikipedia and its users in Britian to the police so I think a perm block is more than appropriate unless of course this user states that they are not planning to report Wikipedia editors to the police and start legal action. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jtkiefer. When he withdraws his threats, the block can be removed. Comments such as "Block me all you want, there's another 1,000+ people who use this IP address, and I can get a new IP address in 5 seconds" suggest that he is not yet amenable to this position, and the block should remain in place, in my opinion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well apparently it doesn't matter what we think since Physchim62 has undone the block and hasn't even bothered to give the courtesy of noting it here. I would just like to note here that I am reblocking, some things are needed and taking care of disruptive users who threaten to have other wikipedia users arrested (or at least attempt to do so) is one of them so I am going to reblock even though if at all possible I do not want to get into a wheel war over this. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Legal threats are not to be tolerated. Also, the account has hardly any useful edits and seems to be created mainly to inflame the debate on those Jyllands cartoons. Don't feed the troll. >Radiant< 02:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not going to get into a block war, don't worry. All the same, if this editor were serious, an indef. block would seem like a very good way of provoking her further, and might end up in her going to the the Police. That is to say, the exact opposite of what we are trying to acheive. Physchim62 (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good block to me. Legal threats -- even ones that are less than serious -- are blockable until such time as they're rescinded or resolved, because of the potential chilling effect they can have. Beyond which, this account has pretty much only been used to make disruptive edits. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 02:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. You should note that a block does not mean that we are impinging on their right to take legal action, however it does mean that if they are actually taking legal action then they should not be allowed to cause us more grief while it is ongoing. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that nobody has a "right" to edit Wikipedia and if your threatening to get other users arrested I think it's fairly safe to say that the person has forfeited the privilege of editing. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone is under any illusions as to the intentions of this editor, please read the following comment they made on their talk page:

Block me all you want, there's another 1,000+ people who use this IP address, and I can get a new IP address in 5 seconds. This "Wiki principal" is absolutely comical, you're basically saying that if I come on here and slander someone, they say they will sue me, THEY are committing an offence in giving a, completely legitimate, valid and understandable "legal threat"? PPEist 00:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem like good faith editing to me. I suspect that this editor is the same one who was blanking the Ruzwana Bashir VfDs and their talk page, but have no way of verifying this without someone with CheckUser status confirming. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/PPEist certainly suggests this yes. Note that she "won" on that one, as Jimbo ordered a blanking. Physchim62 (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user contacted me via email (using a fake address), asking for the IP address to be unblocked, The user claims that he/she has contacted the relevant people and he/she is no longer making legal threats. I have not unblocked the IP however. --Shanel 20:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow

I have blocked User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow for making personal attacks at Dyslexic Agnostic's talk page. Namely, [24], [25]. I have placed a notice advising him of the block,[26] but I place a notice here so that other admins can review my actions regarding the situation. Steve block talk 10:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair. How long was he blocked? NSL E _(T+C) 10:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24 hours, sorry. Steve block talk 10:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[conflict]Checked the IPblocklist. One day seems fair to me, and if he doesn't stop when he comes back I'd be in favour of a longer block. NSL E _(T+C) 10:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I based the length of time on the fact that he has received a 24 hr block for personal attacks before. [27], but agree a longer block could well be necessary. Note, there is an arbitration case between the two at present. Steve block talk 10:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objections here.--Shanel 19:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoatSe

Hi, I was blocked by user:inter yesterday. He reverted an edit by a vandal to the page on Nick Griffin the last version by me and then proceeded to ban me with the rather cryptic message goatse ahahaha lolololol.

He didn't leave any message, so i'm not sure what his reasoning was, but I would appreciate it if someone would unblock me (user:GoatSe), so that I can continue to contribute.

It's very frustrating as people were telling me to sign up rather than editing under my IP and now I'm banned due to the pettiness of one user.

I must have mistaken the anon I reverted as you. My bad since this seems to be the case. The image used for the vandalism was a penis, so I assumed you were trying to be funny with the stupid Goatse.cx gimmick and banned you. Inter\^Echo 01:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what has happend here. But your contributions show no evidence of vandalism - so I'm unblocking you. I've dropped a note to the blocking admin, mitakes happen and this seems to be one. The lesson to us admins is always use helpful block summaries, and drop notes on userpages. --Doc ^ask? 11:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also assumed Goatse was a vandal the first time I came across him. But if you choose a name associated with vandalism, you really are asking for it. Mark ^{your words} 12:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'you are asking for it' is not grounds to ban me, any more than it is grounds for anything else. Anyway, there are two autoblocks still in place. Could someone kindly remove them. Thanks

And don't forget to sign your comments with ~~~~ :-) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

13:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a thorny ethical issue when you get down to it. "You're asking for it" or "your username is suspicious" shouldn't be grounds to ban someone. That's the kind of reasoning that leads to "she shouldn't have worn a miniskirt in that part of town". Yet, on the other hand, choosing a username like yours is rather like walking into a bank wearing a black ski mask and wondering why people are giving you funny looks. It's not fair, it's not justified, but it is understandable. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This username is not "suspicous", it's innapropriate. Goatse.cx.--Sean Black (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for my block was that I thought he was the offending user vandalising with an image of a penis. That logical leap is about a nanosecond away. I didn't stop and see that it was indeed an anon I actually reverted. The username is inappropriate and this user will probably take some heat for it sooner or later. Inter\^Echo 01:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More about East Sea, East Sea (disambiguation), &c.

Please, please, please someone step in and review the situation. User:Appleby just returned from his 48-hour 3RR block and is continuing his campaign for his POV. Perhaps I could have handled this differently, and that's why I'm hoping that someone else will step in. --Nlu (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did Appleby just break 3RR again in East Sea (disambiguation), or am I counting correctly?--Endroit 18:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, is there any admin out there, paying attention and reading this? Appleby has been blocked for an additional 72 hours. Katefan0 suggests that the page be protected while we resolve this issue.

In my opinion, there are 3 pages involved: East Sea (disambiguation), East Sea (capital letters), and East sea (small letter). Discussion already took place, mostly in Talk:Sea of Japan.

I would say that Appleby is in the minority opinion, but I am willing to participate in any poll or arbitration. Please advise what to do.--Endroit 19:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible imposter of me?

I think SWD1nceayear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an imposter of me. His only edits are to his user page, user talk page and my talk page. SWD316 ^{talk to m}^e 20:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. I didn't block him because he didn't attack you, but I will if you want. NoSeptember ^talk 20:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it might be better to block him. SWD316 ^{talk to m}^e 21:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. NoSeptember ^talk 21:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need blacklist help

Given the increase in vandalism using tinyurl and tinylink to link to malware sites, I've tried adding them to m:spam blacklist, but it's not working. Help would be appreciated. Raul654 21:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're using url123.com now, too. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen url123.com, tinyr.us, xrl.us, tny.se and I think tinylink.com -- Curps 06:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of athletes found guilty of using banned drugs

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and came accross the list above. Whilst it seems that a lot of work has gone into compiling it, at present it seems to contain a lot of unverified information that could be considered libel. I thought about going through the list and deleting the unreferenced items but that would still leave the potentially libelous material in the article history. I'm not sure if this is the best place to raise it but I would appreciate if one of you guys could take a look. RicDod 21:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of removing the non-referenced subjects, lets find references for them. They had to be found someplace to get added to the list. Mike _{(T C)}

22:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that assuming good faith to the extreme? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, if there is not a verifiable source cited (WP:CITE), then the article should be removed from the list/category immediately. Move it to the talk page for discussion if you are concerned that the information might be lost, but there is absolutely no reason to expose Wikipedia to a lawsuit in this manner. Best regards, Hall Monitor 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict)

The list itself admits that it is incomplete: I have removed all entries for which there was no reference as per WP:V. I might note that a large number of these athletes had no article about them, and, on the side of the coin, several well-known doping cases (e.g.) were unreferenced. If editors wish to use their free speech in this way, they should (IMHO) take more care over such things. Physchim62 (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what categories are for, surely? The editors on individual articles will quickly spot and remove bogus categories, whereas the mailicious or clueless addition of names to a list might go unnoticed. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

20:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

64.53.167.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
65.1.202.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
70.176.118.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
72.137.14.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
80.255.207.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
81.179.103.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
82.10.11.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
86.135.185.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
LOL_nobelium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The_Boogeyfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can we get blocks on the users or semi-protection on this article? SWD316 ^{talk to m}^e 01:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll semi protect it for a day or so. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old/orphaned VfD

I stumbled upon an old VfD that was never properly listed and dating back to 2004. What's the policy regarding those? MfD? Speedy? Move to AfD and re-list? Leave alone? Thanks. — TheKMan^talk 04:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful: the listing method probably was different back then. Didn't VfD have a time when old discussions were unlisted? The best course of action would probably be to leave it alone (and take a look at the article, just in case). --cesarb 04:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking an IP but allowing trusted users from that IP

Hello, I am an editor with over 3000 edits under my belt, but a public IP I sometimes use is currently blocked (160.83.73.6)... is there any way for Wikipedia to keep blocking the IP for anonymous edits but allow me to log in when I am here and still edit away? Uris 04:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, but see WP:BPP for a proposed policy about it. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

160.83.73.6 (talk • contribs) was blocked for 48 hours for "long-term vandalism", but only has one warning on its talk page dating back to 2004. The majority of the edits were made in good faith. Seems like an unjust block. — TheKMan^talk 04:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for lifting the block! I think WP:BPP is an excellent idea though, as anytime you have enough people using a proxy IP there is going to be anonymous vandalism. They should at least have to make a new account each time they try to vandalize... Uris 04:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting image username

Regarding Image:Jetstream41.eastern.airways.arp.750pix.jpg. Can someone rename it to Jetstream31.eastern.airways.arp.750pix.jpg? The image is actually of a Jetstream 31, not a 41. The image name is inaccurate and might lead to confusion. Only one article links to it and I will correct the link once it's done. Mexcellent 04:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The only way (AFAIK) is to delete the image and re-upload, which I've done. However, since the image is PD, I uploaded it to commons. Image:Jetstream31.eastern.airways.arp.750pix.jpg. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks. Mexcellent 05:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Bug

Sock Bug is Back. Could'nt even keep the sig active. Martial Law 05:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am engaged in a debate here, and this mess could prove detrimental. Thought it was quashed. Heading to WP:BUG as well. Martial Law 05:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue what you mean by "sock bug", but note that WP:BUG is deprecated. >Radiant< 15:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VIRUS link

A bunch of sockpuppets continue to post a virus link at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. — TheKMan^talk 08:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it up, User talk:Monkey toll has been indefinitely blocked. Posting links meant to infect people's computers with viruses is unnaceptable and cannot be tolerated. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More socks are posting the link again. It might also be a good idea to remove the edits, with the url in the edit summary. — TheKMan^talk 08:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also blocked User talk:AnthonyBergs who took over as soon as I blocked the original guy. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Kitchensink blocked, yet another sock. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few more socks:

Limeyy (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
Binary_sum (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
JesseJamesy (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Thanks — TheKMan^talk 08:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All indef. blocked Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the link the same as the one last time? If not, it should be added to the blacklist. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure if it is the same. The posted link auto redirected to tomrfkaxgsys DOT on DOT nimp DOT org website (GNAA?). My virus scanner warned me of "VBS:Malware [Script]" and blocked the connection. — TheKMan^talk 20:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, *.on.nimp.org is the same as last time: Last Measure. --cesarb 22:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was already added to the spam filter? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was but the spam filter only prevents someone from saving a link to a banned site (or domain in this case) someone can still save a link to a domain that redirects automatically to the banned domain. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for rollback privileges poll closing soon

The requests for rollback privileges poll, a poll to gauge consensus on whether good contributors who are not admins should be given the rollback privilege, is closing at 00:00 UTC on Tuesday, ~~6 January 2006~~. If you haven't weighed in, please do so! Talrias (t | e | c) 11:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...*FEBRUARY* Month lag i guess, heh. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 15:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental block (urgent)

User:Pomegranite is unable to edit, apparently because his IP address has been blocked (due to actions of another person using his computer?), and has become rather angry about that. I request an explanation, and perhaps an unblock. - Mike Rosoft 14:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Ipblocklist nor the block log has any mention of this user. If he were sharing an IP with another blocked user, he could have been hit by the autoblocker, but that should show up in the ipblocklist and it does not. So either the list is broken, or Pomegranite is mistaken. >Radiant< 14:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, when you unblocked me earlier tonight I was still getting autoblocked over an hour later. Eventually another admin had to reblock me for 5 seconds, undo the autoblocks, and all was well. Someone might want to ask a dev if the autoblocker (or blocking in general) is broken. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your name was not even in the block list when I unblocked you; I had to do it manually. Weird. >Radiant< 15:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How would it show up in the blocklist? If the IP was autoblocked, then any user using that IP will be unable to edit, but accounts are not autoblocked, nor do they appear in the blocklist. Or do they? --Latinus (talk (el:)) 14:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you edit from an IP recently used by a blocked user, the system automatically blocks you (to prevent the blockee from simply getting a new account). This should show up in the block log as "autoblocked because you share an IP". >Radiant< 15:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What if the blocked user was just using an IP, not a username? Mark ^{your words} 15:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pomegranite seems to be a student, so it wouldn't be surprising if she shares an IP with a vandal. I don't understand Radiant's comment either, but I'm not very well-versed in these things. Mark^{your words} 14:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done a manual unblock, but I don't know if that'd actually help. >Radiant< 15:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usernames aren't "autoblocked" really; they are just disabled because the underlying IP is blocked. There is no actual block placed against the account; when the block of the IP is removed, the username will immediately unblock. IPs, however, actually have a physical autoblock set against them, which must be separately removed (because it is actually a separate block). Thus, "autoblocks" of accounts don't show up anywhere, and are very difficult to find since they don't generate an actual block and the resulting block message. The easiest way to solve this is for the blocked user to identify the IP address they are using (it is listed in the blocked user text they see when they try to edit) and have an admin physically unblock that IP (i.e., enter it directly into the unblock screen.) That will clear any actual blocks of the IP, as well as any autoblocks on the IP. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 15:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That explains a little mystery I came across recently. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

16:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civil?

There has been condierable debate over the behaviour of one Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). An RfC has been raised and there is broad agreement (51:1) that he has violated multiple policies, including WP:CIVIL. He has now posted this diatribe: [28]. I take it as just the rantings of a frustrated POV-pusher, but others state that it violates WP:CIVIL at least and probably WP:NPA, and there is very strong feeling that any future policy violaitons on Gastrich's part should be met with swift and decisive action. I am obviously not neutral in this matter, so if someone could have a look and see if some kind of action is needed I'd be grateful.

At the same time, there is some debate over whether peppering a user page with external links is acceptable. I removed a number, certainly not all, Gastrich disputes this: [29]. Guidance from older and more experienced folks would be appreciated. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 16:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your initial reaction that the post was an expression of frustration, a pretty tame "personal attack" on a page where a user ought to get a bit more slack. Let people who haven't been fighting with him deal with any more like this. alteripse 23:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR on Xed

The Wikipedia:Request for Arbitration against User:Xed is closed [30]. Xed, who remains on personal attack parole, is reminded to avoid personal attacks even in the face of extreme provocation. Xed is warned regarding use of a source such as this one which does not support the information it is cited in support of. Viriditas is commended for continuing to work with the article substantially improving it while maintaining a courteous attitude toward the difficult user Xed.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR on User:TDC and anonymous Earthlink editor 165.247.xxx

The Wikipedia:Request for Arbitration against User:TDC and anonymous Earthlink editor 165.247.xxx on the matter of Winter Soldier Investigation is closed [31]. TDC (using whatever account or IP address) and the anonymous Earthlink editor 165.247.xxx (using whatever account or IP address) are banned from editing Winter Soldier Investigation for one year. If, in three months, either parties can demonstrate good behavior, they may request that the Arbitration Committee lift their ban or parole. If TDC or the anonymous Earthlink editor 165.247.xxx (using whatever account or IP address) edits Winter Soldier Investigation, any changes made may be reverted by any editor and any administrator may, at his or her discretion, block the violator for up to one week. If TDC or the anonymous Earthlink editor 165.247.xxx (using whatever account or IP address) performs more than one content revert in any 24 hour period, or fails to discuss a content revert, any administrator may, at his or her discretion, block the violator for up to one week.

For the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 18:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Gastrich

Another suspected sock of Jason Gastrich has appeared at Soarin777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The user's sole action was to create a new article on deleted subject Robert Morey. I have blocked this user, which is I know unusually aggressive, due to strong consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich, his known and prolific use of socpuppets in the past, and because in his last comment at his talk page Gastrich made a statement which has been construed as an open admission that the sock/meatpuppets will be unleashed on Wikipedia. I am posting this here for peer review of this action, and for notice that similar problems may crop up. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you have evidence of sockpuppetry and use the phrase "suspected sockpuppet" so they can prove otherwise if they can, I have no problems with it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Bookofsecrets

Bookofsecrets keeps making personal threats[32][33]. This user is especially vitriolic. Can an admin check this out? Also note that two of his IPs have been banned previously due to vandalism. --BWD 01:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambi and deletion

See deletion log. Ambi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) seems to be speedily deleting any and all pages tagged with {{prod}}. I'm not sure why; needless to say this is not the point of Wikipedia:Proposed deletion; it should give the articles five days' respite, and if during those five days any user objects to deletion, the article is not deleted. Indeed, earlier today, several articles were already cleaned up, merged, vetoed or moved to AFD. Please give an alternative to AFD a chance; AFD is frequently said to be less than ideal. >Radiant< 02:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:216.15.56.42

User:216.15.56.42 has repeatedly harassed User:ArmadniGeneral on User talk:ArmadniGeneral. He/She violates WP:NPA, WP:CIV, and WP:3RR. I request any form of action to handle this dispute. Thank you. SYCTHOS^talk 02:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chadbryant

Anyone have any details what the situation with that is? I am hesitant to take any actions without details. --Nlu (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page for some of the conversations I've been having with his opponent, "Alex Cain", who has been behaving rather badly for the past few months (personal attacks, petty vandalism, etc) using dozens if not hundreds of sockpuppets as well as anonymous IPs. I have told Cain many times to cut out the personal attacks and take whatever issue he has with Chad Bryant through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but so far he just continues doing what he's been doing. In turn, he claims that a certain external link on Chad Bryant's page constitutes a personal attack against him, but I see nothing about external links in Wikipedia:No personal attacks, whereas Cain's personal attacks (mostly schoolyard taunts like "douchebag") are much more clearcut. -- Curps 06:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get-back-world-respect

Copied this from WP:AIV at request of admin User:Nlu, thinks it's better off here.

* Get-back-world-respect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Originally spammed over a dozen users talkspaces with a paragraph including misrepresnting and insulting remarks against me. I posted on her user talk that said comments were patently untrue, and I'd appreciate if she notified all those users of such. She deleted my comment. I commented again, reinserting my comment and protesting the deletion as bad faith. She deleted my comment. I added it in a third time, along with a warning template against deleting talk space comments." She deleted that. In order not to violate 3RR I stopped there, and instead made a long post citing wikipedia policy about deleting talk space comments, and copied it to my own talk space for posterity, where in both cases I made it VERY clear that if she deleted it again, I would submit this request. She deleted, and I'm submitting the request. Swatjester 04:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC) (note timestamp different than original post)[reply]

Users are entitled to remove comments from their talk pages. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 04:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but not with the intent to misrepresent, which is against policy. 04:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Then file an RFC, or go to mediation. No-one is going to block GBWR for removing your comment from her talk page. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 04:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Says

You've had your fun with me, now I'm going to have my fun with you. I have placed 30 nihlartikles throughout wikipedia, and your job is to find them. Be careful, over half of them have graphics and look very unassuming.

Simon says find the nihlartikles and revert them. - MilkMan

Brainhell

Brainhell (talk · contribs) This guy is displaying all the classic traits of a classic troll]]. He's totally bent out of shape over the deletion of a nanostub/weblink placeholder. He simply won't drop the personal attacks, so he's taking a one-week time out. Any reason this shouldn't be permanent or should this be an RfC? I've been as nice as I can be to this user but I'm still being threatened with administrative action and I'm accused of being a "vandal with administrative rights." If he put half the effort into his nanostub as in his protests, he'd have a featured article. Jeez, why do I put myself through this?!? - Lucky 6.9 04:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good news: I think this exquisite litle inconvenience is mercifully behind us. I've unblocked the account. - Lucky 6.9 09:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History cleansing?

Am I correct that efforts have been made to cleanse the revision history of George W. Bush of personal info/defamation (that is, about Jimbo)? Because there's still some really nasty stuff in there. I'm aware that the page in question is the worst we have to perform this kind of calculation. Shall I provide diffs? Please advise. Thanks. Chick Bowen 05:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a more extreme way to do it (deleting the entire page and then deleting revisions one by one) but that A) would probably crash the servers and B) cause tons of issues in the process. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, so just not worth worrying about then? Or. . . ? Chick Bowen 06:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing can be done about it unless it contains something really bad, in which case let a dev and they can remove the edit using their special powers. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 07:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia

There is a great deal of blanking and other vandalism on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy coming from the IP ranges 212.138.47.xx and 212.138.113.xx Many individual IPs are on their third revert. The problem is that these ranges appear to be assigned dynamically to cover the whole of Saudi Arabia. What to do? For the moment I am sprotecting, as this will acheive the result on the Muhammed cartoons article without blocking editing by legitimate Saudi users. Physchim62 (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the steps at Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. I've added {{sprotected}} to the article and listed it on Wikipedia:Protected pages. Johnleemk | Talk 06:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willy on Wheels

A Willy on Wheels account has just been created by someone on sco.wikipedia.org for the usual nonsense. I've cleaned up its initial changes and blocked the account for the next six months but I'd appreciate it if any en:admins would be willing to help the two sco:admins to keep an eye on the situation. -- Derek Ross | Talk 09:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

195.93.21.41

Can someone please put a temporary block on this AOL IP? He's wreaking havoc, albeit easily revertable havoc. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 11:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell?

Stop changing things, damnit:

First you change it so anons can't create articles
Then you come up with "sprotection" so anons can't edit articles either
More often AOL "range blocks" are being thrown around with no consideration for the affected users
The last straw, you pull deletedpagehistories, taking a function previously available to anyone, and restricting it to admins
And now, I go to create a user name, and what do I see "Your password is too short. It must have at least 1 characters" WTF?? Since when was there a minimum password length?? Since never, what possible reason could you have for changing it?--205.188.116.200 02:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a password if it doesn't have at least one character, though. Also, see WP:CIV: Please don't use such agressive language, thanks.--Sean Black (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it never used to force you to make a password, just like it didn't used to force you register in order to make edits, now it seems both have become the norm--205.188.116.200 02:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes changes can be good. Forcing you to have a password makes it more difficult for people to hijack your account, and it does not impact your ability to edit pages. ~MDD 46 96 02:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a couple of your points: deletedpagehistories was formerly only available to admins, but was amended in August to be visible to all. It had to be pulled again as it removed the ability to get rid of some highly abusive edit summaries. So that change was just a revert. The password thing was switched on a few hours ago, see [34]. -Splash^talk 02:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally can't understand why you'd want a blank password anyway.--Sean Black (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one thing, if I already have an account with a blank password, I can't use it anymore, since I get "Login error:Password entered was blank. Please try again.", when I try to login--205.188.116.200 03:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can request a new password by email. You did set an email, didn't you? -Splash^talk 03:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I didn't bother to set a password, but naturally you assume I'd specify an email address, just in case I ever forgot my non-existant password, and needed to have it emailed to me--205.188.116.200 03:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, I can't be the only person affected by it, just probably the first to notice, eventually people are going to log out of their accounts, only to find themselves 'locked out' so to speak--205.188.116.200 03:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The anon has an interesting point, how about using a watchlist message or similar to warn existing users that blank passwords will no longer work, while they are still logged in and have a chance to change it. Dragons flight 03:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brion has said that he will try to get code in tomorrow to force users with blank passwords to establish one on next login. In the meantime, sysops with blank passwords were found, which, I'm sure everyone will agree, is a massive potential security breach, and there is no way in MediaWiki to only disable blank passwords for sysops. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 13:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"sysops with blank passwords were found," Excuse me?? Hall Monitor 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the relevant e-mail from Brion: [35] --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 22:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...a handful of sysop accounts had blank passwords." Brion, thank you for fixing that. I'm amazed such a major security hole stayed open for so long. Jonathunder 00:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, "stop changing things" isn't a strong enough argument in my opinion to prevent the natural evolution and development of Wikipedia. Blank passwords are simply unacceptable (again, in my opinion). --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 13:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the problem is, people who already have blank passwords can no longer login, since the login screen no longer accepts blank passwords, therefore they have no means of changing their passwords or logging in, and are essentially banned--64.12.116.200 15:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some way the scripting could be changed, so that while creating an account with a blank password stays disallowed, an exception could be made for people trying to login with pre-existing blank passwords, to give them an opportunity to change them?--64.12.116.200 15:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Bbatsell just said above, Brion is working on code to allow these people to login, but to force them to change their passwords when they do so. --cesarb 16:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but in the mean time, myself, and others like me still can't access our accounts--152.163.100.200 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, still can't use my account, wouldn't it make more sense to just reset the change until such time as the scripting change is complete? That way people could use thier accounts in the meantime?--64.12.116.200 22:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a bad idea. Once the existence of blank passwords was revealed, it became too risky to enable them again. --cesarb 22:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, that means that anyone with a blank password is as good as banned, since they can no longer log in to change it?--64.12.116.200 22:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They will be able to login as soon as Brion's code is ready — and will be immediately forced to change their passwords. Of course, the sooner you do it (after the code is enabled), the better. --cesarb 22:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, is it done yet?--205.188.116.200 14:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bluntly, if you were foolish enough to create a user with a blank password, I have very little sympathy for you at all. At any moment anyone else could have logged in as you and changed your password to something else anyway. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 16:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so let me try this again, does this mean all users with blank passwords are now de facto banned? no, there's a patch So we'll be able to log in and change our passwords? no, of course not, that would be a security problem So then all users with blank passwords are as good as blocked? no, of course not, we're working on a fix..... Reasoning in circles here...--64.12.116.200 17:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree that we need something better than range blocks for dealing with AOL vandals. They hurt innocent users, and do nothing to stop AOL vandals. Not that I have any good idea what would be better, short of forcing all AOL users to get accounts, which might not be entirely popular. Perhaps we should redirect all known AOL IP user pages to a single ANON_AOL psuedo user page? Regards, Ben Aveling 03:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brion Vibber has been playing with Captchas lately. See wikitech-l for details. -Splash^talk 03:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And anon, 60 of about 900,000 articles are semi protected. And it's usually for no longer than 3-4 days. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True range blocks on AOL ranges are sometimes needed when an AOL anon goes on a vandalism spree and there's no other way to stop this or even leave a message on that user's talk page (because he doesn't have one, because of AOL's round robin IP allocation). But I suspect that what you are referring to as "range blocks" really means autoblocks. That's an increasing problem because vandals have figured out how to leverage a block on a registered username into a denial of service attack on their fellow AOL users. -- Curps 17:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I'm not a big fan of autoblocks. The idea is good (to stop banned users from posting from their static IP) but it's faulty. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking self-identified pedophiles

The userbox Template:User pedophile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is a great way of identifying those users who consider themselves to be pedophiles. I plan on indefinitely blocking any user who includes this template. I've already blocked the only user to include this template, Joeyramoney (talk · contribs). Wikipedia has no obligation to permit deviants to edit. If a someone has sexual thoughts about children, keep it to yourself and stay off Wikipedia. I can't even imagine the PR nightmare that the Wikimedia Foundation would face if articles were being written by self-identified pedophiles. Carbonite | Talk 14:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - children edit Wikipedia! We don't want Wikipedia to be the kind of place where things like this happen. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 14:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we already have at least one article that was written by self-identified pedophiles? --cesarb 14:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block on sight. No quarter. El_C 14:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this some strange attempt to test the limits of the 'all are welcome regardless of their views' policy which is one of the fundamental aspects of Wikipedia? Or can you actually point to the section in the blocking policy which justifies this? David | Talk 14:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an application of common sense. There is universal condemnation of pedophiles (and rightly so). Allowing known pedophiles to edit could also endanger younger users. I'd support adding language to the blocking policy to formally justify the blocking of self-identified pedophiles. Carbonite | Talk 14:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the safety of young Wikipedians (from possible harm of the variety reported to have occured due to chatroom encounters) and Wikipedia's reputation as a safe for all website counts? --Latinus (talk (el:)) 14:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any private chat areas on Wikipedia, and we keep all edits. Have you considered the possibility that (a) people who include the template may not actually be paedophiles but just including it to inflame other people, (b) Wikipedia may have users who are paedophiles but don't want to include the template and identify themselves as such for fairly obvious reasons? If the problem is the template, then delete it. But Wikipedia does not ban people merely because they have committed crimes, not even if the crime was murder or treason. So I don't see that this blanket ban is justified. David | Talk 14:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of the safety of the younger Wikipedians (as in the chatroom incidents), not the fact that a user is a criminal or not. I'm also thinking of Wikipedia's reputation - we don't want parents to forbid their children from editing when they see confessed paedophiles roaming about. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 15:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Joeyramoney also indicates that he is a mutant, that his user page is BS, and that he is 16. Under the standard definition of the term he can't be a pedophile because he isn't an adult yet. Sex between minors is not typically considered 'pedophilia'. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 14:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even at 16, I think he'd put a little thought into putting a "pedophilia" template on his user page. If he placed it there in error or as a joke, he can explain this on his talk page. If it is a joke, it's about as funny as identifying oneself as a member of the KKK or a Nazi. Carbonite | Talk 15:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we automatically block self-identified KKK or Nazis? Anyway, blocking for use of a template seems pointless — in this case, it's almost certainly a joke, and the kind of pedophiles that are actually going to be stalking children aren't going to advertise their problem on the userpage. —Cleared as filed. 15:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a joke, then the user should be unblocked, with a warning to use better judgement in the future. I'm sure it will be a rare occasion when someone identifies themself as a pedophile, but should that happen, that person will be blocked. If another admin believes that pedophiles should be editing, they may unblock and I won't reblock. I'm not going to wheel war over this, but I do think it's just common sense. Carbonite | Talk 15:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, that analogy. Last I checked, people aren't blocked for being members of the KKK or being Nazis. Nor are they blocked for believing the Holocaust didn't happen, or being murderers, being rapists, being convicted fraudsters. They are blocked when they actually go and do something grossly inappropriate - like writing about how lynchings are a good way to keep the race pure, or how the Jewish conspiracy controls wikipedia, or threatening to hunt someone down and stab them - but, traditionally, we wait until they actually do that.

And, on a more pragmatic note, as many people have noted - I really doubt hunkering by {{User pedophile}} is going to be a productive way to actually find the people we might have to worry about... Shimgray | talk | 15:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all those hideously deviant views he has expressed about, er, obscure songs by the Who. To the best of my knowledge, we already do have self-identified (by actual words, and everything) paedophiles on wikipedia; I'm sure I remember someone screaming about it before. If you feel so strongly about this issue, dealing with them would surely be more productive than blocking someone who seems to be playing with userboxes. Shimgray | talk | 15:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joeyramoney is a troll, not a paedophile; I've no objection to blocking him for the former. But we don't block people for their sexual orientations. Condemnation of paedophile orientation (as opposed to activity) is certainly not something Wikipedia or its administrators should be engaging in. Mark ^{your words} 15:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's neither. He is a typical teenage boy... and while I found that a loathesome breed even when I was one I doubt it ought to be a blockable offense. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 15:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad consensus seems to indicate that blocking people for their beliefs is unacceptable. -- Ec5618 15:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophilia is a belief in the same way that hating all blacks is a belief. We don't want either here on Wikipedia. Carbonite | Talk 15:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Racist users are welcome on Wikipedia but they must leave their prejudices out of their article editing. Likewise any editor who edits an article to express the opinion that sex with children is good is liable to be blocked. But those who include the template are not doing that. Carbonite, I think you should lift your block as it seems to be against consensus. David | Talk 15:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will not lift it. As I stated above, I also won't reblock should another admin see fit to unblock. I will play no part in allowing pedophiles (or those identifying themselves as such) to edit Wikipedia. Carbonite | Talk 15:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was an article about pedophiles on Wikipedia a couple of months ago: "Online Encyclopedia Is a Gathering for Internet Predators: Who Is Editing Your Children's Encyclopedia?". Apparently, one of the leaders of the movement for "pedophile rights" has an account and edits pedophilia-related articles (pedophilia, childlove movement) to ensure that they are NPOV (as in, take into account the pedophiles' rights POV). It's a typical piece of sensational journalism, but it's interesting that no news agency picked up the story and ran with it. It was right around the whole Seigenthaler thing, so it's possible that story acted a smokescreen. Who knows what would happen if it were a slow news day and someone at CNN or ABC discovered this now. — BrianSmithson 15:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BAOU/"OfficialWire" is run by the same guy behind QuakeAID - and WikipediaClassAction.org - who would publish "WIKIPEDIANS EAT BABIES" if someone suggested it to him. Reading that article may give you some idea as to the veracity of his journalism... Shimgray | talk | 15:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can't cower in the face of possible ignorant press reporting. The response to the Siegenthaler incident was not a complete ban on articles about living people, but a measured change about anons starting new articles. David | Talk 15:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those of the opinion that blocking pedophiles is wrong because it's blocking someone based on their belief, can anyone name another belief that is so universally condemned? Carbonite | Talk 15:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust denial. Don't think there's a snazzy userbox for it, but there's sure a lot of them on Wikipedia. Shimgray | talk | 15:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or canibalism perhaps? Homosexuality, not too long ago? We mention sex, while not too long ago, that was strictly taboo.

Still, no matter what your personal feelings, or indeed, the personal feelings of everyone on the planet and in history, as long as an editor's feelings don't stand in the way of editing Wikipedia fairly, there is no problem. -- Ec5618 15:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with that. There's a fair percentage of people that could be classified as "holocaust deniers" to some extent. There are even occasional insinuations of denail by rather prominent people. Can you imagine a person in a powerful position even hinting or joking that they liked 8 year-old girls? Carbonite | Talk 15:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, Richard the Lionhearted, et cetera... and you miss the point. Once you get into saying 'unacceptable - ban on sight' you've got to deal with the people who say the same about homosexuality, inter-racial marriage, et cetera. These things were 'universally condemned' once too... and still reviled by many to this day. There was a time (centuries ago) when pedophilia was generally accepted. Views change. I'm not saying that pedophilia will (or should) become accepted again, but that it is inherently wrong to persecute people for their beliefs - no matter what those beliefs may be. And in this case the 'vile horrible monster' may simply have been implying that he likes to have sex with people his own age. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 15:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People who beleive in/practice Holocaust denial, beastiality, eugenics, racism, murder, rape, vivisection, abortion, any religion you care to name, invading other nations, capital punishment, female circumcision, sexism, universal suffrage, slavery, counterfeiting, file sharing, terrorism, democracy, communism, lolicon, drinking alcohol, the KKK, homosexuality, gay marriage, evolution, etc, etc, etc, are or have all been villified and hounded to the same or greater extent by the majority of their society as peadophiles currently are. I am not aware of anyone who has been blocked for proclaiming support for any of these - as long as they do not violate NPOV or other Wikipedia policies. The same should be true about peadophilia - if we block paedophiles then we are violating the NPOV ourselves by proclaiming that one side is wrong. I will unblock anyone blocked soley for their beliefs. Thryduulf 15:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because real paedophiles that are intent on grooming on Wikipedia will really place a siren on their user page to indicate that they are indeed paedophiles. The template should be deleted, and while it might be worthwhile blocking people because they are paedophiles doing so on the basis of this template is crazy. violet/riga (t) 15:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to unblock. The kid's page is perhaps a good argument for banning non-encyclopedic userboxes, and maybe a good argument for banning 16-year-olds, and possibly a good argument for banning twits, but we really need to differentiate between banning people for who they are and banning people for what they do. Much as I loathe (for example) Holocaust deniers, until they start putting their crap on article pages, they're just people with stupid ideas. Since most teenagers are pedophiles by definition (since the law considers adolescents to be children), as already pointed out, he can't be one. So, if I were the sort of admin willing to unilaterally start block/unblock wars rather than discussing the issue, the kid would already have been (a) unblocked and (b) told in no uncertain terms his user page makes him have zero credibility and destroys any possible assumption of good faith. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the objections above, I have unblocked. For all we know, we could have a convicted murderer editing Wikipedia from jail, and I see no reason to object to that. If people are using WP to "pick up" children they deserve a ban; but if they're nonactive pedos, presently in jail, or people with a sick sense of humor that's not for us to deal with. >Radiant< 15:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am worried by the wording "no obligation to permit deviants to edit". Am I going to be next to be blocked? Morwen - Talk 15:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably it's like "no obligation" in the same way nobody has a "right" to edit Wikipedia/how all editors are welcome to edit at Jimbo's whim. --AySz88 ^-^ 16:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Morwen. There will always be enough of us 'deviants' (so classified by some group or another for whatever reason) around that this kind of thing will never happen. Completely 'normal' people are so rare as to be the most deviant of all. :] --CBD _☎ ^✉ 16:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no obligation to permit deviants to edit. Agreed, and for this reason I am blocking you because your philosophy deviates from the norm on Wikipedia. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 16:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, if these editors have not violated any of our policies, especially the cornerstones like WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, etc. (and haven't preyed on minors like *gasp* me), they shouldn't be blocked. If they start pushing the child-sexing POV or coming on to minors, then give no quarter. But otherwise...well, it's not our problem if they get caught, right? (If Jimbo/the Foundation has decreed that these perverts go, then I'm all for it. But until then, there is no reason to block some people just for admitting they want to have sex with minors.) Johnleemk | Talk 16:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will lift, on request or when I notice, blocks on people that are unrelated to their edits or other valid rasons for keeping people off of Wikipedia. If someone is on death row for murder, and is somehow on the internet and is making good edits, then they may edit here. --Improv 17:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helloooooo, moral panic. We've had pedophiles on Wikipedia for over two years and nobody's gotten hurt. User:Zanthalon, User:LuxOfTKGL among others. We've also had a mailing list thread about this here: [36]. I will work with Improv to unblock anyone who is being blocked for reasons unrelated to their contributions. Ashibaka tock 17:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Improv above. I have to add that whilst I find the block to have been made in good faith, I would ask that no-one issue a block on the basis of a user box displayed on a user page, but rather discuss the issue here first, for starters. Also, anyone with any concerns regarding someones paedophilic tendencies should ask themselves:

Am I concerned enough to notify the police? If yes, then don't issue a ban, contact the police, a ban may disturb a police investigation. If no, don't issue a block, your concerns are probably groundless; otherwise you would have notified the police. Steve block talk 17:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said. And in any case, bans are supposed to be reactive, based on blockable offenses? Beliefs aren't blockable offenses, so why assume guilty until proven innocent? Thoughts aren't inherently wrong, but actions can be. ~MDD 46 96 17:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm thinking now that it probably was wrong to block Joeyramoney merely for using that template - considering that it makes no difference, and Ashibaka's just proved that. Also, that block was not permitted by the Wikipedia:Blocking policy. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have people of all ages editing, we do not want or need those who have an inclination or even pretension towards paedophilia. Those that state even in jest that this is their orientation should be banned permanently. Our talk pages may be public, but contact can lead to email contact and then God knows what. It's just not worth the risk. Ban them. Giano | talk 17:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1,177: / Line 1,177: @@
 **Well said. And in any case, bans are supposed to be reactive, based on blockable offenses? Beliefs aren't blockable offenses, so why assume guilty until proven innocent? Thoughts aren't inherently wrong, but actions can be. &#126;[[User:Mdd4696 |MDD]][[User_talk:Mdd4696 |46]][[Special:Contributions/Mdd4696 |96]] 17:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 :You know, I'm thinking now that it probably was wrong to block Joeyramoney merely for using that template - considering that it makes no difference, and Ashibaka's just proved that. Also, that block was not permitted by the [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]]. --[[User:Latinus|Latinus]] ([[:el:User talk:Latinus|talk (el:)]]) 17:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
+::* We have people of all ages editing, we do not want or need those who have an inclination or even pretension towards paedophilia.  Those that state even in jest that this is their orientation should be banned permanently.  Our talk pages may be public, but contact can lead to email contact and then God knows what.  It's just not worth the risk.  Ban them. [[User:Giano|Giano]] | [[User talk:Giano|talk]] 17:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Revision as of 17:39, 5 February 2006

Tasks

General

Jason Gastrich

Revealing deleted content to non-administrators

Soapboxing and user pages

Me

Deletion gordian knot

GNAA member account

Congressional Staffer Edits / 143.231.249.141

Protect-and-forget

Listing on Protected Pages

Rebate article move

Protection of Turkish related pages

Reviewing the US Senate edits

JtKiefer goes off the deep end

Unblock User:Elonka

Moving of Article

Freestylefrappe block

Tommstein injunction

Inappropriate image on the Qur'an page

Kurdish Articles

The welcome template

Congressional Edits / 143.231.249.141

Singapore proxy vandalism; did I call this one right?

Repair my botched move please (apologies!)

Suggest informal WikiDefcon 4 for US Congress Articles

Fix of a Botched Page move

Naming conventions

AfD closings

Another set of eyes, please

AfD move

MonkeyCMonkeyDo

systemic attack on castro related pages

Sea of Japan, East Sea, &c.

Silly NPOV addendum

POV/Vandalism from proxy

George W. Bush's Sixth State of the Union Address

Sockfest

Please STOP...

It's back...

Need help

3 Tools

Bling-chav

Question on the new "Belvedereposter" sockpuppet

Blocking of User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow

User:GoatSe

More about East Sea, East Sea (disambiguation), &c.

Possible imposter of me?

Need blacklist help

3RR

Old/orphaned VfD

Blocking an IP but allowing trusted users from that IP

Correcting image username

Sock Bug

VIRUS link

Request for rollback privileges poll closing soon

Accidental block (urgent)

Civil?

RFAR on Xed

RFAR on User:TDC and anonymous Earthlink editor 165.247.xxx

Jason Gastrich

User Bookofsecrets

Ambi and deletion

Get-back-world-respect

Simon Says

Brainhell

History cleansing?

Saudi Arabia

Willy on Wheels

More Muhammad cartoons problems

195.93.21.41

What the hell?

Blocking self-identified pedophiles