Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Monique deMoan

This 'article' was deleted yesterday, imo validly under CSD A7. Yesterday's article was identical save for the word "Notable" at the start. User:NoPuzzleStranger took the article to WP:VfU where the vote is presently a unanimous keep deleted. The recreation of this article is not only a WP:POINT, it is also gaming the system, against consensus and out of process. User:NoPuzzleStranger has thus far declined the opportunity to improve the article toward a stub.

Could an admin kindly redelete this? Thanks. -Splash 23:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Imo the article is a stub. If not, kindly tell me what an "assertion of notability" requires beyond asserting notability as the article obviously does? If you want, I can add the Google count - which would typically be used to demonstrate notability on VfD - into the article, although I think that would be a rather unusual thing to do. NoPuzzleStranger 23:06, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Reproducing the entire contents here: "Notable American porn-star who entered the business in 1993." Are "American", "porn star" and "1993" somehow indicators of something unusually notable? Are you arguing that since the word "notable" asserts notability in the most literal sense, you have successfully demonstrated that the vanity criterion is broken? JRM · Talk 23:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

<removed personal attack> NoPuzzleStranger has been blocked for 24 hours for repeatedly recreating Monique deMoan and Monique DeMoan. Zoe 23:46, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Unnecessary demonstration, though. Repeatedly recreated articles need to be overwritten with the template and locked in place anyway. Did constitute WP:POINT, of course. JRM · Talk 23:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

<removed personal attack> Tony Sidaway has now undeleted the page, removed the deletedpage template, and removed the protection without discussion, in violation of the consensus at Votes for undeletion. He has been reverted. Wasn't there an RfA on him? Zoe 00:10, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, it's going to be one of those nights, is it? People making a fuss over a ten word article because they've got a thing or two to prove about proper conduct and due process?
No, there was no RFAr against him (not any recent one I know of, that is); there was a recent RfC. Which, I see, you've just added to, so you know about it. :-) JRM · Talk 00:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Tony has also unblocked NoPuzzleStranger, again with no discussion anywhere. Zoe 00:24, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, everyone, we have succeeded once again in making asses out of ourselves! (Excuse me if this may be construed as being uncivil, but this seems to be the only accurate description of the situation.) At the time of writing, this article has been restored and deleted at least 7 times, before, curiously, the entire edit history disappeared. The database may have been trying to save us from our own stupidity, here.

Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, the fact that anyone could think this is such an important issue that admins must hold deletion wars over it is, to put it mildly, absurd. Can we stop holding pissing contests for a few hours while we talk? Can we tolerate The Wrong Version for a while, please, if only just to make ourselves look slightly better than this? Are there any admins out there who think their actions will stick better because they shine with the light of appropriateness? JRM · Talk 01:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a concerted campaign to stop the VfD on this article proceeding. The article was a speedy call by Lucky 6.9--not a big deal, the kind of thing I habitually restore and cleanup. But this action was impeded somewhat during my cleanup attempts (I seem to recall it had already been VfD'd, which is of course okay) by several more speedies. There have been persistent attempts to protect this article and all kinds of other stuff. Now this is a very easily verifiable subject, she's a well known porn actress with copious entries on Internet Adult Film Database and (according to Kappa) apparently even imdb! She's appeared in scores of porn movies. I've expanded the article well beyond the point where it can be called a small or inconsequential article, and having a place on imdb places her well into the zone where her notability is debatable--she cannot be written off under CSD 7.

I expect this will be continually speeded throughout the five-day duration of the VfD. Some help in preventing this abuse of CSD would be welcome. We don't go around speedying articles without good, solid reasons. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps is has oh, I don't know, something to do with the fact that the consensus on VfU is to keep it deleted? Zoe 01:12, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

VFU isn't VfD. Only the latter has the authority to decide whether to delete a disputed article in the first place. The article has repeatedly been subject to bad speedies. Let's allow the VfD to proceed. This is a reasonably famous porn star, the article could well survive VfD, and in my experience it wouldn't be the first time someone had misinterpreted CSD7--I pick up the pieces quite often. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikilawyering is deeply tiresome in the face of virtually unanimous support for the original speedy deletion, as in the VfU debate. Everyone knows that VfU covers invalid speedies just as much as it covers invalid VfDs. Everyone. There is unanimous support for the original speedy; this is one of those occasions where you simply have to live with the community voice. The author of the article has done not inconsiderable damage to his/her case by their subsequent behaviour, too, although that's a side point, I do not think the original block was in any way inappropriate: multiple removals of a speedy tag, multiple creation of a deleted article, and minor vandalism along the way, is good enough for me. -Splash 01:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I think Splash and I worked out our differences in a friendly enough way. The article either is or isn't being discussed on VfD right now (depending on how many times that VfD been pre-emptively closed). I do think it's important to state, however, that no amount of "keep deleted" votes on VFU can or should stop a sysop from resurrecting speedied material that could make a good article. That happens to be one of the things I specialize in doing--it's something that only a sysop can do because it requires the power to undelete. I've resurrected and expanded many articles, and even seen a few of them go through a subsequent VfD with a keep result. It isn't something everybody can do, but as can be seen here it's a perfectly valid technique for expanding the encyclopedia. Very small stubs often demonstrate an encyclopedic idea that needs a small amount of work to become a good article. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

1) There's no rule against removal of invalid speedy tags. 2) There's no rule against recreation of speedied articles with different content. 3) There was no "minor vandalism". NoPuzzleStranger 01:52, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

1)Yes there is, it says it in the tag itself: "but do not remove this notice from an article that you have created yourself". 2)Yes there is, if that content is "substantially identical" per CSD A4 — note it need only be "substantially" identical. 3) Yes there was: [1] for example. 4)I'm less interested in the ruleslawyering you seem intent on than encouraging a good article out of this mess: if you'd just done the research that Tony did, this would all never have happened. And you were told that before it did all happen. -Splash 02:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

1) I wasn't the original creator of the article. 2) It wasn't substantially identical, as the original was speedied for lack of "assertion of notability", which I tried to remedy. 3) I already explained twice that it wasn't me who added "Faggot" there; you're willfully repeating that slander. 4) If you'd just undeleted as soon as I first requested it, there would never have been a mess. Instead you wasted all that time making up excuses for allowing Lucky to violate the rules. I don't have to expand every article improperly speedied by Lucky. I simply want that such valid stubs are not deleted. NoPuzzleStranger 02:21, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

NoPuzzleStranger

It may or may not be pertinent to note that "NoPuzzleStranger" is a perfect anagram of User:Gzornenplatz, who was in turn User:Wik. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:45, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, took us that long. Though not quite. It lacks a u, s, and er. You end up with "NoP-zzle-trang--". Pretty close though. --Golbez 07:04, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Um, that's why "User" is there to be added to "Gzornenplatz". "Gzornenplatz" by its own isn't the anagram. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:21, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well slap me around and call my susie, I even had "u, s, and er" in perfect order. Good show. :) --Golbez 07:33, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Can't take all the credit - Lucky 6.9 noticed it first, but missed the "user" letters too. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:44, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

to be fair cantus figured it way back (ok last may) when he was edit waring with him on template:Europe. They both reported each other under the 3RR and I decided to leave the whole issue alone.Geni 19:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to note, I've posted on Requests for arbitration about this issue. I intend to block NoPuzzleStranger as a reincarnation unless the arbitrators give me a reason not to. However, I ask everyone to give the arbitrators a little time to respond and not impose the block yet. As Geni notes, the possibility was known a while ago, and waiting just a little longer won't hurt anyone. --Michael Snow 20:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

He'll be back. Wish we could get the guy to talk, and to work out his frustrations some way other than, e.g., writing a vandalbot - David Gerard 09:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

He may reactivate "ex-wikipedian" User: Starky whom I'm 99% sure is another sock of Wik. Intriguingly in my last interaction with Starky in May he made it clear that he wasn't NoPuzzleStranger because NoPuzzleStranger was really Wik. Keep your eyes peeled... Grutness...wha? 09:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm less sure about Starky, as his focus seems to have been exclusively on Czech articles, and the Czech Republic vs. Czechia issue in particular. While this is similar to the things Wik has fought over, Wik has actually spent more time on German/Polish naming disputes than Czech-related ones, although of course the postwar fallout affects all three languages. If Starky resurfaces now, though, it's a giveaway. Incidentally, Essjay has now imposed the block of NoPuzzleStranger. --Michael Snow 16:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

:-O You got diffs of that?

Hey, NoPuzzleStranger, if you're reading this: you're dedicated (to the point of obsession) with Wikipedia, you do a ton of good edits, you do a ton of housekeeping; you're undeniably mostly very good value in writing an encyclopedia. Mostly we still wonder about why the vandalbot and want reassurance that you won't do this in future. Also, you keep conflicting with other editors in a way that makes them go "Wik again"; we need to work out how not to have this happen - David Gerard 20:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Diffs of what, do you mean Starky's comment? --Michael Snow 23:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels returns

And yea, he was blocked forthwith, after moving about fifteen articles around. The cleanup went quickly and smoothly, with the exception of four articles which are still broken.

• Daniel Ravicher
• Yea
• Prairie View Agricultural and Mechanical University
• Telecommunications for Disaster Relief

The actual article accidentally got deleted, and the redirect moved in it's place. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 23:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I think I've successfully fixed those. --Michael Snow 23:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

With the redirects rather than the article being left behind, was it my mistake when reverting the vandalism, or WoW's efforts? Single click mass reverting would be nice at times. -- Longhair | Talk 23:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Good catch, too fast. I counted 3 admins block same person! :P --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom hearing Davenbelle, requires possible enforcement

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Trey_Stone_and_Davenbelle#Davenbelle_banned_from_certain_articles
• Edit in article Mustafa Kemal Atatürk: [2]

--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• • I don't believe the Ataturk article falls under politics per se. In a sense it does, obviously, but I think that would be too broad and limiting. Everyking 00:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • There's the thing; most biographical articles are political in one way or another. Ataturk would be more political than most. The thing is, most people would interpret that injunction as applying to, say, Henry Kissinger. I don't suppose we could get arbcom to provide a guideline on the matter? Mackensen (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I propose a simple test: if Davenbelle gets into a political fight on a page, then that page concerns politics and Davenbelle is in violation. Isomorphic 06:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

WayneBrady

I count over 40 blocked sock puppets. This guy doesnt want to give up. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC) See: [3]

By my count, there currently are 20 "WayneBrady..." accounts. The person(s) behind those obviously cannot take a hint. --MarkSweep 00:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should start reverting all of his edits. If he sees that all of his input is being deleted, maybe he'll give up. Zoe 01:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. He's generally making good edits, as far as I can tell. --MarkSweep 02:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Unless this is a different WayneBrady, read up the page, David Gerard did a sock check and it showed it was Boothy443. If there is a valid block against Boothy443, then edits by a sockpuppet used to evade the block should be reverted on sight. -- Essjay · Talk 02:21, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, the original block of "IsWayneBrady..." was a username block. Obviously, if the original username is not acceptable, then the same name with various numbers appended to it isn't acceptable either. The fact that "IsWayneBrady..." was also a sockpuppet provides (further) justification for the block. However, edits such as this one are useful and need not be reverted. It's just that the guy should take a hint and pick a better name. --MarkSweep 02:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that he will take a hint - apparently this is not a good faith user, but rather Boothy443 attempting to make a point (see above). — Dan | Talk 02:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Then he should read WP:POINT. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

For God's sake, just quit blocking the guy. He's making good edits. We're here first and foremost to make an encyclopedia. If we bring him back into the fold (sockpuppet or not) then we may be able to convince him to choose a less controversial name. Everyking 05:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Would Hctibakcmsotevahannogydarbenyawsi (talk • contribs) be a less controversial name? I saw it on RC several hours ago... and because it looked strange, and because it made an edit to an article similar to the ones made by the user in question, it stuck in my head. Now that I just had a chance to examine it, if you spell the name backwards... (and no, I haven't blocked it quite yet.) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

So far I see:

1. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch
2. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch10
3. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch100
4. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch101
5. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch103
6. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch104
7. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch105
8. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch106
9. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch107
10. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch108
11. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch109
12. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch110
13. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch111
14. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch1111
15. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch112
16. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch113
17. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch114
18. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch115
19. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch116
20. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch117
21. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch118
22. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch119
23. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch120
24. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch122
25. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch123
26. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch124
27. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch125
28. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch126
29. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch128
30. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch129
31. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch130
32. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch2
33. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch200
34. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch210
35. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch220
36. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch3
37. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch4
38. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch405
39. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch5
40. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch6
41. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch7
42. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch77
43. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch777
44. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackaracistscalledtonysideways

Then there's the backwards versions ...

He's coming in through open proxies now. I think we're well past assuming good faith on this one - David Gerard 07:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Yay, our very own open proxy ferret/dachshund. --MarkSweep 08:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess David is going to play his usual game now, hunting sockpuppets and IPs for sport and so on. I once again reiterate that we have a editor who, while not making the kinds of user decisions that will endear him to this community, is nevertheless doing perfectly good encyclopedia work. This is not only an exercise in futility, even if it worked it would hurt the encyclopedia. Get your priorities straight. There are sensible ways to work these things out, and then there's throwing your weight around without any consideration of circumstances. Everyking 10:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Has there ever been an action by any admin that you have approved of? Isn't enough enough of all of this kvetching? Why not try being postitive once in a while? Sheesh! Zoe 19:48, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

some poor soul has just created 264 abusive sockpuppets out of the agony of his soul, and all you can come up with is throw your weight around and block him, you stupid power-drunk admins, shame on you! dab (ᛏ) 19:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess I approve of about 99.9% (+) of admin actions (you can review mine; see if you can find one you disagree with); only a handful ever make it to this page, and out of that handful I object to only a minority. But I figure if we're going to have a discussion board for this stuff we ought to use it. What's the point of having a discussion board for admin actions if I just keep my mouth shut when I think something's done wrongly? Everyking 05:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

If the editor behind these accounts would get a proper username, and not an offensive one (offensive username is a valid reason to block indefinately), I don't think all that many would care if he is evading a block or not. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Knowing some of thinking at work here, I suspect harassment might still continue unless the person's old identity remained unknown. The view might be that the person has crossed a line, taken steps that can't be reversed. But anyway, while it would be nice for this user to adopt an uncontroversial name, that doesn't seem to be happening, so we have to deal with the current situation, which is what sort of approach we should be taking. And I maintain blocking dozens of sockpuppets is not only futile but counterproductive, both in terms of engagement with the user and in terms of improving the encyclopedia. Everyking 10:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• The user has an account with an uncontroversial name - see David Gerard's comment a few sections up. Radiant_>|< 12:19, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, but I suppose he wants to use a different account for these edits. In principle he's allowed to use a sock. Everyking 12:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • To avoid a block? --Kbdank71 19:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD on Monique deMoan is still being impeded

Look, we can't have a proper deletion discussion unless we let our fellow editors see the article, right? What is so toxic about this thing that it must not be seen? I suggest that the sensible thing to do is for the people who replaced the current edit of the article with a "deleted article" template edit it back so that the content can be seen and we can have a proper deletion discussion.

I don't know what's up here. This is clearly not a speedy candidate, nor was it ever one. The original version provided quite enough context to enable the article to be expanded to its current form. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

From the Block Log: (content was: 'Notable American porn-star who entered the business in 1993. She has over 65,000 Google hits.') There, that wasn't so difficult, was it? --Calton | Talk 01:38, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

OK, so... lots of porn stars have pages here... In fact I heard a rumor that porn stars had a lot to do with the original entries on this encyclopedia, so I'm not following the logic of this at all. What possible speedy deletion criteria would this fall under? Worse than that, by erasing the VfD notice I can't even find the page to go vote on it (tried searching through random days on the VfD list but I won't poke around forever for it). If the original wasn;t up to snuff the standard procedure is to go to VfD and maybe let people improve it, or, at the very least, let it be recreated and let someone improve it. Locking a notice at the name that it is deleted seems to mee to be a very substantial violation of how things are done here, and I see no justification for it whatsoever. DreamGuy 03:03, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

The VFD is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Monique deMoan (it will always be under Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ARTICLE TITLE). At the risk of going over old ground, the original, being a stub that made no attempt to prove notability, was quite under the speedy criteria. Cf. "Johnny Bloggs is a British rock musician". That article would be speedied without a second thought. Whether or not the re-creation of the article was simply a reposting of the original version, and thus still speedyable, is a matter that is being debated, but there is a case to be made that not enough effort was made to make the reposted version notable. If the reposted version was not sufficiently notable (as I and several other users believe that it was), then it was perfectly justifiable to redelete the page and block it from re-creation. If an entry had been put up at the page that proved notability, in that case, it would not have been validly under the speedy criteria. Slac speak up! 03:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, the {{deletedpage}} template does link to the VfD notice. I'll grant you that it's not spelled out in a big red VfD box like usual, but it's there. In fact, it links to all possible avenues of deletion. JRM · Talk 03:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

An outside view: I can't be bothered if this article is here on or one way or another, but this is getting just plain silly, and has degenerated into a wheel war. Points:

1. Article may or may not be notable, hence, decide at VfD.
2. Article cannot be decided at VfD properly if nobody can see how it stood.

Simple solution: restore article until VfD is finished, then delete it with extreme prejudice if such is the consensus. I'm going to restore it on this basis, which I believe is a good' reason. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Again another oar muddying the waters. We have a /Temp version which is a thousand times better than the one you arbitrarly reverted. How about getting input before making these changes? Did you even bother to see read the discussion at VfU? Well, enough, I will have nothing more to do with this, it's degenrated into utter chaos. Your User name is highly appropriate. Zoe 03:20, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

If the Temp version is better, then transfer it over. Nothing says you can't - in fact the VfD notice specifically says you can edit, improve, etc., just don't remove the VfD notice. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:28, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

The rewrite is all my work and is based on content I added to the deleted version, minus the work of others.

I think it's basically the last proper version of Monique deMoan plus some italicisation on the movie titles. So "Slut Whore Gangbang 123" now reads "Slut Whore Gangbang 123". --Tony Sidaway^Talk 04:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

You're doing it on purpose. I like it. :-) JRM · Talk 04:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Since most involved seem to be fairly sympathetic to the rewrite and are disposed to vote to keep, I've suggested that it might be best to perform a history merge, but I also appreciate that it could be better to just leave the original to be deleted.

* Monique deMoan/Temp

--Tony Sidaway^Talk 04:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• I might mention that the "recreation" clause of CSD does not apply when the original deletion was a speedy deletion. That rule was added after the last poll, and the intention was precisely to avoid arguments like this one, we don't use an invalid speedy deletion as a reason to speedy delete again. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Only YOU can prevent forest fires. I've removed all deletion-discussions related to DeMoan and reinstated the rewritten article, and unprotected it to allow it regular improvement. Have a nice day. Radiant_>|< 09:53, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

  No, I don't feel much like that, sorry. I'll have to look at the deleted VfD nomination and copy it somewhere, because, you know, I was genuinely interested in discussing the notability of the topic. You can claim the VfUs just repeated the issues raised on WP:AN/I, but the VfD stopped doing that when Tony rewrote the article. Needless to say, I'm not going to haul that off to VfD again just so everyone can repeat what they said.
  Consider just closing such pages next time. Putting out a forest fire generally does not involve removing the forest with it. JRM · Talk 12:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've no idea what that business about forest fires is. I've restored the VfD and merged the Temp article into the main so we all know what we're voting on. There are some good faith votes to delete on the VfD and it probably isn't a good idea to just casually delete perfectly well formed VfDs. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  Radiant restored the page but closed the vote, which I think is prudent. The discussion is now so completely muddled with the previous issues that I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the admin who has to close that vote, anyway. A new VfD some time from now would make more sense. JRM · Talk 14:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed the tag since the VfD was closed. There is also a note on the talk page. Because someone mentioned it during the aborted VfD discussion, I've moved the article to the correct spelling, Monique DeMoan, and fixed some links there from articles. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, Erwin Walsh has listed it again after I moved it, at:

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Monique DeMoan

I've added a timestamp to his nomination but I'm bowing out of this for now; the situation is too volatile and I don't want to risk enabling further conflict. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius

Heraclius (talk · contribs) is going around continuously starting revert wars on articles that he objects to particularly related to Islam. I suspect that he is sockpuppet of banned user Yuber (talk · contribs). He makes no effort to discuss anything on talk pages, but is mainly playing the role of trying to cut down anythin article critical of Islam.--CltFn 04:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the category Category:Books_critical_of_Islam was made especially for your list of 17 non-notable books. You keep removing this category and claim it's "vandalism". The category is already a relevant subcat of "Religious studies books" and "Political books".Heraclius 04:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

You can add them to the category of Category:Books_critical_of_Islam but you should leave them individually listed also in the Category:Religious studies books. Otherwise someone might "accidentaly" wipe out of the whole list by simply removing the Category:Books_critical_of_Islam from under the Category:Religious studies books. Not that you would do that, of course.--CltFn 04:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The whole point of making the new category was to reduce the clutter from the old ones. The new category is listed under the subcats of Religious studies books, Political books, and Islam and controversy. If you really feel that paranoid about me destroying your category then put it on your watch list. But don't worry, your precious list won't be wiped by me.Heraclius 04:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Well the best solution would be to have them listed in both lists, that will suit whatever organization you are trying to achieve as well as keep the book listed in the broader category of religious studies books. So please do so, thanks.--CltFn 04:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Erm, no, that "solution" would just clutter up both categories again. What is your problem with this category that was especially made for all your book-stubs?Heraclius 05:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The categories section are designed to be able to grow to fairly large sizes , eventually the listings get listed by alphabetical pages if needed, so the clutter issue has no merit. So please put the earler category tags the way they were before ie in both religious books and books critical of Islam and in some cases political books.--CltFn 12:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

this is a pure content dispute. the sockpuppet allegation afaics is unfounded. dab (ᛏ) 11:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Admin Abuse by User:Rhobite

I only just created my user page user:DotSix and started editing and Blowbite blocked me. There was no warning and no explanation given. --207.200.116.5 06:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The above comment is from a vandal who likes to blank RFAR [4] and delete large sections from articles with no explanation. He'll just be blocked from now on. He's had plenty of warnings. No more from me. Rhobite 06:12, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

DotSix (talk · contribs · block log), isn't it? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:16, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Unblocked. Well, not DotSix, the IPs he came from. AOL proxies. WBardwin was blocked, again, and had to ask me to unblock him, again. I'm beginning to despise the autoblocker thoroughly. JRM · Talk 17:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

angry young Balt

Zivinbudas (talk · contribs) (link to ban) is back, in the guises of Benjamin07 (talk · contribs) and Hooker72 (talk · contribs), Woody08 (talk · contribs) and he's annoyed. He'll probably keep going again until we've blocked half of Lithuania :\ dab (ᛏ) 16:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Woody09 (talk · contribs) now. I could really use some help here. dab (ᛏ) 17:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Willy again

Willy on Wheels has returned; see [5]. He's moved about 70 pages this time. I've blocked this incarnation, but this is really getting on my nerves. Meelar (talk) 19:05, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

The attacks are becoming more frequent. See my comments at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Page_move_vandalism_is_still_a_problem for a software modification that would be a big help. -- Curps 19:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm in the process of moving them back but could do with some help. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

He's hit again, as User:Sleehw no ylliw. This is turning into an emergency... he can easily move pages faster than we can fix them. Developers should consider blocking all page moves temporarily. -- Curps 19:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Can that really be done? He must be stopped. On wheels. ~~ N (t/c) 19:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I think most of the damage is fixed (thanks to everyone who helped on this round!)

We really need a couple things: a one-click reversion that eliminates the need to go back and kill the redirect; and a way to see a list of newly-created users before they have a chance to edit.

If I remember correctly, an account has to age a week or so before it can be used for page moves (yes?) Any of us could spot one of these "Willy who can't get a life" accounts during that aging period and shut it down, at least until he gets smart and stops using recognizable names. Antandrus (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Gee, and I would have read that user name as being Gaelic. ;) Instead of barring users not in the n percent of newest users from making page moves, perhaps we should go to barring users with fewer than n edits. (Let n be 200, say.) This would presumably require developer assistance to implement. It would have the advantage of forcing WoW and any other page move vandals to make a couple of hundred nondestructive edits with an account before it could be used for doing damage. I don't know what people here think about the 'collateral damage' associated with such a move—it would prevent new but well-meaning users from carrying out proper page moves, and might lead to an increase in cut & paste moves. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Please, please do this. I don't see the harm - most users who care about the project and want to stick around will make 200 edits fairly quickly. ~~ N (t/c) 21:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The 1% was implemented following the last major discussion because it was technically possible without any coding. The page move rollback function originated from thsi discussion as well iirc. Put in a feature request to bugzilla: with the top urgency, link to it here and I (and hopefully others also) will vote for it. Also making some noise about it on the wikitech mailing list might help (I dont' subscribe to the lists as I get too much email as it is (generally about 100 non-spam emails a day)). Thryduulf 22:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Although I can't remember where I saw it, I thought that the move feature restriction was switched off (deliberately) some time around the upgrade to MW1.5, so that new users can presently move as soon as they register. -Splash 22:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this has been discussed, but why not just limit the number of pages that a user can move within a given timeframe? Say, restrict them to five moves every ten minutes. Additionally, have some sort of 'alarm' that automatically adds someone to a list if they do more than one move in a 24 hour period, so someone can investigate and (if they're a vandal) deal with them before the time limit on moves expires; the one-move-in-24-hour-period tripwire for the alarm would prevent people from gaming the system to avoid detection. It could also be set up so it doesn't apply to users with a lot of edits, so there will be people who can do mass-movements when necessary. Alternatively, what about an 'auto-revert-all-moves-done-by-a-user' admin command, which automatically reverts every recent move a given user performed? That would allow people to handle vandals like this very quickly, with only one swift glance to ensure that the auto-reversion wouldn't cause any problems. Aquillion 22:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

This was discussed, but I can't remember where. The consensus iirc was that there was basically no reason for non-administrators to move more than 3 pages in 24 hours. Thryduulf 07:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• The current restriction is, I believe, requiring 15 or 25 edits before the 'move' button appears. That, of course, is trivially easy to accomplish. Setting the bar to 100 would be better. Limiting users to 3 moves per day would also work, except that it's easy to create a new account and use that. Radiant_>|< 09:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you sure? When I look at the latest incarnation's contributions,the first edit, as well as the rest are page moves. I guess it's possible that the first edits were to now-deleted pages, butI would have thought at least one edit would survive. Dmcdevit·t 09:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • If they just created nonsense articles that were speedied it would be their first edit. 100 or 200 would give a much greater chance of spotting a pattern of nonsense articles than just 25. A requirement for 100 or 200 non-deleted edits would be even better. They could use multiple users, but they would take time to register and log in to - particularly if it was impossible to be logged into more than one account on a computer at once. I don't know if this is the case at the moment, but if it isn't I think it would be triviially easy to implement with cookies. Perhaps also we could impose a limit that meant that you could only create one account per computer per hour - again maybe implementable with cookies. Combined these would mean that to move 15 pages would a require a minium of five hours of preparation just to create the accounts, then a significant amount of time to accumulate the 100 or 200 articles per article, especially if they had to be edits that were not deleted. Remember that if they are persistently making bad edits or creating nonsense articles then they would be blocked, likely for 24 hours at a time. Add all this up and just to go on a 15 article moving spree would take probably a week of preparation. A 100-article spree would require 34 accounts, taking a minimum of 34 hours to create, assuming a dedicated vandal working constantly for 8 hours a day this would take 4¼ days. Assuming that 100 non-deleted edits are required for each account would take an average of 5 minutes each to avoid being blocked and to allow for ones that are deleted, this is would take 17,000 mintues which, working constantly 8 hours a day every day, would take about 36 days. Assuming 200 non-deleted edits and a vandal working on average 4 hours per day it would take over 4½ months of preparation. With a mass-rollback option this 4.5 months of effort by the vandal could be reverted in less than 2 minutes; using normal move rollback it would be fixable by the community in less than 30 minutes I suspect. 4½ months work for less than an hour's glory would not be worth it for any human, and bots would be spotted long before they became an issue. Thryduulf 11:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Mike Church is back

... if anyone cares. Some of his recent sockpuppets, doing the usual of promoting his card game and punishing those who oppose him, usually with hilariously misleading edit summaries, are:

• Poofczar (talk • contribs • block)
• Parallelity (talk • contribs • block)
• Doophism (talk • contribs • block)
• Spoon345 (talk • contribs • block)
• Freedom and Truth (talk • contribs • block)
• 97 (talk • contribs • block)
• 94 (talk • contribs • block)
• Paul Caldwell (talk • contribs • block)

This vandalism is special, and in classic form: [6].

Anyway, just a heads-up. Damage from his visits is limited, since it only occurs around the remnants of the "Ambition (card game)" controversy. Antandrus (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Today's sockpuppet is Lots of issues (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- I just blocked it for impersonation. Antandrus (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

MARMOT again

62.252.96.12 (talk · contribs), 62.253.0.9 (talk · contribs), 62.253.128.12 (talk · contribs), 62.253.128.14 (talk · contribs), 62.253.128.11 (talk · contribs) (among others) have been posting and re-posting the same personal attack on Linuxbeak over and again despite repeated warnings not to.

At User:62.252.96.12 just now they posted MARMOT PWNZ U.. I have range-blocked them twice but they appear to have access to a large number of proxy IPs. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 23:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately for MARMOT, he needs to restrict himself to certain pages to get to his audience, and most of these are on someone's watchlist. He's giving us the opportunity for a fine demonstration of Wikipedia's capacity for self-healing, blocks or no. JRM · Talk 00:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, this kind of feeble persecution does so much honor to Linuxbeak's vandalfighting that I was tempted to leave it on my page, with a note to passers-by. I would have done, too, if there hadn't already been enough space-consuming nonsense on that page. Bishonen | talk 09:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Those are the NTL proxy ranges and should never be blocked for more than a very short time - Special:Blockip even lists them. (Any given IP has tens or hundreds of thousands of users, and they're the biggest cable provider in the UK.) The problem is that although a user is told to use the proxy in their town, they can actually use any NTL proxy in the whole country. The proxies do indicate what the user's real IP is, but it's a complicated and tedious case by case thing (each proxy does it a different way) and would need someone to bother writing it for MediaWiki. I think we might need it sooner rather than later. The only hope with NTL is that they're completely shit and people would rather have 1Mbit of reliable DSL than 4Mbit of dodgy cable internet - David Gerard 00:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

To clarify: the range blocks Francs is talking about were one of 15 minutes long, the other of 1 hour (both were /24 blocks). Even so they're still only good if you absolutely need the breathing room to revert all the crap. JRM · Talk 00:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

To clarify further: the blocks were just to get some breathing space in order to sort the stuff out, as JRM said. An hour was perhaps a bit long for an NTL proxy but it's all sorted itself out in the end. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 09:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Digg

Digg has gone through a VfD and three VfUs, with each vote to delete it or keep it deleted, and yet various anonymous users keep recreating it. It has now been recreated as empty and protected, so the anonymous user is going on to vandalize other pages in retaliation. See the history of Slashdot. I have protected that article now, so I'm sure the anon will go on to other pages. Unfortunately, they're on AOL, so they can't be permanently blocked. Zoe 05:08, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

If so many people would like Wikipedia to have an article on this subject, perhaps we should have one. For those unfamiliar with this debate, see WP:VFU#Digg for background. Rhobite 06:57, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

• If a single user (or a few users) repeatedly nominate an article for anything because the nomination keeps failing (four times within a month or two), then they are in violation of WP:POINT and they should stop wasting our time with more nominations. Radiant_>|< 08:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• You can place {{deletedpage}} there and protect against recreation. [[smoddy]] 12:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Fenice

Fenice (talk · contribs) doesn't like the proposed Infobox Standardisation. That's fine, however his way of going about it is bordering on the disruptive. He created a counterproposal No infobox standardization and has been arguing vehemently on both Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Infobox standardisation and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/No infobox standardization, to the point where WP:INS is now mostly on the legitimacy of said VFDs rather than the issue at hand. His most recent suggestion seems to be to implement standard infoboxen anyway using brute force, and RFAr any who object. To me he seems to be having a case of WP:POINT. Any advice in handling this, or should we simply let him shout himself hoarse, ignore it and do something useful in the meantime? Radiant_>|< 13:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I say ignore it. "Do not feed the trolls." -- Essjay · Talk 13:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Fenice is trolling particularly, but I do think we should just ignore. He can shout all he likes through the 5 days of the VfD at which point, on the current voting, the thing will be deleted. That gives license to speedy any reincarnations (under the usual restrictions), so hopefully discussion might be directed to the more appropriate places. -Splash 16:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't really mean to suggest Fenice was a troll, it was just a convenient expression. -- Essjay · Talk 04:18, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet discovery

Eequor is the sockpuppeteer of banned user Rienzo (and several other sockpuppets)

• Even though Eequor claims to be strongly anti-Christian, this is in fact a lie. Eequor has repeatedly attacked, within the rules, several editors who make negative comments against Christianity, to the extent that her status as an evangelical christian, and her editing behaviour associated with it, was a heavy part of her RFA

• Piglet and Lady Tara both claimed to be female, as does Eequor
• Shortly after crossing Eequor's path negatively, editors find their pages vandalised by one of a number of sockpuppets, as well as false accusations against them by editors they have never previously met (e.g. Rienzo's accusation against CheeseDreams after Eequor raised an extensive RFC against CheeseDreams on a topic Eequor supposedly didn't give a damn about and claims to be on CheeseDream's (anti-Christian) side over)
• You will note that Eequor and CheeseDreams had a huge fallout. But Eequor had supposedly not edited a single article CheeseDreams was interested in, and Eequor seemed to completely disappear from the scene after filing the RFC, although numerous Rienzo sockpuppets mysteriously appeared at the same time.

I dream of cheese 16:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

lol what --Golbez 16:36, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

User:I drеаm оf сhееsе (note that almost every character is a Unicode spoof of the Latin equivalent) has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of User:CheeseDreams. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2. JRM · Talk 16:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

And now User:I dream of cheese, the non-spoof version, as well. JRM · Talk 16:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

And User:Inmac.

Third parties who shall remain nameless have told me the account User:CheeseDreams has been compromised; its password is known. I have therefore blocked the account indefinitely. Since CheeseDreams is banned at present, this is not a problem, but the password must be reset before it is unblocked. JRM · Talk 17:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

And User:Kotex Ultra. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

If you are wondering what the password to CheeseDreams' account was, check out I dream of cheese.

Some people just dont pay attention 17:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Some people just don't pay attention. David Gerard already blocked CheeseDream's account indefinitely. The autoblocker bit me when I got near it, of course. I changed the account's password to something quite unhackable so this cannot happen to any other well-meaning but foolish administrator again. JRM · Talk 17:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

How did you get into the CheeseDreams account? I thought only I (and possibly bishonen) knew what the password was? jguk 18:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Loose lips sink ships. JRM · Talk 18:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand - I only told bish, no-one else. Did she spill the beans? jguk 18:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I told JRM, yes. Bishonen | talk 19:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

why does the password even matter? the account is blocked indefinitely, right? dab (ᛏ) 19:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Which I didn't find out until afterwards. That blocked accounts list isn't so small I'll load it up every time to double-check. Correction: loaded it up. I'm not making that mistake again. Thankfully nobody else will be able to, either. JRM · Talk 19:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: I have blocked Bishonen for 1 month for spilling the beans, as per WP:BEANS. Func( t, c, e,  ) 20:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Man, I KNEW you were trouble. I'm glad I voted against you. --Golbez 20:42, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

User:Greaterlondoner: thin-skinned newbie or sock?

See his talk page history: in particular [7] and [8]. This wouldn't be a reincarnation of Irate, would it? -- Curps 20:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

He's editing mostly London subway stations.

It's difficult to believe that it's anyone else. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

He's now using Tiscali (UK) DSL rather than BT DSL. But given the editing and edit summary style, I wouldn't hesitate to say it's Irate with a new DSL provider (a fairly easy thing to change in the UK) - David Gerard 21:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

He's now being reported by User:Edward as a "repeat offender" for copyright problems: [9] [10] -- Curps 23:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Attackoftheshow

Anyone know anything about this page? To me it looks like a violation of our userspace policy (using the page to communicate with non-Wikipedia users). It's being edited a lot so I'm thinking of protecting it but was wondering whether anyone knew any context around it. Comments? JYolkowski // talk 22:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Check the history; Jimbo himself endorsed it. What he says goes. --Golbez 22:12, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that edit, buried 1500 edits down in the history, that's probably how I missed it. JYolkowski // talk 22:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Really, I don't understand the problem. ;) (I meant to come back and say it was the third edit, heh) --Golbez 22:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

There's also a comment from him in the very top section of the talk page, which is the first place I looked when I was wondering about its legitimacy. — Dan | Talk 22:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales has approved it, so it should be left alone. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Biff Rose-related sock puppets

The biography on Biff Rose, a minor singer-songwriter from the late 1960s, has been subject to a concerted attack from a series of sock puppets. The article first came to my attention when an editor added Rose's name to a list of convicted NAMBLA members. [11][12]. Others who have edited Rose with the identical POV and fruadulent tactics have been:

• 216.175.116.151 (talk · contribs)
• 216.175.121.239 (talk · contribs)
• 216.175.116.198 (talk · contribs)
• Dearth vader (talk · contribs)
• Biffrose (talk · contribs)
• Jonah Ayers (talk · contribs)
• Varg Virkennes (talk · contribs)
• Bad apple (talk · contribs)
• Mmmmmmbo (talk · contribs)
• Efrim walzer (talk · contribs)
• Steve espinola (talk · contribs)
• Peace through superior edits (talk · contribs)
• Peter Pie (talk · contribs)
• Sojambi Pinela (talk · contribs)

This string of sock puppets made it impossible to edit Biff Rose into an NPOV article, and required page protection, which is still in place. I have blocked all of the username accounts except for Jonah Ayers, because it is not deceptive. Steve espinola appears to have been a more active account, but I blocked it because it is the name of a slightly famous person and appears intended to mislead. "Steve Espinola" is a professional musician and a friend of Rose's who edits here as Sojambi Pinola (talk · contribs). The usernames Steve espinola, Sojambi Pinela, and Biffrose all appear to have been designed to mislead other editors. The user was recently busy re-writing, yet again, most of the entries on Steve espinola 's talk page.[13] Prior to that this username was engaged in making junk edits in an apparent attempt to build up an edit history. -Willmcw 22:15, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Kakazai

I received the following email from User:McKhan:

Hi,

I am the author and sole copyright owner of "Kakay Zai / Kakazai / Kakezai :: Pathans :: (Published at: http://www.kakazai.com/aboutus/ ) as well as the article posted on WikiePedia.

I did NOT give permission to any of the editor of WikiPedia under any license or cirumstances to edit that article NOR I realeased that article under ANY Free License, knowingly, to WikiPedia.org or its affiliates.

Therefore, my article must be removed from WikiePedia.org and its affiliates in next 24 hours unless you add the copyright statement and link back to my official web-site: http://www.AliKhan.org

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Ali Khan - http://www.AliKhan.org - http://www.MediaMonitors.net

I have tried to explain to him that once he clicked save page he no longer owned the copyright, but he is demanding that the page either be removed, or the copyright be attached. How do we deal with this? Zoe 22:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's tough luck, since he's the owner of the copyright in both cases. If it were someone else using his copyrighted material, that would be different. I could be wrong though, perhaps the restrictive copyright elsewhere means we can't use it here. He could have a word with Jimbo/Angela/Foundation. -Splash 22:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, he DOES still own the copyright - as per the GFDL. Wikipedia doesn't own the copyright, nor is it public domain. He put it there, his fault for not knowing what he was getting in to. I don't really understand his complaint; is he mad other people edited his work? --Golbez 22:50, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Nobody even edited him, all that was done was cleanup headers were put up and he accused us of attacking him. I told him these were not attacks, and we hadn't even edited his comment, we were just trying to make it look standard, and I didn't edit personally because I don't know the topic. He refused to listen, he wans only his words in the article. He blanked it twice last night, I warned him after the first time, and then I blocked him for 24 hours. I'd just as soon delete it an avoid the hassle, except for setting a bad precedent. But putting a copyright notice on the article isn't the way to go either. I have no problem with a link to his page. Zoe 22:54, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, it should be deleted. While we could make this into a test case for the legal legitimacy of click-through licensing (something that has never been established), I don't think it is worth it. He didn't understand what his actions implied and didn't intend to license his work under the GFDL, and I think we should respect his intentions and delete the page. Dragons flight 23:08, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. Let's not try to force the issue here when it's unclear there would be any benefit to anyone. Had this page been massively edited already it would be another matter, but this isn't worth it. I also note that we explicitly allow the speedy deletion of pages explained to have been created by mistake. I think this qualifies. JRM · Talk 23:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Withdrawn in light of the other issues raised. Weird story, this. If mr. Khan is just annoyed at having his brilliant prose integrated with the existing article, it's indeed tough noogies for him. But I do note Tearlach apparently didn't create the article from scratch. Where is it from? If he copied this from [14] it's a simple copyvio, regardless of what Khan may have done to the article afterwards. JRM · Talk 00:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The claimed source actually cites a few Wikipedia articles, so this is a strange request. It seems Tearlach, who started the article, has now rewritten the content. Incidentally, some of these Pashtun-related pages have been the focus of disputes over ethnic issues, which makes me think what's on the surface here may not be the full story. Language comprehension issues have made the problem rather confusing at times, though. --Michael Snow 23:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• If other editors have contributed to it (and the editor in question didn't even create it), then it should not be deleted. And since the article has been edited since McKhan's work, it should be allowed to stand, or taken to VfD. We can always put a link on the talk page if really necessary. -Splash 23:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay... I think we have misunderstood the situation. I believe based on the history, that Tearlach created the page (original version from history) as a copyvio of Ali Khan's material at: [15]. Then Ali Khan registered an account McKhan and tried to delete the content which had been stolen from him: i.e. this diff. If we assume that Tearlach is not Ali Khan, which makes sense since they were edit warring at one point, then it would seem that this page started as a pure copyvio, which would be grounds for it's immediate removal. Just to complicate things, Tearlach seems to have rewritten the page from its initial copyvio state into something substantially different: diff. So maybe we should just delete Ali Khan's material from the history and the images taken from his site and keep the present text. I'll let other people look at it to judge if it is still a copyvio. Dragons flight 00:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Wait, wait, it gets better. Apparently this is originally a cut-and-paste move of Kakazai/Kakay Zai: history. I'm not sure, but Ali Khan (a.k.a. McKhan and various IPs) may actually have written and submitted this originally. At which point we are back to it being some kind of a mistake. Dragons flight 00:14, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, McKhan, as an anon, created the article several times with the exact same content and various titles. I asked on the Talk page of one of them which spelling we should use, as he was using several different spellings throught the article. I thought Tearlach had done a move, I'm not sure, you'll have to ask him/her, but I redirected all of the duplicate articles to one location, and put the cleanup header on it. Zoe 00:23, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

To confirm that: yes, the article - a copy of Ali Khan's blog page - was created by 141.242.24.105 (talk · contribs) at various duplicate pages. Zoe rationalised the mess to a single article at Kakazai/Kakay Zai. I ran into it via Wikipedia:Cleanup and shifted it to the primary spelling of Kakazai, and later cleaned it up.

The confusion over the history is my fault: I copied-and-pasted the text rather than using the correct Move procedure. Sorry.

See User talk:Tearlach#Kakazai and User Talk:McKhan: McKhan initially didn't mind the page on Wikipedia, being (discussion revealed) the original poster. But he took the cleanup tags as a personal affront, and finally decided to take his bat home. Tearlach 16:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wiki cheese-ology

...is obviously a nonsense cat. Every addition to it is vandalism. I've emptied it out several times but, lo-and-behold it comes back again. Could use some more eyes on it. -Splash 01:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

and note that, even with the cat page protected as it now is, that doens't stop the addition of articles to it. A current favourite is adding it to other AOL IP talk pages. -Splash 01:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

How odd. Keeping an eye, though as vandalism goes it's rather harmless and easy to clean up. --fvw* 01:56, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I protected the pages that were being used in the vandalism from recreation. We cannot delete the category, since the category does not have to have a page in order for it to exist. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• You know, this is a strange situation. A category page consists of the text on top and a list of contained pages at the bottom. Thus it's not really possible to block out a category using the tl:deletedpage - that way, the cat will appear valid on any article. Not that I mind or have a better solution, but still. Radiant_>|< 08:50, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

User:Khoisan

Hi, I just blocked this user for a 3RRR violation, apparently there is some speculation that this user is User:Wik. I'm not familiar with the wik case; could somone that is confirm this by looking at the editing habits of this user and extend the block as necessary. Thanks.--nixie 02:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• THANK YOU. see also: User:Sanctu, it's a sock, I don't know of who. SchmuckyTheCat 02:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, I'm happy to confirm this. Both appear to be Wik, and are trying to extend an old revert war on Schnorrer. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've blocked both indefinately.--nixie 03:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It may not be coincidental that Wik's latest primary account, NoPuzzleStranger, was recently blocked. --Michael Snow 04:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• He's back [16] [17] and apparently has a bot to ring an alarm clock because within seconds of that article changing it gets reverted. 15:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Culling this page

It's 220KB. I know I'm not helping by not archiving it myself, but if someone could find the time and patience to do so, it would be most appreciated! - David Gerard 14:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Blocking the commercial proxy services

See User talk:David Gerard#Proxy_Users and Special:Ipblocklist. I just went through that list of proxify.com addresses and blocked each IP or (in some cases) subnets.

Are there any other commercial services that aren't in the block list as yet? Also, someone still needs to hit those Tor servers.

(Anyone taking this as a cue for a debate on whether we should allow open proxy editing hasn't seen what most of them are used for. I have. Hoo boy. Open proxies are unwelcome on Wikipedia, as decreed by Jimbo, for excellent reasons.) - David Gerard 14:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The last time fvw tried to mass-block as many open proxies as he could find, he had to undo the blocks because it caused performance problems. I trust the most recent version of the software can handle the load? Also, AOL is very much like an open proxy... what's the solution for that? -- Curps 03:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. I asked on wikitech-l, but no-one's answered yet. CesarB has sent me a huge list of open proxies, with the scripts he used to generate the list ... but there's no way I'm attempting to autoblock all of them. So what I'll be doing is looking at each, seeing if it's actually being abused and block more or less only as each is actually a problem.

Oh, and we have no answer to AOL as yet - David Gerard 08:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Warren Benbow

For the second time in a couple of days, there seems to be a serious ongoing effort to thwart a good faith VfD by premature deletion. I restored the disputed speedy, Warren Benbow a few days ago after reading the deleted stub and confirming that the claim of notability in that stub was correct. I expanded the stub to a reasonable size, with enough referrences to establish the subject as a candidate article for Wikipedia. For reasons that I cannot understand but which he has attempted to explain, User:Geogre disputes the right of an administrator to restore a disputed speedy. Today geogre speedied again. In order to placate his concerns I listed the article for deletion on restoring. Geogre has speedied for a third time. The article isn't even close to being a speedy candidate and I think geogre would admit this. Meanwhile the VfD is proceeding but only when the editors are able to view the contents of the article.

When administrators in good faith dispute whether an article is deletable, it seems to me that it is appropriate to make the article visible and invite other editors to view it and discuss whether it should be deleted--in other words, to list on VfD. I have done my best to ensure that this happens, but the other administrator keeps insisting that the article, despite not qualifying for speedy deletion, must be speedied.

There is some room for dispute about whether the statement "drummer, songwriter, music producer and educator" is an assertion of notability. Some, but not much. A brief google would have confirmed this claim and more: Benbow has worked with many prime names in the business and was a major collaborator with James Ulmer on the Odyssey album.

I would appreciate help in ensuring that this deletion discussion is able to run to its five-day term. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Sidaway is warring to impose his view outside of process. Instead of creating a new article where the deleted one was, he undeleted it and then overwrote it with his new article. (To make a point.) The new article is worth keeping and should not be deleted regardless of Mr. Sidaway's fight with other admins. Mr. Sidaway has pointed out his opinion that VfU is for "non-admins" and has not given other admings WP:FAITH as he is requesting here. I suggest that Mr. Sidaway and the other admin(s) refrain from deleting or undeleting and let it be resolved as "non-admin"s would have to - according to process on VfU and/or VfD. ("and/or" in this case because of the admin war.) - Tεxτurε 21:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

If I may quote from WP:VFU: If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so.

I think everyone involved owes Tony an apology. Also, I have no problem with him undeleting it - the original version, while substubby, had real info, and why shouldn't that anon get credit for creating the article that turned into what it is now? According to process, Tony did nothing wrong, except perhaps undeleting instead of starting anew - big whoop. Much ado about nothing, and people are really ganging up on Tony here. You can whack off about process all you want, but we also have another little ideal here called WP:IAR. --Golbez 21:28, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't undelete stubs that have been deleted unless they are useful in providing information that I can use to expand on. Those initial stubs are usually all that I am given to go on when I write the article--usually I have absolutely no idea that the subject existed when I start to write (which is why I think this kind of stub is so fascinating).

I have absolutely no problem with speedies, in practice well over nine tenths of all speedies are spot on. But almost every day I find quite reasonable article about apparently notable individuals that do seem to assert notability but get deleted anyway. I routinely undelete and expand, and they become worthwhile articles. A very small number have subsequently been VfD'd and they nearly always survive, so these aren't sickly children I'm creating, but hardy, tough articles capable of fighting for themselves.

Most times if I inform an editor that I've undeleted a speedy because I think he got it wrong, I'll get an acknowledgement, usually it's a very warm one in which the editor's good intentions stand out. I could count the negative feedback on the fingers of one hand. But, well, occasionally things will go sour even though I do my best. But only twice, and both in the past couple of days, have I seen editors fight so hard against the principle that their decisions can be challenged. I don't think I have anything to hide, I'll always take a dispute to VfD and I don't think it's a waste of time doing so. These are articles Wikipedia has a right to feel proud of and I'll gladly give Wikipedia the opportunity to prove it.

If an administrator does a speedy which I recover and expand, and he thinks I was doing something wrong, well it's easy enough to challenge me. If you think the article was speediable, it stands to reason that the article will not survive VfD for one minute--administrators will come up and say that it is a speedy candidate. So take it there. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your quote: If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It does not require you to be an admin. Mr. Sidaway proceeded to engage in an undelete war as shown below. Mr. Sidaway instigated this here. Who are you blaming? - Tεxτurε 21:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

1. 16:14, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow" (6 revisions restored)
2. 16:13, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway deleted "Warren Benbow" (To placate geogre I will delete and then selectively undelete only the parts I worked on.)
3. 16:03, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow"
4. 15:47, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow"
5. 15:46, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow"
6. 11:48, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow"

You have omitted from the list above the large number of bad speedies done by another administrator. But most of all, you have omitted to make a substantive point. Why should an administrator refrain from recovering wrongly speedied articles? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The other administrator is not included because you made this your issue and I am responding. You say "why should an administrator refrain from recovering wrongly speedied articles" - I ask you why should an administrator refrain from deleting a wrongly undeleted article? You undeleted outside of process because you think that VfU is only for "non-admins". At the end, you did a right thing and only undeleted your own new article. (Something any user can create without undelete.) At that point the other admin violated process by again deleting it. I am not saying that no one else has done wrong here. I am asking that you, and all other parties, stop. Allow process to work. Your newly created article will be kept without you making this WP:POINT. What are you doing on this page? Making a WP:POINT? - Tεxτurε 22:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Just saying "WP:POINT" doesn't actually make a, er, point. Since when did following deletion policy constitute disruption of Wikipedia? Since when was "lack of notability" a speedy, particularly when it's clearly disputed? - David Gerard 23:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't undelete stubs that have been deleted unless they are useful in providing information that I can use to expand on.. You mean, like Fat Sex, which you undeleted for no good reason then went back and redeleted when you found it was, heavens, actually a valid speedy delete? As an admin, you could have read the history before you undeleted it, but your repeated undeleting to prove some sort of point wouldn't allow for that, would it?

Most times if I inform an editor that I've undeleted a speedy because I think he got it wrong, I'll get an acknowledgement. Whom did you notify that you undeleted Francesca Easthope? Zoe 23:37, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

The Fat Sex article wasn't really a valid speedy, but once I determined that it was clearly a hoax I didn't see the sense in disputing it, and accordingly speedied it again.

You have to understand that, although you're obviously getting a little angry with me and I'm not getting angry with anyone, in fact it is I who am following policy, both letter and spirit. I do understand that I need to be tactful about it, and I apologise if you think I haven't but it just doesn't do to falsely imply that I'm some kind of rogue here going and doing stuff against policy, when the articles I'm resurrecting are, as David Gerard points out, disputed speedies. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I sometimes tell people if I've undeleted a bad speedy, and sometimes I don't. I do quite a lot of these, maybe one or two a day, and the construction of a good article takes precedence over the niceties. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The version that got speedied was, in full: Warren Benbow Warren Benbow- drummer, songwriter, music producer and educator; b. New York, NY . Born December 22, 1954. There is no claim to notability here: there are many, many drummers who are not in Wikipedia (and many songwriters, and many educators, and there are many "music producers" who are waiting on tables). Merely listing a profession is not at all an assertion of notability, unless substantially every member of that profession gets a Wikipedia article (eg, holders of public office).

It was a bit of a provocation by Tony Sidaway to restore that validly-speedied stub, a bit of a symbolic slap in the face to the admin (Geogre) who speedied it for good reason. Nevertheless Tony Sidaway created a brand new perfectly valid and encyclopedic article which was in no way speediable [18], and Geogre was very much unjustified to speedy this new article three times. Tony should have just created his brand new article without first restoring the validly deleted stub. No VfU was required to do so. It would be a concern if someone tried to WP:POINT by resurrecting a validly speedied article and making some cosmetic change to it (for instance: adding the single adjective "notable", as someone else has done in the past), but this is not at all the case here. -- Curps 03:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Both the original speedy and the restoration of it were kind of iffy.

1. The version that was speedied was the second edit of the article, which contained a great deal less information than the first. The proper procedure would have been to revert back to the version with gobs of informative text. First version, Second version (speedied). Except....
2. The first version was an apparent copyvio, word-for-word identical to this external page.

So, what happened? The second version of the article was a legitimate speedy candidate—saying that someone is a drummer and educator doesn't tell us what's notable about them. The first version wasn't a speedy candidate, but it was a copyvio. Since Geogre hasn't mentioned that, I suspect that he didn't check the history very closely. (A slap on the wrist for that; checking the history is an important part of speedy deletion.)

Hold on a minute. The anon author himself created the first and second versions you mention. If there were multiple editors you'd need to check the history; if there's only one editor, you just look at their final version. -- Curps 08:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Tony didn't examine the history very closely either. A big lump of unwikified text contributed by an anonymous IP is pretty suspicious. If he really wanted to restore the article, he would have been better to flag it as a copyvio and start a new temp page.

Finally, Geogre really shouldn't have speedied Tony's new article version; I can't see any reason for him to have done that, given that he didn't seem to have seen the copyvio. Did I miss anything? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Looking at the deletion log, I'd say Tony should receive a block for 3RR violation.
• Other than that, two points. First, if an admin dispute another admin's action (such as deletion), then there is a disagreement between admins and they should talk this out, or bring the matter to public (which would be VFU in this case). Second, if any user wants to create a good article in the place of a speedied substub, they can do so; I don't particularly see why they should then first argue over undeleting the deleted part. In other words, rewrite first (to stub level, at least), undelete history later (or not at all, it's probably worthless). Radiant_>|< 10:06, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have no more to add. David Gerard put it well. Please stop attacking fellow sysops for doing their job correctly. Radiant!, you really need to read WP:3RR if you think this is a case for application of that rule. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Pointless Waste of Time

On April 11, this article was listed on VfD. Starting on April 15, the article was repeatedly deleted, with various contents. The VfD was heavily sockpuppeted, and was apparently never closed properly. On April 25, User:Mindspillage closed the VfD with a result of "already deleted". On May 25, User:Tony Sidaway undeleted the article, and User:Texture re-deleted it, citing "Per VFD vote". Earlier today, Tony Sidaway re-undeleted it, on the grounds that the VfD was not closed properly. Could someone take a look at this? --Carnildo 23:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

could undeltion wait until say a week friday? I'll have some spare time then. It was never properly deleted so Tony Sidaway is correct. I supose it could be put through VFU if we want to follow the formal proccess.Geni 23:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it already has been though vfu.--nixie 01:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

what happened?Geni 01:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a record of the vfu here User:Grue/Undeletion--nixie 01:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

ok forumaly under the rules Tony Sidaway is correct. However there appears to be a consensus to keep deleted on that VFU.Geni 01:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• No, formally under the rules Tony is wrong. The article was deleted, but apparently not because of the VFD (because it's closed as "already deleted"). But for whichever reason it was deleted, VFU decided to uphold that deletion. That's what it's there for. Radiant_>|< 10:22, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

There is abosolutly no way that article qualified under speedy delete.Geni 11:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• That is correct, it is not a speedy delete. Nevertheless, it is a delete. And no matter what the grounds for deletion were, WP:VFU had consensus to uphold them. WP:NOT a bureaucracy; if consensus has been shown that some action was appropriate, then it follows that the action was appropriate. Radiant_>|< 12:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Request assessment by another Admin

I would like to request another Admin to take a look at this VfD. The nominator (anonymous user at 217.140.193.123) and one of the voters, Arrigo, are the same person — as it has been established already by several other users (see the registered user's talk page). This appears to constitute an illegal sockpuppetry. I would much prefer if another Admin would verify and, if it's the case, enforce policy on this, because I've been involved in a very unpleasant altercation with the concerned user in the past. Thanks, Redux 01:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the vote is going to effect the result.Geni 01:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Even so. Policy prohibits double-voting, regardless of whether or not it is successful in influencing the outcome. Regards, Redux 01:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy

This article has been under attack by a series of anonymous editors. It seems from their behavior and prior knowledge of Wikipedia (one anon posted a frivolous report on WP:AN/3RR with his fourth edit) that they are either the same person or an effort directed by a message board or blog. They are not vandals - those are quickly blocked - but instead insist on reinserting material that a large consensus of editors on the have agreed does not belong in the article in its present form. Suggestions on how to deal with this are welcome. Gamaliel 01:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• 24.147.97.230 (talk · contribs) - Comcast Cable (the "fatboy.cc" vandal)
• 207.69.167.24 (talk · contribs) - Earthlink
• 202.79.231.67 (talk · contribs) - Asia Pacific Network Information Centre
• 66.176.129.11 (talk · contribs) - Comcast Cable Communications Holdings
• 38.118.3.16 (talk · contribs) - Performance Systems International
• 162.83.136.16 (talk · contribs) - Verizon
• 141.155.154.108 (talk · contribs) - Verizon
• 18.60.3.22 (talk · contribs) - MIT
• 65.205.189.54 (talk · contribs) - UUNET Technologies
• 216.69.164.185 (talk · contribs) - Go Daddy Software
• 68.120.235.145 (talk · contribs) - Pac Bell Internet Services

I've protected it for the time being, but it looks like the POV issues aren't going away. Mediation may be in order at some point.--nixie 02:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, grow up--I-2-d2 04:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Masterfully argued. Slac speak up! 04:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

One user, many IPs

Based on editing behavior, apparent location, and the use of a single ISP, it appears to me that the following IPs are being used by the same person, chiefly to edit Expansion theory, Matt Slick, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, John W. Ratcliff, AARM, and Azerbaijan.

• 130.94.121.241 (talk · contribs)
• 130.94.121.242 (talk · contribs)
• 130.94.121.244 (talk · contribs)
• 198.65.167.211 (talk · contribs)
• 207.150.135.28 (talk · contribs)
• 207.67.144.53 (talk · contribs)
• 207.67.144.58 (talk · contribs)
• 207.67.144.61 (talk · contribs)
• 68.44.255.244 (talk · contribs) (mistake)

These IPs have been involved in several editing wars and several have been warned or blocked for 3RR violations. I have placed a message on each IP's talk page asking the user to get a username. I will consider edits by any of these IPs to been made by one person for the purpose of counting edits. I further believe that any of them that are involved in a 3RR violation should be blocked indefinitely on account of having been used to evade our policies. Once the user starts editing under a single identity any IPs that have been blocked could be restored. -Willmcw 02:00, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Barker College network now indefinitely blocked

I have just blocked the entire network range of Barker College, an Australian school located in Hornsby. There has been excessive vandalism occuring, and for some unknown reason this school has managed to procure an entire /24 network block (?!) which is totally out of proportion to their actual size. How they got away with this, I have no idea. Anyway, that's just an aside. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, forgot to note that the IP range that is blocked is 203.32.119.0/24. See APNIC whois to check ownership for yourself. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanx, Ta bu. I was thinking someone should do that. Slac speak up! 04:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

/24s were pretty much yours for the asking even ten years ago - David Gerard 07:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Trust me, 10 years ago they were using BBC Micros and didn't even know what the Internet was. I doubt they reserved this until recently. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Savoir-faire again

A while back, Tony Sidaway closed Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Savoir-faire with the controversial result of "keep", despite an apparent consensus to delete. I posted here requesting a review of the result, and User:Texture, after taking a second look, concluded that the article should be deleted. Now, Tony Sidaway has undeleted the article and reverted Texture's changes to the VfD. --Carnildo 05:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• I thought that transwikied articles could not be deleted, or it would violate the GDFL by removing authorship information. Is that incorrect? — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:10, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe twiking transfers authorship, hence why it's more than a simple cut/paste. --Golbez 05:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's merges that can't be deleted. --Carnildo 05:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • So where is the edit history? As it currently stands there is no edit history - it appears fully formed in Wikibooks. The transwiki thus creates a GFDL violation for which we, having put it there, are responsible. Guettarda 06:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
      • No. See I wish more people would bother to acquaint themselves with the transwiki process, as currently there's only a small amount of editors that do it at all, and for none of them is it their main concern. As a result there are hundreds of articles in the backlog. Okay, rant over. Look at the talk page of the transwikied article, it will have the edit history from Wikipedia, thus crediting the original contributors. Also, the transwiki logs on both projects will record the move thus crediting the source (Wikipedia). There is no GFDL vio if the transwikied article is deleted, and in fact if there were, we would have an unmanageble amount of stuff still here on Wikipedia (we still do, really). Dmcdevit·t 06:53, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
        • Further to Daniel's explanation: In addition to the transwiki logs, usually the edit summary that creates the article contains an interwiki backlink to the location of the original, as it does in this particular case. Uncle G 12:41:50, 2005-08-18 (UTC)
• Any reasonable person looking at the VFD will agree that the outcome is either 'delete' or 'transwiki'. It has been transwikied. Thus, per WP:CSD #A5, it can be speedily deleted. Radiant_>|< 10:12, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Editors are welcome to come to Wikibooks:Wikibooks talk:How-tos bookshelf to discuss whether and how to incorporate the transwikied article into the how-tos bookshelf, which seems to be the logical place for the content to be merged. Uncle G 12:41:50, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

The result of the VfD was keep; this was discussed extensively [19]. If you think it should be deleted, please submit it to VfD and put your case. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency

Take a look at the above, then vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency

CensorshipOfCensorship 07:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The above user has been permanently blocked as a troll and a sockpuppet, for plastering the above message all over such articles as Masturbation and Vagina. Zoe 07:23, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have now blocked 4 (I think, I've lost count) newly-minted trolls who are dropping this stupid template on articles from Vagina to Muhammad to Democratic Party (United States). See what nonsense this has caused? Zoe 08:29, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, trolls can latch on to anything for a little fun. I don't think that's a fair criticism of the project (which I think could work just fine, although the title could use improvement, if they come at it from the right perspective—no idea if they are or will). If it wasn't that, maybe they'd be placing penis images in the articles instead. Everyking 08:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I would like to mention that Agriculture as gone as far as putting User:Evil Monkey/Nudity under VFD, stating that it was a collection of "indecent" images. I have swiftly canceled the VFD and issued a warning to Agriculture. Rama 09:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

No, that was not Agriculture, but a troll who spelled his name AgricuIture. Zoe 09:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you so much for spotting this and sorting out the matter. I issued an appology to Agriculture, obvioulsy :p Rama 09:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The VFD isn't entirely regular either. I've got a bad feeling. :-/ Kim Bruning 10:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The conflict is spreading. Now there is an apparent vendetta listing at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Anti-war; the three previous edits by the anon who listed it are nasty comments on the "Decency" one. Leaving aside for the moment what I think about the relative merits of the two VFDs, I'd like to know if people think the right thing to do is let the new VFD run its course or shut it down as trolling. Antandrus (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Willmcw

Wikipedia administrator Willmcw is being extremely uncooperative on the Wikipedia:Stalking guideline proposal. This page contains a proposed guideline that is in the process of taking community input for its development and, as such, major edits are subject to talk page discussion conventions. Willmcw made a major rewrite of an existing section on this article without giving reasons for doing so or discussing the matter on the talk page. His rewrite was subsequently contested [20] and requests were made of him to explain the proposed rewrite and resolve objections to it before including it in the guideline proposal.[21] Willmcw has been unresponsive to these requests and has instead initiated revert warring [22] [23] [24] to preserve his rewrite while refusing to respond to objections about it on the talk page.

Willmcw has also indicated his opposition to this proposal so it is also questionable whether it's appropriate for him to be engaging in major rewrites of its text while the consensus-gathering process is occuring. Any advice or assistance you have is much appreciated and may be offered at Wikipedia talk:Stalking. Thanks. - Rangerdude 08:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Please stop deleting other people's posts from pages, as you did here tonight, [25] and yesterday on the village pump [26] (curiously enough, it was Willmcw's post about the wikistalking page you deleted two or three times), and as a new (and highly abusive) user account was doing tonight from your talk page [27] (also curiously enough, it was Willmcw's post that you are stalking him that kept being deleted). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:23, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Slim - Your pattern of harassment and disruption directed against myself is approaching a level requiring intervention. As was explained to you in detail yesterday, the post by Willmcw you refer to was merged into a single header as it was one of two simultaneously posted notices about the same guideline proposal. You made a bad faith assumption then in accusing me of attempting to delete his material, persisted in it then when I explained to you the purpose of merging the two even after I agreed to facilitate your bizarre whims and restore Willmcw's redundant second notice for the exact same article, and still persist in it now. Regarding the second case, I am unaware how the deletion you accuse me of tonight even happened as my only intended edit there was to post this incident notice. Any deletion that resulted in it was either by accident or programming fluke, and your persistent bad faith assaults of alleging otherwise are in clear violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and will be noted as such in dispute resolution proceedings against yourself for a pattern of continued personal harassment against me and for abuse of your administrator powers. Rangerdude 09:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I have never indicated that I oppose the proposed guideline, and I have responed in great detail to Rangerdude's questions about why I replaced his words with those of Jimbo Wales in the "Precedents" section. -Willmcw 09:35, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Willmcw vocally opposed the establishment of a wikistalking guideline when I first initiated discussions about creating one on July 5th at the Assume Good Faith talk page.[28] Since the creation of a separate article and talk page for this proposal, Willmcw has also consistently opposed multiple attempts to expand the article, deleted extensive passages from the article in account of me being their author, and substantially altered the content of the proposal with amendments deemed unfriendly by the editors who authored and initiated the proposal process. Rangerdude 09:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Re-read my words. The July 5th discussion was not a proposed guideline, that was text you wanted to add to an existing guideline, "Wikipedia:Assume good faith". As for "unfriendly amendments" this is not a debate on a motion. It's a proposal that all editors are free to edit, just like any other. Your repeated attempts to stop the participation of myself and other editors have been noted. -Willmcw 19:03, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin

Hello - some sort of page protection appears to have been applied to my user talk page. I believe that this action was taken by administrators User:Willmcw and User:SlimVirgin who were both actively altering my talk page at the time the protection appeared, yet the log is ambiguous. Whatever the case I am currently being blocked from posting a response on my own user page!

Unfortunately it appears that whatever page protection was applied was intended to inhibit me from responding to a disruptive WP:POINT allegation made moments prior by Willmcw against me[29] and currently being promoted by SlimVirgin[30] on the Village Pump for the purpose of impeding and discrediting a new wikipedia guideline proposal, Wikipedia:Stalking, that I listed yesterday. Willmcw's allegation, SlimVirgin's promotion of it, and the page protection of my user talk page also appear to be a retaliatory action by these two editors for my noticeboard post above in which I reported Willmcw for disruptive and anti-collaborative behavior on the same Wikipedia:Stalking guideline proposal. Both of these editors have been extremely harassing in their behavior towards me for some time, and the events of the past few minutes give me reason to believe that one or both of them are abusing their administrator privileges to engage in this harassment and to disrupt the effort I initiated on the guideline proposal. Any help would be once again greatly appreciated. Rangerdude 09:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

A look at the protection log for your page shows that SlimVirgin did it, and a glance at the history shows it was done to prevent another editor from continually deleting Willmcw's post on your page. Probably not the best move, but not likely for the reason you describe. --TJive 09:19, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

They're just bullying him. Okay, they might feel he deserves it but trolling him with a message like that isn't going to help anything. I suggest to SlimVirgin, an editor I have the utmost respect for, that this isn't helping make a great encyclopaedia. The other guy is just acting to type, so far as I can see, but I do make the same appeal to him. -- Grace Note

Rangerdude's talk page was protected for 10 minutes while I dealt with a highly abusive [31] new user account who kept deleting from Rangerdude's talk page a post from Willmcw alleging that Rangerdude is wikistalking him. Why a new user would think to do that, I can only imagine, but he was blocked for vandalism, disruption and personal attacks, so the page was unprotected around 15 minutes before Rangerdude posted here with his latest complaint. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:31, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Slim - as an active party to a dispute between myself with yourself and Willmcw, I consider your application of protection in any area involving this dispute to be a conflict of interest that violates the protection policy, whatever the reason. I similarly consider yours and Willmcw's conduct regarding the Wikipedia:Stalking guideline proposal and the accompanying WP:POINT disruption he posted to my talk page that you are now promoting to be cases of personal harassment on both your parts and will pursue them accordingly. Disruptive behavior, such as your recent hostile actions toward me, has no place on wikipedia, and least of all by an administrator. This is your final warning to cease and desist before dispute resolution is initiated against you as well. Rangerdude 09:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, just from reading here, it seems like someone was vandalising your user talk, and that Slimvirgin nabbed the vandal. You'd prefer to only catch vandalism yourself? Ok, that's a reasonable request in itself, but are you sure? Your user pages might remain vandalised for days when you're not around to check them. Kim Bruning 10:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that in the case of this page Rangerdude did not mean to delete text but it was some sort of error that ate up recent changes; Kim Bruning just did the same thing. --TJive 10:24, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ut oh, there's a bug you say? :-/ Kim Bruning 10:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude, you're trying to poison the well against me, and I won't allow it. I'm not party to your dispute. I've never even read the wikistalking page, much less edited it; nor have I edited (so far as I know) any of the other pages you and Will are disputing. What I've done is try to defend Willmcw, an excellent editor, against your weeks-long harassment of him, your filing of a failed RfC against him and Cberlet, another failed RfC against FuelWagon because he defended them against you, and now by the looks of it, you're threatening one against me too. You're a disruptive editor, your "final warning" to me notwithstanding. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:53, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Slim - You cannot actively assist Willmcw in his repeated attempts at harassment and disruption of my work here, repeatedly attack me personally, inappropriately employ your administrator powers to control my user page, and then disclaim any participation in this dispute in spite of all that you have done. As noted previously, your behavior toward me for the past several weeks has been unduly hostile and has regularly breached wikipedia protocol on civility, assumption of good faith, and no personal attacks - the latter in spite of a standing Arbcom caution against you from another case in which you were cited for making personal attacks. I've repeatedly addressed these issues to you, Slim, and have done so in a reasonably civil manner yet instead you persist in bad faith attacks such as the fraudulent allegations of deleting other users comments posted above and your blatantly provocative and harassing attempts to assist Willmcw, a personal friend of yours and an editor you nominated to adminiship, in pursuing disruptive and fraudulent WP:POINT allegations against me[32] [33] for the explicit purpose of disrupting a guideline proposal I have made. Due to your repeated transgressions of this nature, I am filing a formal harassment complaint against you for your behavior, Slim, and will request that you be added into the mediation case between myself and Willmcw as an active participant in his harassing actions that originally necessitated the case. In the meantime, I will ask you once again to abide by conflict of interest protocol and refrain from employing your administrative powers and energies in any manner that impacts the pending case between us and its related editing disputes with Willmcw. I will consider your failure to do so and any subsequent interfering administrative actions such as the protection you applied to my user page last night to be an abuse of your administrative powers and will both report the incidents as appropriate and add them to my case of grievances against you. Rangerdude 18:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

NOTE - after its initial posting the above complaint regarding harassment and abuse of admin powers by SlimVirgin was removed from this page by Willmcw, himself a party to this dispute and subject of a related complaint found above. The diff of Willmcw's deletion may be found here. Rangerdude 19:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

An Admin who thinks he is god?

Under exactly what authority does UninvitedCompany think he can unilaterally permanently ban users, and destroy their user pages, and protect their talk pages so that they can't respond? - [34]

It should be noted that the alleged images are listed at User:Evil Monkey/Nudity as well as being considered entirely appropriate for articles, having, as far as I can tell, already survived IFD, and have been on Wikipedia for over a month.

Note that an arbcom case has only just opened and has by no means come down with even remotely any penalty such as a ban. UninvitedCompany seems to think he has greater authority than ArbCom, and can completely act outside it.

Does UninvitedCompany has infinite power and permission to unilaterally with impunity?

Particularly when the user/victim in question has challanged a prior abuse of adminship by UninvitedCompany in an RfC, and has diametrically opposed political opinions?

This seems to be a case of right wing strongly anti-Islamic admins thinking they have the right to dictate to everyone else.

It also seems in contempt of the arbitration committee's right to make the decision.

-- -Ril- 12:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, sysops have a duty to maintain order on Wikipedia, not merely stick to the letter of the rules. Trying to twist the spirit of the rules by using ones own user page or talk page to carry on disruption, in the hope that the letter of the rules will leave the sysops without means, is naive and blamable.

If this is indeed what you decided to do, it is rather understandable that you should suffer the consequences.

Obviously, this does not prevent you from commenting on your case, since you are here. Rama 13:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of this is at User talk:-Ril-/ban. "Anti-Islamic"? Every time an anti-Islamic troll is blocked they rant that "Islamists have taken over Wikipedia". Go figure. dab (ᛏ) 13:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You would say that, but UninvitedCompany admits to being "extremely anti-Islamic" - [35] -Ril- 13:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Presumably UC's block follows the disruption clause of the blocking policy: "Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia." — Dan | Talk 14:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Speaking neutrally here, as an arbitrator on the case in question ... I have in fact seen lots of good contributions from -Ril- — have a look through his edit history and interests. Though relations between him and the Wikipedia community in general have evidently unfortunately broken down and I can see someone blocking him completely as a troll/vandal if they only had the recent actions to go on.

I would ask that he not be blocked indefinitely while the case is in progress, but only as needed to stop this level of disruption. Please also mention the disruption incident(s) on the case evidence page - David Gerard 15:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree here with David; permanent blocks on someone in the midst of a case is unfortunate, and that -Ril-'s current actions aren't, I feel, wholly representative.

James F. (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Given the fairly strong support for UninvitedCompany's action on User talk:-Ril-/ban, I would suggest to the arbitrators that they need to come up with an appropriate temporary injunction regarding -Ril-'s editing privileges, and that the current one is inadequate. If this is done, I am willing to lift the block, but not before. --Michael Snow 17:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Willy

Willy zilly nilly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please help reverting all that, my connection can't handle it. Radiant_>|< 13:01, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also blocked. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I've made a feature request - bugzilla:3185 - that page move rollback should not leave a redirect behind, reducing the amount of work cleanup like this requires. Thryduulf 13:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Additionally, rollbacking moves shouldn't require a confirmation screen. Imho. Radiant_>|< 14:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Also related: we need a Special:Newusers page, with a NU patrol to compliment RC patrol, and we need it bad. Func( t, c, @, ) 14:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if such a feature will ever come. Is it that difficult? No, I can't contribute cote - but I am one of the poor bastards constantly cleaning up after this guy. (Of course, if we got a list of new users, guess what - he'll just use a normal looking name.) Hey, devs, what's his IP? At least tell us what ISP he's using. AOL? --Golbez 14:32, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

User:WikiPoliceman

Improper username, unsanctioned m:Role account? Didn't read everything on page, maybe a polite name change request if its innapropriate. ∞Who?¿? 17:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Also see the new police dept User:WikiPoliceman/WPPD, do I get a badge :) ? ∞Who?¿? 17:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Madchester

As I've mentioned here (and elsewhere) before, I've been having enormous problems recently with some editors over pop-music articles. I received some help from other editors, and things seem to have improved considerably with regard to one of them, and somewhat with the regard to the other. However Madchester (talk · contribs) seems to have started up with the same sort of approach (at, for example, Yourself or Someone Like You and Parachutes). He has been reverting my edits wholesale, including corrections to Wikilinks, adding MoS-style links, etc. I'm concerned that an admin should behave like this. Could someone have a word with him? I don't seem to be getting through. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks and abusive language at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/US_Government_Simulator

Can an admin, or perhaps several, start monitoring this discussion. We have a number of people, apparently from the external site, creating accounts and then being particularly abusive. Examples include:

• Because I dropped $125 to help buy the damn server! So stop being a bunch of whiney hypocrites and shut your unknowledgeable mouths! - User: Randomosityii
• I've had enough of wikipedia douches trying to get the whole govsim/nationsim genre deleted 213.67.49.17 17:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• ut hey, you're so goddamned BIASED that you won't recognize that. Also, we're not on Avidgamers anymore because it got too slow and we decided to BUY our own site and forums. That's right...we BOUGHT the site instead of using a free one. That's why it's no longer on Avidgamers...but your head is so far up your ass that you can't realize that. (from Randomosityii (talk · contribs) again)
• I mean seriously, the only "delete" votes are coming from people totally clueless about the gaming world of govsims. The fact that they are passing judgment on us in such an ingnorant manner is really out of line (from "John Joffey")

Wikibofh 17:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Willy again

He's back again, as User:Shake your willy (contribs). Slightly more than 100 pages moved. I'll start from the most recent, if anyone wants to help, please start at the first pages he moved. Thanks. Meelar (talk) 18:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

They're all moved back (thanks to everyone!). Now all the garbage redirects need to be deleted; if any are still bluelinked in the move log when I get back from lunch I'll finish them off. Antandrus (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I made a transwiki mess, please help

I saw Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Michael Quilty and took it upon myself to be bold and create sep11:Michael_Quilty since that's where the article really belongs. However, I stupidly didn't bother to read m:Transwiki until after taking this action and now realize it was not the correct thing to do because of revision history preservation. Would a kind admin please delete sep11:Michael_Quilty, let the VfD finish naturally, and then Transwiki (if so voted) per the correct procedure? I'm very sorry for this. Thanks, Thatdog 18:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)