Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Tasks

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

General

Trigger Happy

Dear Administrator:

I, like you, am an editor; I create articles and make edits. But, many, I am sure many other people out there, are tired, frustrated and angry with the behavior of many Administrators. I am certain that it is appallingly easy to revert and article, that someone has undoubtedly spent allot of time and effort writing. I have, in the past spent hours, researching, planning, writing, checking and revising an addition to an article only to have the whole lot deleted forever three minutes afterwards.

I know that deletion of material is essential in a free-to-edit encyclopedia, but if you see an article that someone has anonymously devoted their time to writing, why could you not revise it, change it or give a reason for you action? They deserve one.

I know all Administrators are not all Drunk-With- Power-Trigger-Happy-Nazis, many of you do an excellent job and you know who you are.

In closing: Create, don’t Destroy. Make a distinction between “what is right, and what is easy”. Be enriched and enrich others with the knowledge of other people.

And keep that finger off the trigger.

Dfrg.msc 01:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary user

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please note that Primetime's indefinite block on Wiktionary was approved after a decision made by the community. It was not even issued by Connel MacKenzie [1]. Now Connel is indeed a very active contributor and sysop on Wiktionary, probably among our best (if there's such a thing as "the best" on a wiki), who's not afraid of discussion, some arguments in which he is a party indeed evolving into what one might arguably call a "dispute". That is, however, of no relevance here, and has more to do with the argumentative nature of the English Wiktionary. Primetime, though, has never conformed to the rules that apply to Wiktionary, and he and his host of sockpuppets have been banned from Wiktionary by the community, for the reasons given above by Connel. The majority of his former contributions have either been deleted (by a variety of sysops, not just Connel), or rephrased in order to eliminate the copyright violations originally entered by Primetime. New admissions from his part, once they have been identified as being Primetime's, are being deleted on sight (by a variety of sysops, not just Connel or me) due to his long-standing tradition of proven copyright violations. Vildricianus 18:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (Wiktionary sysop).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely. I've said it before, and I need to say it again. Everything I just said is all true. Everyone should read what I just wrote. As for my donation, go here: [2]--I listed my user name in the comment column.--Primetime 22:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

(Born Whilton, Northants., Dec. 22, 1785; Died Versailles, Feb. 19, 1859). English organ builder. The son of a local joiner, he first learnt his father's trade. Against family opinion he was apprenticed while still in his youth to the organ builder James Davis and later joined in partnership with Hugh Russell... [3]

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

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

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

This is another debate, but I tend to follow styling guidelines of style manuals like Merriam-Webster's Manual for Writer's and Editors as well as Random-House's style guide. I also imitate for experimentation purposes several innovations, like enlarging the headword a point or two. I have had several disagreements and have explained myself in detail on why I don't always follow Wikipedia guidelines. Examples include pronunciation aids,^[4] as well as links.^[5]--Primetime 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

This article, Reinhard Sorge [6], also appears to be copied from another source. If it isn't then it is a severe violation of WP:NOT as it includes extensive literary criticism. -Will Beback 23:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that's strange: that list of articles on on User:Primetime's page, which listed the articles he says he was principal contributer to? The one I browsed checking for copying? Primetime has suddenly removed them [7]. Why would that be? --Calton | Talk 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block of Primetime

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

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

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

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

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

FYI, a number of sock puppets of Primetime have been identifed and blocked. JakeT55 (talk · contribs), Britannica fan (talk · contribs), Gmills22 (talk · contribs), Gtregf (talk · contribs), and America's Sweetheart (talk · contribs). -Will Beback 07:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

These seem to have been a panicked reaction to having some of his suspected plagiarism being deleted, with the sockpuppets used to try to add back the probable copyvios.

I say "probable" copyvios, but I'm 95% certain they are, even absent hard evidence. For details on the frustrating saga, check his talk page. At this point, confirming the other plagiarism is more an intellectual exercise than a necessity, as far as I'm concerned. --Calton | Talk 08:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The article J

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I guess my question is now, who on Wikipedia (I'm not a sysop here) is going to start the effort of combing through all his entries, to indicate which have already been deleted/cleaned up? --Connel MacKenzie 01:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Been there, done that: admins Michael_Snow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Will_Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have have already whacked the most obvious offenders. See User talk:Primetime for a blow-by-blow account. --Calton | Talk 02:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The OED was the source for J. --Connel MacKenzie 08:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Update

Primetime (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked by Jimbo Wales hisownself (see here). Note also that Primetime has resorted to sockpuppets to add back what's been deleted (see Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Primetime) and has gone admin-shopping (see here) seeking to reverse deletions of his additions. --Calton | Talk 05:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I see the category here on Wikipedia is redlinked. Today's latest English Wiktionary "Primetime" sockpuppet: wikt:User:Yurejkf (kindly self-identified in this comment.) I hope Wikipedia is better at staying on top of these than we are at Wiktionary. --Connel MacKenzie 04:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a name change - I've fixed it now. Thanks for the heads up. -Will Beback 05:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There also is Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Primetime, resulting from today's slander from Primetime? --Connel MacKenzie 18:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Increasing (desperate) personal attacks. Does WP have a more appropriate place for ongoing, long-term vandalism of this sort? --Connel MacKenzie 01:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long term abuse Ashibaka tock 23:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. In the meantime: Jhyt50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Connel MacKenzie 22:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime. --Connel MacKenzie 13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Primetime used to be called Rickyboy (talk · contribs), and was blocked indefinitely in July 2005.[8][9] -Will Beback 06:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

From his talk page Besides, even if they were violations of copyright law, they would still be justified because people shouldn't have to pay to learn things [10] -- huh, exactly the nonsensical reasoning Primetime employs. --Calton | Talk 13:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Also User:Richardr443, of Letter writing fame. In retrospect, that article was clearly plagiarized, and perhaps a copyright violation. -Will Beback 07:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC) (Now confirmed- copied verbatim from World Book. -Will Beback 12:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC))

Ooh, lovely, I remember him very well. I blocked the Ricky accounts indefinitely, in case he had any designs on reusing them. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if Colorado State Univeristy would like to know that they seem to be harboring a prolific plagarist? --Connel MacKenzie 13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

And in case it merits mentioning, Primetime has added my email address to a dozen or more spam sites, and has ordered junk mail to the home address of another editor. This fellow seems to believe in unrestricted combat. -Will Beback 12:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, and I'm suddenly glad I didn't respond to him through e-mail. --Calton | Talk 13:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I left a "Be On the Lookout" warning on Talk:Oxford English Dictionary, where his latest sockpuppet -- Ftym67 (talk · contribs) -- was trying to convince the editors there that the OED is public-domain and A-Okay to copy from. Not that anyone there seemed to be buying it, but I thought a warning was in order. --Calton | Talk 14:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if Wikipedia admins would review/copyedit wikt:Wiktionary:Blocking policy#2006/06/08 (the letter I will soon send to abuse@CSU) to verify I've not overstepped any inter-project boundaries. --Connel MacKenzie 15:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I did send this, about two hours ago. They seem to have begun their own investigation now. On another note: Give seem to have retained the copyvio material from the OED still, perhaps after a page move? --Connel MacKenzie 22:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

user:71.232.34.13

placed a "WoW" tag on User:Shadow ruler. DOn't know if it's legit. Thanks :) Dlohcierekim 19:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Mike Rosoft seemed to think so, then changed his mind, then reblocked. You might ask him. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I highly doubt that he's a WoW sockpuppet, as none of his contribs have anything to do with "on wheels." Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq banned from Israeli apartheid (phrase).

See [11]. This ban may be lifted at any time by any administrator who disagrees with it, though I would request that they register their reasons for doing so here and/or on my talk page. Thank you.--Sean Black 02:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

FWIW I totally agree with your action. Metamagician3000 02:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've moved Homeontherange's original request from the arbitration page to WP:AE and asked him to use that page in future. --Tony Sidaway 03:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeq has just violated the ban[12]. Homey 04:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing said anything about the Talk page, only the actual article. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 04:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, you're correct - template says he can still edit the talk page.Homey 04:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for votespamming for the articles' AFD Will (^E_@) T 22:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This block was in clear violation of several wikipedia policies. Please see this: User_talk:Sceptre#Vote_stacking and replace the block with a warnning. I appologize from having to work from this and can not log in, but it seems despite the unblock template put on my talk page no one is paying attention. Singed: Zeq editing from: 85.65.186.191 10:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, did you post the above while you were blocked by Sceptre? It's a serious offence to cirumvent blocks in this way. Homey 22:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User:YINever

YINever (talk · contribs), as well as his anon-IP 141.153.74.246 (talk · contribs) are the sockpuppets of TJive (talk · contribs), who claimed that he left Wikipedia for good. Not only he keeps adding right-wing POV into articles, he has put suggestions on his user page [13] and wells as talk pages of certain articles [14], suggestion that I'm apparantly a "Communist web spy employed by the Chinese government". He has restored vandalism deleted by admins, calling it [15] "restoring valuable comment in proper place". User has also vandalised several articles to fit his political agenda, removing references [16] [17] without discussion, adding weasel words into articles to blackwash leftists [18]. --PatCheng 04:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:RFCU#Not_Clear_-_Nobs01_or_TJive.3F. --Rory096 04:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what he intends to accomplish here, considering there is no actual policy violation described in this rant.

BTW, I "claimed that [I] left Wikipedia for good"? Mind showing where? --TJive 04:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User:YINever is repeated reverting the article The Epoch Times and keeps removing warnings from his talk page even though he has been repeatedly warned for it. See User talk: YINever. User:YINever keeps deleting his talk page warning. User:YINever is currently in a revert war with User:PatCheng at the The Epoch Times article. He keeps reverting without attempting to reach consensus. User:YINever apparently is a new account and intent of deletion of his talk page warnings and revert war over The Epoch Times article. RevolverOcelotX 01:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

See the same below. YINever 01:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:SuperDeng

Well, here we are again. This is a continuation of this, which I alerted everyone to a few days ago. I had blocked SuperDeng and Kurt Leyman for 72 hours for this continuing fight of theirs. Specifically, Deng had reverted 40 of Kurt's edits in a 3 hour period (which you can see in Deng's contribs. Well the block expired and Deng went right back at Leyman, as he has been doing for 2 months now. This is the edit that is causing the problem. Deng has been accusing Kurt of vandalism all along. Well. The edit I just cited is not vandalism. In fact, Kurt's edit is better than Deng's. And it's more than just the Second Battle of the Atlantic article. We also have Battle of the Netherlands, where Deng has reverted Kurt by changing "wounded or missing" to "missing or wounded". And he's done this twice. And I and others have tried reasoning with Deng. We've pointed out policies. We encouraged a RfC and then a RfAr (to which he responded with "arbitration are back logged and from them time I make a request which I will untill someone actually looks at it he will have vandalized hundreds if not thousands of articles"). So he won't even follow basic dispute resolution. Yes, he tried a request for comment but that's been it. So, because of all of this, I've blocked Deng for 1 week. If someone disagrees, let me know. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Has Kurt Leyman been blocked too? - FrancisTyers 15:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Not yet. I am keeping my eye on him. The stuff that Deng reverted was not vandalism. If Kurt goes back to his old habits, I will block him. At the moment, it's not warranted. --Woohookitty^(meow) 00:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Strike that. :) Kurt was also in violation of 3RR. So I blocked him for 5 1/2 days. It's for a lesser time because Kurt has one less 3RR vio and he hasn't been stalking anyone. On the other hand, I really wish that when they see each other editing something, they just stayed away or alerted an admin to take care of it. --Woohookitty^(meow) 00:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If only there were someone crazy enough to volunteer to mentor them both. - FrancisTyers 01:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Well I told Deng that he should try arbitration and he told me that the arbcom is "too backed up", which isn't a reason. Instead, he's decided to be a vigilante...and no matter what Kurt has done, we can't done that. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I can try mentoring Deng but I would leave it to others to deal with Kurt. --Irpen 05:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Teach him civility. He actually just lectured me on what wikipedia is. I have 26,000+ edits! He has a condescending, "I'm always right" attitude with everyone. He refuses to compromise. He doesn't listen to reason. Oi. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Indef-block him. NSLE _(T+C) at 10:31 UTC (2006-06-03)

Actually, could you do it? Part of the problem I've had with him is that he seems to think that I'm some sort of rogue admin, even though I've never had another admin overturn any of my blocks. I'm not a block happy admin. I tend to use that power relatively sparingly. Anyway. I think we need to show some solidarity here. I'd appreciate it. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitey blocked SuperDeng, with message on his talk page - someone please watch there and protect it if needed, or respond accordingly to any unblock request, cheers. NSLE _(T+C) at 10:38 UTC (2006-06-03)

Thank you! I should kiss you. But I won't. :) And yes, I added it to my WL earlier this evening. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It is my impression that although hotheaded, arrogant and disruptive, Deng is still an asset to wikipedia. He made a great number of very good edits related to the Eastern Front during the World War II and in his vendetta with Kurt in quite a number of cases he indeed is fixing some subtle vandalism. As a matter of fact me and Irpen had been planing to give him a barnstar on the V-Day for his editing, then delayed this because of his disruptive behavior.

User:Irpen has agreed to be his mentor, I never tried mentorship before, but I could try my chanses as a co-mentor if it is needed. Please give him a second chance, if it works, it would be worth the nervous energy spent due to his scandalous behavior. abakharev 04:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a shame that Kurt, with his pesky pro-Nazi trolling and no valuable contributions at all, has not been permabanned as yet. I support the idea of mentorship for Deng, however. Deng is a potentially valuable contributor, but his editing needs to be supervised by a team of more experienced wikipedians. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Chooserr

• Chooserr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have removed two instances of solicitation of funds for political purposes, through linking to an external donation web page, from each of Chooserr's user page and talk page. Chooserr had been editing but his response to requests by other editors that he remove the links was negative and defiant. --Tony Sidaway 14:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Negative and defiant? As soon as he logged on he replied to the person who'd warned him, and as he demonstrated on Tony's talk page, nobody bothered to explain to him that there was actually a policy violation there. Then Tony gives him this reply, and Chooserr does this and then on second thought, this. Congratulations, Wikipedia. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're being unnecessarily charitable towards Chooserr. Everybody knows this isn't where you come for fundraising. --Tony Sidaway 19:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Everybody knows? Chooserr's had that link on his page for about six months, and nobody's ever said a word to him about it. How does he know that the "wide latitude" we allow in user space doesn't include what we've been allowing him for six months? It's not like an admin's never looked at his page. You think I'm being too charitable; I think you're being way too brash and disrespectful. Tony, you talk to people like they're misbehaving dogs and you're their master; it's disgusting. Would it kill you to treat people respectfully? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be nice if occasionally an administrator wasn't pilloried for removing blatantly unsuitable material from the site and warning the editor in question. Your own part in this was unfortunate; you restored the solicitation link after another editor had correctly removed it after the warning. Don't make it worse by blaming others. --Tony Sidaway 19:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with you removing blatantly unsuitable material. I have a serious problem with your apparent inability to maintain courtesy. You contribute a lot to the Wiki, and we all appreciate that, but you are not above WP:CIVIL. If it's not readily apparent to you that you could have handled this situation much better, then I question your good sense.

As for my action, I explained it sufficiently at the time. Removing a link that had been sitting there for six months is not so urgent that it overrides our basic need to treat each other well. An administrator had left a warning, asking Chooserr to remove the material himself, and then acted on it before Chooserr had even logged on again, as least as indicated by his Contributions page. Then another editor vandalized the page by inserting different linkspam. Having a choice of which version to revert to, I chose the version where Chooserr still had a chance to remove the offending link himself, because what's the point in giving someone a chance to fix something for himself, if you're going to just do it before he actually gets that chance? I err on the side of respect, because it pays to maintain an atmosphere in which people treat each other excellently.

Again, to be very clear, you have mischaracterized my statements. I am not criticizing you for removing the link. I am criticizing you for talking down to other human beings. It's unnecessary, rude, counterproductive, and against policy.

Oh, another thing: I'm not "blaming" you for anything. I'm just saying be more respectful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a minor correction, GTBacchus. Timothy Usher did leave a request (I wouldn't call it a warning), but you're incorrect in stating that an administrator did. Timothy is not an admin. Jumping in to remove it before Chooserr had logged on was, of course, unfortunate, as it made it more difficult for Chooserr to do so without losing face. AnnH ♫ 11:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

For those of you just joining us, Alienus (talk · contribs) has been embroiled in a long struggle with this user; see his talk page. Isopropyl 21:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If I've failed to maintain courtesy, GTBacchus, then you're right to reprove me. I agree that Alienus was very, very naughty and he's been given warnings by Nandesuka and (when he told me about that warning) me. There may be some minor details of timing here but I won't go into those, just observe that at the time I removed the links he'd been told about the problem and was being pretty stroppy about it. It really doesn't take an immense amount of thought to realise that what Chooserr was doing is absolutely prohibited, anywhere on Wikipedia, even on Chooserr's talk page and user page.

Chooserr has a pretty massive block log and does seem to have a history of biased editing [19]. Had he come here to produce unbiased edits but had only popped a fundraising link onto his user page by accident, then of course a lighter approach would have been appropriate. But Chooserr isn't about that at all. He uses his user page to advertise his pet causes, though he does so in a reasonably Wikipedian way:

• American Life League
• The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
• Pro-Life Alliance
• SPUC
• Student LifeNet

• British Weights and Measures Association
• Foundation for Endangered Languages

Now Chooserr has been up to this for six months. Hooray! Let's allow him to continue to engage in political fundraising for another three weeks or so. Or should we just remove the bloody horrible thing and tell him not to abuse Wikipedia again? --Tony Sidaway 00:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

First I was "pillorying" you for removing inappropriate material, and when that turned out not to be true, I'm suggesting that you put off removing the material for three weeks. Where will you go when that turns out to be false?

I'm actually quite familiar with Chooserr's history. I remember him new at Wikipedia, getting blocked left and right, and I watched him learn how to edit here, and how to use the talk page instead of revert warring, and how images have copyrights that we have to worry about, and I have seen him become a valuable member of the editing team on some articles that we both work on. He hasn't been blocked since the last time I blocked him in February, because he's improved, and he's helping build the encylcopedia. The linkspam on his page - you were right, it had to go - but I see a human being there, and I have no problem having a conversation explaining to him about why the links aren't cool. You know, changing the culture one person at a time? Apparently, you don't see a human worthy of respect, all you see is "abuse"; and who has time for a conversation or a civil interaction, when you could be bossy and contemptuous instead? It's efficient, that contempt stuff.

So apparently, I'm asking that we screw around for three weeks, and "allow abuse" or something; that's right, Tony. Christ. You really think the small effort of treating someone respectfully is a big waste? That's all I'm talking about. You're right about everything, of course, but you could treat people better, and you should, because it matters. Stop contributing to an atmostphere of combativeness. Play well with others. This is all I'm saying. If you want to blow a bunch of smoke about how I'm harassing you for removing unsuitable content, or what a "bad user" Chooserr is anyway, and how he was being "stroppy" (what a load of horseshit), I don't buy it, and I don't give a fuck either. None of that is an excuse for you to be a dick. Stop poisoning the well, because I care about this project a lot, and I don't like you marring it with your antisocial attitude. If I see you shitting on people, I will call you out on it.

Now, are you going to find another way to miss the point, and drag this out longer, or what? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the odd user page or two asking for donations via Paypal in return for their wiki contributions. Is this also frowned upon? -- Longhair 00:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly not. I don't know. --Tony Sidaway 18:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Depends who you ask. Me, if it helps build the encyclopedia, then so be it (but certainly don't spam asking for it). Hell, I wouldn't mind some pocket money myself for the hours I've put in here. Snoutwood (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Chooserr - Enforcing policy doesn't require trampling on other editors

Chooserr had those links for months. I haven't checked the history to see how long exactly. I had noticed them before, and had found them inappropriate for a Wikipedia user page. However, I have seen user pages and user talk pages with pictures of penises (and I don't mean just the one recently reported at WP:AN/I; I have seen user pages which attacked or belittled other users. I saw no reason to barge in and trample on another editor — especially when it involved an editor who might feel ganged up against. This has been discussed before at one of the admin noticeboards. Chooserr has been blocked (or had blocks increased) for doing things that were not against policy, but were disruptive (welcoming too many new users, saving his talk page every minute while blocked, in the hope that someone would see his unblock request on Recent Changes). I am quite sure that I could have stopped some of the problems without resorting to a block — just by asking nicely. Editors who have openly wiki-stalked him, reverting his good-faith edits with "rvv" or "mindless, incoherent troll" were never blocked. For those reasons, I prefer to be extra gentle and extra tactful when dealing with Chooserr. I have found, also, that he responds much better to people making polite requests than to people bullying or threatening him. (Don't we all?)

At 16:35 (UTC) on 1 June, Alienus removed the link from Chooserr's talk page with no prior warning or request. The edit summary said this is offensive enough on a user page; it doesn't belong on a talk page.[20] Note that Chooserr did not edit Wikipedia between 31 May and 3 June, so presumably did not see it at the time.

At 20:01 on 1 June, Elliskev reverted, with rvv.[21]

At 20:05 on 1 June, Elliskev sent Alienus a {{tpv2}} message.[22]

There was some discussion then at Alienus's talk page, and at Elliskev's talk page. It later spread to Timothy Usher's talk page. At one stage, Elliskev removed Alienus's message (asking him to AGF) from his talk page. Alienus promptly sent him a {{civil}} message and commented on the rudeness of deleting a message, although he routinely deletes any message he receives from Nandesuka using popups. Elliskev deleted the {{civil}} warning as well, though after discussion with Timothy, he restored these messages.

At 02:31 on 2 June, Timothy posted a message to Chooserr saying that the link was inappropriate, and politely requesting him to remove it.[23]

At 04:05 on 3 June, Timothy posted to Chooserr: As you've not responded, I've done it. [24] Note that Chooserr had not edited at all since the request was made, and so had presumably not been online.

At 04:06 on 3 June, Timothy removed the link, but kept the words "Make Abortion History".[25]

At 05:15 on 3 June, Alienus vandalized Chooserr's talk page by linking "Make Abortion History" to the donation page of Planned Parenthood — edit summary: a link is fine, so long as it's not to anything partisan.[26] The page now looked exactly as it had looked before Timothy removed the link, but the link was to the donation page of a pro-choice website, rather than of a pro-life one.

At 05:23 on 3 June, GTBacchus restored the page to Chooserr's version — certainly not out of approval of the link (Chooserr and GTB disagree on article content), but presumably because he felt annoyed by the vandalism and harassment, and felt that the removal of a link which had already been several months on a page which visitors browsing Wikipedia would be unlikely to see was a less urgent matter than treating another human being with respect.[27]

At 05:51 GTBacchus pointed out that Chooserr had not even logged on, and that "respectfully waiting for a reply" was "more important than making [the link] be gone now".[28]

At 05:53 on 3 June, Timothy posted, "Okay, let's wait until he's logged on."[29]

There was also discussion on Alienus's talk page showing that Alienus was defiant, unrepentant, and flippant.

Most editors who logged on to find all that in the page history would find it a bit galling to remove the link. Once again, I agree it shouldn't have been there, but for Alienus (who is in constant dispute with Chooserr, and who at the time had offensive comments about three editors on his own talk page) to barge in and remove it without request or warning, for Timothy to jump the gun by removing it before Chooserr had had a chance to respond, and for Alienus then to vandalize his page by linking to something that promoted the opposing POV must all have have contributed towards making Chooserr feel that he didn't want to remove the link. I saw the history of his talk page just before I went into work on Saturday morning, and decided I'd ask him myself to remove the link: I felt fairly sure he would agree, and it would all blow over. I have found that Chooserr responds well to being treated with ordinary human respect — something which unfortunately does not seem to have been tried by Alienus or Tony in this case.

In fact, at 06:50 on 3 June (his first edit in three days) Chooserr wrote to Timothy, thanking him for his comments, saying that they were obviously well meant, and that he might remove the tags.[30] I wouldn't call that "negative", "defiant", or "stroppy". Nine minutes later, he posted a fairly mild message to Alienus, asking him not to vandalize his page.[31] His next edit, at 07:25 was to his own user page, where he removed two links to external sites requesting donations for the pro-life cause, and kept the remaining one. I would call that a step in the right direction, not being "negative", "defiant", and "stroppy". I would also consider it to be evidence that reasoning with Chooserr would be better than bullying him.

When I got home from work, I discovered that Alienus had added "Well, he's logged on and entirely unrepentant" at 14:05[32] (No sign of any repentence from Alienus for his own trolling, vandalism, and insult.)

At 14:13, 14:19, 14:20, and 14:34, Tony Sidaway made four edits to Chooserr's talk page, removing the link, calling it "completely inappropriate", threatening "to block [Chooserr] for linkspamming if [he] insist[ed] on abusing Wikipedia in this way". That must have been especially galling for Chooserr since Alienus had not been threatened with a block. (He was subsequently threatened by Nandesuka.) Tony may have been unaware of the vandalism, but was able to make (false) statements here about Chooserr having been "negative and defiant".

At 18:28 on 3 June, Tony told Alienus that his edit (linking Chooserr's page to a Planned Parenthood donation page) was "out of order", and asked him "please" not to do stuff like that again.[33] (No "completely out of line", no threats to block.)

At 19:07 on 3 June, Tony, in response to Chooserr's protest that he would have taken down the link himself if someone had shown him it was against policy, said "You've been told now. Happy?"[34]

I have just two questions for Tony and Alienus:

1. Would it have been possible to get that link removed without threats and vandalism?
2. Assuming that it was possible, would it have been preferable to get it removed without threats and vandalism?

I'm quite, quite sure that I, or GTBacchus, or FreplySpang would have been able to get those links removed without trampling on Chooserr, without making him feel that someone who had vandalized his talk page was vindicated (note that Alienus claimed elsewhere that his action had been redone by another admin), and without resorting to threats of blocks. Tony, you've managed to get that link removed, which is good for the project, so you probably feel that this has been a success, but in my view, the only people who could be happy at the way this was done are people who don't think that real human beings with real feelings matter. GTBacchus has come out of this extremely well. Nobody else has.

AnnH ♫ 11:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware of Alienus' vandalism. In fact alienus later told me about Nandesuka's warning (which contained a block threat [35]). I told alienus not to do it again, feeling that a further block threat was superfluous as he'd stopped. Personally I would probably have blocked alienus without a warning had I been aware of the vandalism at the time. He is an experienced editor and should know better.

Alienus' vandalism to a certain extent explains and mitigates Chooserr's uncooperative and defiant attitude. I think it's possible, though it seems incredibly unlikely, that Chooserr didn't realise that what he was doing on his talk page and user page was quite beyond the pale. --Tony Sidaway 13:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought you probably were not aware of Alienus's vandalism at the time, and I agree that since he was unlikely to do it again, a further block threat was superfluous. My problem was with the block threat that you issued to Chooserr. If Jimbo came to your talk page to tell you that he'll block you if you vandalize his user page, there would be an implication that he suspected you of intending to, which would be unfair. Your non vandalism could then be seen by others as simply a result of that threat (that you knew you wouldn't get away with it), which would make you lose face, and would be undeserved. In my view, the threat of blocking Chooserr was also undeserved — much more so than a threat to Alienus would have been, as Alienus did something that was definitely malicious and definitely intended to taunt Chooserr, whereas Chooserr was simply linking to something unsuitable which he probably thought he could link to. As GTBacchus says, he had had it there for months, administrators had frequently visited his page, and nobody had said anything. Chooserr edits articles closely related to his own interests, and shows little interest in Project pages concerning policy. He may have heard that we allow a "wide latitude" concerning user pages. In any case, I don't agree that what he was doing was "quite beyond the pale". If it had been, someone would have protested earlier. I do agree it was inappropriate, but feel sure (and GTBacchus and I both have more experience of Chooserr than you do) that it was in good faith. I personally believe that putting images of penises and/or human excrement on one's talk page is "quite beyond the pale". And I think that what Alienus did was "quite beyond the pale".

What worries me, Tony, is that while you have acknowledged that Alienus's vandalism was a mitigating factor, you still use language like "Chooserr's uncooperative and defiant attitude", which ties in with your original language of "defiant", "negative", and "being pretty stroppy about it". You haven't offered any diffs to show that he was defiant, negative, or stroppy, and GTBacchus and I have both given diffs to show that his first post after being made aware of the objections was a polite one to Timothy saying "I thank you for your comments. They are obviously well meant, and I might remove the tag(s) . . . I'm not trying to cause trouble", and that he then removed two of the three links he had. He was probably still thinking about the remaining one. Nobody had shown him it was against policy. All he had been treated to was vandalism, taunts, and people taking the matter out of his hands while he was offline and before he was aware of any objections.

I recall as long ago as last summer I began to notice that you sometimes voted to support RfAs of people with whom you had been in dispute, and I thought, "that's decent of him; he's obviously fair." It wasn't just once or twice: I noticed it many times. And now I see you most unjustly (in my view) threatening someone with a block and reporting him as "defiant", "negative", "stroppy" and "uncooperative" without any justification whatsoever. Everything I've seen about you suggests that you care deeply about the project — but we're dealing here with a real human being who has feelings.

I used to have a Catholic user box on my user page, plus a pro-life one, plus a homemade one that said I was obedient to the Pope, plus another one that said I agreed with Humanae Vitae. At that time, many people had user boxes. I was completely unaware that Jimbo didn't want it. When Jimbo made his very courteous request, clarifying how he felt, appealing for our cooperation, etc., I thought about it for a few days, and then took away all my boxes except the homemade "obedient-to-Benedict" one. I felt he'd find that less objectionable because it wasn't in template space, and I had made it myself, so it didn't encourage a "clubbing together" of editors. He never (as far as I know) specified his views on boxes in user space, and I watched to see if he would. Eventually, when redesigning my user page, I removed even the Benedict one. I think it would have been quite inappropriate to describe me as "negative", "defiant", "stroppy", and "uncooperative", and to have threatened me with a block while I was thinking about it. But the end of the story is that the boxes were removed, and nobody bullied me or took away my dignity. Chooserr's story didn't have such a happy ending.

By the way, Alienus has continued to hassle Chooserr, by removing an extremely mild post from one of Chooserr's friends[36] and by sending him a {{welcome}} message in its place, because the page looked "empty".[37] He's gaming the system, because he feels he can't get blocked for sending someon a welcome message, but it's pure impertinence, coming from someone in dispute with Chooserr, whose messages Chooserr definitely doesn't welcome, and when Chooserr has been here for over six months. He was then what I would call defiant and uncooperative, when GTBacchus asked him would it not be better to leave Chooserr alone, feigning innocence, pretending not to know what GTB was talking about, saying that he didn't see how the welcome message could be seen as any kind of insult etc. See here.

Anyway, the main point of all this is that in my view Chooserr was not negative, defiant, uncooperative, or stroppy, and should not have been threatened with a block. When it was brought to his attention, he answered nicely, took away two of the links, and was presumably still thinking about the third, at a time when nobody had shown him any policy that forbade it. It would be nice of you, Tony, if you could leave a message on his talk page telling him that you see that nobody had shown him the policy, that he wasn't refusing to remove the link, and that you shouldn't have threatened him. AnnH ♫ 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I could have misread Chooserr's attitude. It did seem to me that continuing to have that link up and continuing to edit without doing anything about it spelled deliberate defiance in very unambiguous terms, and what appeared to me as a patronisingly-worded "I'll think about it"-type response was very negative.

I think I got it wrong here. I'll apologise on User talk:Chooserr for the tone of my warning message. --Tony Sidaway 23:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. That was very nice of you, and I'm sure that Chooserr appreciated it. AnnH ♫ 14:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. I wholeheartedly agree with your action, but also with Ann's description of your tone, and am really pleased to see this being resolved favorably on both fronts.

And Ann, as for no one looking good but GTBacchus - you've criticized me for removing it before Chooserr came back online, but the link violated policy - why should it have remained just because Chooserr was taking a wikibreak? I also condemned Alienus' gratuitous post-removal vandalism. Both were out of line. Though I don't, as you note, have the power to block for vandalism, I do have the ability to remove links that shouldn't be, and I used it.

I personally don't understand the level of hostility towards pro-life here - it seems to me an issue upon which good-faith disagreement is natural and hardly cause for demonization - but maintain that it shouldn't be exacerbated by irrelevant (to wikipedia) statements in userspace. Since then, Chooserr has taken issue with another editors' user-page discussion of his transsexuality (pardon me if I've abused the increasingly arcane rules of jargon), which I personally (key word) find kind of disturbing as well, though as Tony rightly asserts, it's well within current policy. I honestly don't know why we need any of it. Who cares if you're pro-life? Who cares if you're Muslim? Who cares if you're transgendered? It's all off-topic and pointlessly divisive.Timothy Usher 06:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I disagreed with your removal of the link while Chooserr was still offline, but if it was criticism, it was of the mildest kind. I didn't feel shocked or angry, just "I wish he'd left Chooserr to do it himself." People prefer to be asked to do something without the "and-if-you-don't-I-will" threat. I agreed with GTBacchus's remark that "respectfully waiting for a reply" was "more important than making [the link] be gone now", but I wouldn't push the point. There's room for disagreement there, based on how much we think the link violates policy and how urgent we think its removal is. Remember, it was there for six months, and several administrators (pro-choice ones as well) visited his talk page and didn't protest. You say it violated policy, so why should it remain while he's on wiki-break? Well, I'm convinced that such a solicitation is against what Jimbo Wales intends Wikipedia to be, and that's good enough for me; but I'm not convinced that it violates any explicit policy. Wikipedia is not a soapbox deals with what you shouldn't have in an article; it doesn't say what you may or may not have on your user page. POV edits violate policy, but you can't remove them a fourth time in 24 hours: you have to leave them there. I personally think it's more urgent to get rid of something that shouldn't be in an article, because visitors who look up something in Wikipedia are unlikely to navigate to Chooserr's talk page. I think that allowing Chooserr to do the right thing of his own accord would have been preferable to urgently removing the link. It wasn't as if the link was to a site that gave personal information about other editors. And it wasn't as if Chooserr had been gone for a month. Can we agree to disagree on this? My "disapproval" of what you did was so mild that I wouldn't have bothered mentioning it anywhere if the whole business of Chooserr's "negative and defiant" attitude hadn't been brought up here. AnnH ♫ 14:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. For those of you just joining us, my name is Al, and AnnH has been talking about me here. Whatever her motivation, the net effect has been to shift the focus away from Chooserr's inappropriate advertisement and towards my response. Of course, this is a logical fallacy to begin with, as nothing I do can excuse Chooserr's prior acts.

I'll try to be brief, because this is Chooserr's incident report, not mine. What I'd like to state for the record is that any editor reading this would be unwise to take AnnH's summaries of my actions at face value. With all due respect, her descriptions are misleading in a negative fashion.

Now, I realize that, due to her rather strong Christian POV (which is coincidentally shared by Chooserr), she and I have a history of conflict. Coincidentally, she's acted a few times to encourage others to block me and extend my blocks, and has generally sided against me whenever we've interacted. I guess we disagree on a bunch of stuff. However, I don't believe that this is sufficient basis to excuse her violation of WP:AGF, much less her apparent willingness to play fast and loose with the facts.

I'll give you one quick example and then walk away. As some of you know, there's a particular trio of editors who I've had much more conflict with than is healthy for anyone. The result has been a trio of blocks, after which I resolved not to repeat my error by continuing to interact with them. As a result, I put a short, polite message at the top of my page explaining why, to avoid confrontation, I would simply remove any comments from them rather than respond and further antagonize them.

If you read it for yourself, you can see that the message expressed some frustration, but was still quite civil [38]. Note that nobody, not even AnnH, ever complained that it was uncivil. More significantly, as that diff shows, the moment one of those three extended the olive branch, I immediately accepted it and removed the message.

That's the reality. In the world according to AnnH, I had "offensive comments about three editors on [my] own talk page". See what I mean? Similar distortions can be found in each and every case where she brings up my name.

With all due respect, I feel hurt by Ann's remarks and wish she hadn't made them. In the end, all I can ask is that you use your own eyes and judgement instead of depending on hers. I'm only peripherally involved in this Chooserr issue and don't wish to be drawn in any further, so I'm going to walk away now, as promised. Please don't be distracted by this silliness; the Chooserr issue still needs to be resolved, and no amount of focus on me will help. Thank you for understanding. Al 06:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anyone in this conversation but valuable editors, of undoubted good faith, and certainly none of us needs to be characterized as "the bad guy". -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should inform Ann of that fact, since she seems interested in characterizing me as the bad guy, so as to spare Chooserr. Al 03:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you think I just said, in my above post? I just called you a "valuable editor" and said there's not need to characterize you as the bad guy. Why did you think I posted that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm pointing out that this is something that Ann in specific ought to read. Al 16:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

When in a hole - stop digging. Agathoclea 17:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, it is perfectly appropriate to bring up your vandalism of Chooserr's talk page in this section, where Chooserr's attitude was being discussed. You say that it's irrelevant because nothing you do can excuse Chooserr's prior acts. I think it has generally been agreed now that Chooserr was unaware that he was in violation of any policy when he put the link there, and your vandalism is very relevant to the discussion of Chooserr's attitude after he was requested to remove the link (an attitude which was Tony has now agreed he may have misjudged). If you don't want your feelings hurt by reference to your vandalism, I suggest you don't vandalize. I don't think there are many Wikipedians who will argue that changing Chooserr's MAKEABORTIONHISTORY link so that it looked the same as before but now linked to the Planned Parenthood donation page instead of to a Catholic Pro-life charity was not vandalism. If an Ulster Protestant puts Ian Paisley on his user page in a list of admirable people, and I change it so that it links to Pope Benedict XVI while still saying Ian Paisley, that is vandalism, pure and simple. Nandesuka called it vandalism and threatened a block, Timothy called it vandalism, Tony called it vandalism and said he would probably have blocked you without warning if he had seen it at the time, and GTBacchus reverted it and told you that it was "not cool". I suggest that instead of edit warring at my talk page to put bogus {{civil1}} warnings there because of my post above, you explain why I'm mistaken in calling it vandalism.

By the way, I acknowledge that you did remove your reference to the three editors who were (according to you) responsible for your last three blocks when Nandesuka extended the olive branch. However, what I said was that at the time that you removed something from Chooserr's talk page on the grounds that it was offensive, you had something on your talk page that was offensive. You may not think it was offensive, but then Chooserr probably didn't think his link was offensive either. AnnH ♫ 14:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm on UK time so have just read all this (one of the userboxes I think is useful) and I think it's sad to see so much stereotyping of other editors. One very interesting interaction I had on Intelligent design brought it home to me how without realising it we do interpret other editors messages by guessing their intent. I have also seen persona non grata editors have their very valid suggestions ignored or challenged as other editors have chosen to disregard their edits no matter what. Tim was right that the link did not need to stand - this is a wiki so no one owns space. Ann is right that tact always works best and Al is right that this report is about Chooserr's inappropriate link. Unfortunately conflict does happen but we should be prepared to AGF and not always fall into the trap of viewing the edits of people we share a POV with favourably and those of editors we clash with as "attacks" or "vandalism". Sophia 09:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well said Sophia. May I add it does not go down very well in calling people sock/meat-puppets because they agree with opponents edits. Constant defence fighting does not help ones image. Agathoclea 10:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Also it is often said that "converts are the most dangerous". So after convincing C that POV links on ones userpage in a no-no it is not surprising to see him looking for the same mistake elsewhere. Agathoclea 10:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Some believe that others should suffer as they do. Others believe that their own suffering is bad enough and need not be repeated. I lean towards the latter, myself. Al 03:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to second Alienus' characterizations of AnnH's tendency to not simply report the facts relevant to the case, but to expand them against antoher editor with a bad faith spin that can be viewed as a distortion. This is not to say that AnnH is not reporting what she genuinely believes to be the case. I always assume good faith, but I note that this occurs only when she is commenting about editors with whom she finds herself on the opposite side of the ideological fence with (what she has called enemies). So, in her view, Alienu's message about his conflict with the three other editors could very well be, in her eyes, "offensive messages left by AI...," but she does not use NPOV language to state this belief of hers, but states it as if Alienus is guilty as a matter of fact of doing these bad things, being in essence uncivil by leaving offense remarks about other editors, etc. This is why Alienus feels attacked here, because he is being attacked. Its also true that this is supposed to be about a specific incident regarding Chooser, but AnnH felt the need to bring up other "evidence" to try to paint a negative picture of Alieus, which is not really related and which distracts from the issue. This is something that is also a common technique that AnnH uses. I've seen it many times. Therefore, I highly recommend that whenever AnnH comments about a user that she has direct POV conflicts with, take her views of the matter with great caution as you will need to shift through what is relevant and what is not, as well as to filter out the significant bias in the editorializing and spin that is sure to come from such a partisan editor.Giovanni33 17:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I expand them "with a bad faith spin", and you "always assume good faith"? Hmmm. How would you describe my "bad faith spin" if you weren't assuming good faith? And is your reference to my bringing up unrelated issues something to do with the fact that I sometimes bring up the way you pretended to have no conncetion to BelindaGong (who was reverting and voting for you) until a checkuser exposed that it was the same IP, and that while you were blocked for puppetry, you were asked if you had any connection to any of the other new users who were reverting to your version, and you denied it — forgetting that you were logged on as one of them![39]

Giovanni, I won't bring up these "unrelated issues" except where:

1. We're working on an article, you run out of reverts, and an account that shows that its purpose on Wikipedia is to revert and vote for you (and that has the same linguistic idiosyncrasies and spelling mistakes which I won't alert you to, but which I'll e-mail to any admin who requests it) shows up and supports you; or
2. I'm dealing with a separate administrative issue, unrelated to you, and you turn up to tell all the other administrators about my history of bringing up unrelated issues. They might just be puzzled and want to know what you're talking about.

It would be preferable to stick to what's relevant to the case of Chooserr, Giovanni. I don't know why you want to bring up past issues. You never come out of it well when you do. AnnH ♫ 14:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Marknw

Vandal Marknw continues to vandalize Unification Church-related pages, inserting the same blatantly anti-UC comments on every page he finds, and spams talkpages despite multiple warnings. I am now monitoring his edits but it would be good if an administrator would block him. KI 19:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a vandal. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Jkelly 19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems to me that the guy is acting in good faith--not particularly constuctively, but in good faith. Rather than reverting his edits, try contacting him and discussing the changes he wants to implement and why. In any case, I don't see a need to block here over a content dispute. Sorry. AmiDaniel (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears that User:KI is acting tempermentally. He has blanked his talk page and left nasty notes on my page and on Jcoplanes' [40]. -Will Beback 20:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's getting worse:[41]. I think this user needs a wikibreak to remember how to be civil. -Will Beback 21:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It will only get worse until you stop vandalizing my talkpage. I will not stop reverting Marknw's mass vandalism and I will not stop standing up to your tyranny. Jacoplane, I suggest you stop encouraging vandalism and spamming. KI 21:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that user User:Tchadienne asserts to be the same contributor as user:KI on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales.Andries 17:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm blocking any sock indefinetely. Sasquatch t|c 00:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking to him about the civility issue. He's right about POV bias in the edits (stating as fact that something is "specious", "revisionist", and "pseudoscientific" just isn't "neutral"), but obviously needs to address the problem differently. As to the 'socks', I'm not sure the term really applies since he has asked for the prior account to be shut down and openly declared the change... it's not like he is hiding anything. He apparently just thinks he can 'start over'. --CBDunkerson 11:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Exploding Boy is removing warnings

Exploding Boy had may personal attacks upon myself during the course of editing. He decided to make up a new name for me here ("Chuckwagon") and said that my edits were useless here. I gave him a {{Npa-n}} warning here in regards to the edits. Here he removed the warning, and then I added it back with a removing warnings message. He removed that one and tried explaining on my talk page (in a not very civil tone) that I had no idea what I was talking about. I added the warning back with a {{Wr2}} message, which is the final warning for removing warnings. He has since removed all of the warnings. He has been notified that he can/will be blocked for this and has told me to "stop threatening [him] with] a block". I believe a block is the proper course of action after receiving a {{Wr2}} and blanking warnings after that. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 20:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of an npa warning is to make the user aware of the policy. I can assure you that he is now aware of it. Beyond that, the state of his talk page is really for him to worry about, not you or me. Henry^Flower 20:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain what your talking about. Npa is a warning, and he removed it. If he had talked about the problem, I wouldn't have cared, but he didn't. He removed it, removed it again, and removed it again. It may not be our place to say the state of his talk page, but he cannot remove warnings, that is a clear-cut policy. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 20:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, please note that using templates to communicate with an experienced user can be seen as offensive or inflammatory, especially when you have been involved in a dispute with that user. FreplySpang 21:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Removing warnings is a proposed policy. It is not policy. Henry^Flower 21:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to Wikipedia:Removing warnings, but to Wikipedia:Vandalism, where under types of vandalism it has "Removing warnings". WP:V isan official policy. And just because he is an experienced user who was committing personal attacks, doesn't mean he can't get a warning template. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 21:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a very important may in that wording. You seem to misunderstand the whole point of the npa warning: it's not a black mark to give out to naughty people; it's a device to make people aware of the policy as efficiently as possible. It's not an appropriate way to communicate with established editors who are likely to know the policy already. Henry^Flower 21:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Henry is, to be sure, correct; for new users, the templates do sometimes serve as more than edifying devices, as they allow other editors to see that a user has been apprised of our policies and guidelines, in order that, should he/she continue to flout those guidelines, further warning or blocking may occur. Here, the warning serves, at best, to inform EB that you took his comments to be personal attacks; once he has read the warning and apprehended your meaning, he may remove it. I think it's a bit untoward to remove warnings--or any commentary, really--from one's talk page, believing that one ought to reply to, rather than excise, comments with which he/she disagrees, but neither would I try to compel others to act similarly nor would I support a blanket proscription on removing warnings (which does not now exist). Finally, even as EB's comments were indecorous (although Chuckwagon seems a jocular, if unduly informal and perhaps patronizing, appellative, and certainly not a personal attack), I don't think they rise of the level of blockable personal attacks; in this instance, you would be better served to leave an actual note on his talk page, to the effect that his edits bothered you and that you perceived them as personal attacks, the cessation of which you would, as you continue to collaborate with him and others, appreciate. Joe 21:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Having been one of the targets of User:Chcknwnm's recent NPA tagging spree, I also think he's grossly misusing the template as a warning for those he thinks are being uncivil. Please try using your own works to discuss the concerns you have instead of lobbing templates. You might also want to review the personal attack policy for a bit of clarification on what a personal attack really looks like. Shell ^babelfish 10:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I know this is long over (relatively), but I wanted to clarify that my spree consisted of adding the template to two people's talk, Shell and EB. I realize I should have said the comments were uncivil rather than PA's. I had made a mistake. However, removing warnings should still be discouraged/disallowed until they are discussed. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 07:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Bormalagurski and fair use image

User:Andrew Norman has erased this public domain photo http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Subotica_city_hall.jpg off my user page and also protected my user page because he claims the photo is fair use, even though there is proof that the photo is public domain. Please help me. -- serbiana - talk 21:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Explain how it is public domain. Sasquatch t|c 21:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's tagged fair use on Wikipedia (Image:Subotica_city_hall.jpg). --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The website it's from says it's copyrighted... I think we need to tag it for copyvio?Sasquatch t|c 21:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean on Commons? --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I just did. Jkelly 21:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There are two versions of the same image - Image:Subotica city hall.jpg (the image from the user page) is tagged as fair use, the version on Commons is tagged as PD with no information as to the source - it is unlikely that a recent aerial photo of a building is actually in the public domain. It was removed by Ed g2s, Bormalagurski's response was to leave abuse on User:Ed g2s's userpage and to restore the image. I have rolled back that restoration, twice, and protected the page to prevent it from being restored again. --ajn (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm always sceptical of people that make a complaint about an admin that includes the phrase "admin abuse". Such complains are typically irrational. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll add that Bormalagurski was asked, then forced, to remove a bunch of uncivil links from his user page yesterday (associating Croatia with fascism). He is now asking to have the page unprotected so he can put an alternative image of his hometown there. I'm not inclined to do it myself (he claims to have left the English Wikipedia, so I don't see the point), but I won't object if someone else wants to unprotect the page. --ajn (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have decided to stop contributing, but I'd like my page to be left pretty. Also, the "uncivil" links, I've replaced with my biography, others just wanted to erase the whole thing. So, if my page is unprotected, I promise to put an alternate image of my hometown, and nothing else, If you let me do that, I will stop editing my userpage for good. Thank you. -- serbiana - talk 22:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? -- serbiana - talk 23:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem, Boris, but please don't go beyond what you've said you'll do. -- ChrisO 23:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

And he did go beyond what he said he would - a huge box opposing the independence of Kosovo. I've rolled back to the state where he has the picture he wanted, and protected the page again. --ajn (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could say I was surpised but I'm not, frankly - it's not the first time he's edited in bad faith. Oh well. -- ChrisO 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:SuperDeng II

I am putting this here so admins will see it more easily. This is a continuation of the discussion up above. I just protected Deng's user talk page. He had manipulated his talk page by moving my comments to places they shouldn't have been. And at this point, he's just using his talk page to attack Kurt. And besides, I think he's made all of his points. At this point, we need another admin (not me or NSLE but someone else) to respond to his unblock request. I think I made all of my points on his talk page so I don't think I need to add anything else. I will say that this did not just start. He's been stalking Kurt for 2 months now and I've been dealing with him on and off since the beginning of the year. He seems to think that he was indefinitely blocked just based on the discussion here. Please look at his talk page. You will see that that's just not so. Plus, be aware that he has removed block notices and warnings, especially in the last month or so. Thanks. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

And actually I'll unprotect his talk page. The person who decides on the unblock request can decide what to do with his page. Hopefully he won't move or remove my comments in the mean time. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've offered to mentor Deng, who informs me by email that Irpen has also offered. Would it be amenable to you and NSLE for us to joint mentor him (or if Irpen wants I will do it myself)? If so what kind of details/agreement would be ok? - FrancisTyers 10:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion on it, I only decided on an indef block after stumbling over this case. NSLE _(T+C) at 10:10 UTC (2006-06-04)

Please give Deng a second chance. I support the idea of mentoring him. Deng is a potentially valuable contributor, but his editing needs to be supervised by a team of more experienced wikipedians. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Couple of problems with that. First of all, I've been basically mentoring him for months with no effect. The vast majority of my posts to his page has been trying to teach him how Wikipedia works and that's right up to the last few days. His response is to call me incorrect or to simply refuse to follow the direction. An example is recently when I told him that he should open a RfAr against Kurt. His response was basically that the arbcom is too backed up so by the time they act, Kurt will have vandalized hundreds of pages. So basically he was saying he was a one man revert squad and he was quite alright with that. Of all of the advice I've given him, the only 2 he followed was filing an RfC (and that took prodding) and also putting up the unblock template, though he only did that after he was blocked indefinitely by someone else. He's followed little else, including my pleas that he be civil. Just in the last few days, he lectured me on what Wikipedia is, defined sneaky vandalism for me and also made a sarcastic comment about how I was watching Kurt's edits...and mind you, this was AFTER Kurt had been blocked.

Another problem is that neither of you 2 are admins. So if Deng strays, there is no ability to block him. As I said, I've been dealing with him for 6 months. I think I know him pretty well. I can almost guarantee that if he's unblocked, the first thing he's going to do is to go back to stalking Kurt. All you have to do is the read the last several entries in his talk page to see that. He has this fear that Kurt will be reverting sourcing unchecked, even though I told him I'd be watching Kurt's edits. I just don't think that more mentoring is the solution here. He just doesn't listen to others.

And he also doesn't take responsibility for his actions. You can't mentor someone like that. You have to have someone who can say "I'm wrong" occasionally, but Deng never does. Everything is Kurt's fault or my fault or the procedure's fault or another admin's fault. It's never Deng's fault.

So. Mentoring sounds like a good idea but I've been doing it informally for months and Deng hasn't improved one iota. He's still being uncivil. He's still ignoring all advice. And he's still being disruptive. And he's not exactly a new user. He should know better. --Woohookitty^(meow) 17:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a reply from User:Irpen. - FrancisTyers 16:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

May I also add that deng has made many personal attacks against other users. This latest series of conflicts with Kurt is simply one example of his pattern. He has had numerous short blocks, with specific reasons given for each, yet he comes back and repeats the same types of actions. I also question the notion that he is a valuable contributor. He has made some good edits, but has also made others that are nonsense and push a POV, often against the consensus of other editors. DMorpheus 17:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Francis, I replied to you, you missed it. I also said that here earlier. I agree to try co-mentoring Deng. Others would have to deal with Kurt. Also, to address Woohookitty's consern, Alex Bakharev is an admin and expressed his willingness to co-mentor Deng as well. With Alex, Francis and myself, he would be enough supervised. I believe Woohookitty tried his best with Deng, but perhaps Deng percieved him not even handed and too forgiving to Kurt. No offence. Woo gets all my respect, but of these two, Kurt is definetely a bigger problem. --Irpen 17:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No he is not. He's a bigger problem for those users on here who don't really care how one says something as long as it is something that they agree with. --Woohookitty^(meow) 22:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, regarding NSLE's entry above sayng: "I have no opinion on it, I only decided on an indef block after stumbling over this case." (It was NSLE who blocked Deng) I wish the editors that strict monitored more cases of abuse at this page and at ANI. I mean it is OK to trigger-happily ban abusive users, but we should apply the same standards if we are to be harsh. I have actually no problem with faster blocking of problem users than the leaway they mostly get around here. That would save a lot of time for the ArbCom and a lot of user's time currently spent uselessly at RfC's or admin boards better spent on adding content to Wikipedia. But with users like Molobo and a a recent case of AlexPU from ANI getting away with only one month for by far worse incivility and Deng getting indef, the system seems uneven and broken. One month may be exactly appropriate for AlexPU (some suggested indef though, but even one month may be harsh enough.) Deng getting an indef is something I don't understand, especially when Kurt, who really engage in lots of sneaky vandalism, gets away with 5 days. --Irpen 18:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I missed the reply, I wasn't watching your page. So, me, you and alex it is then. How should we proceed? - FrancisTyers 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Deng is only doing this so he can get back on here and stalk Kurt and apparently, Irpen has no problem with that. "Kurt's the bigger problem". No he isn't. You are ok with a user reverting another user 40 times in 3 hours? You are ok with someone who not only violated 3RR, but actually reverted EIGHT TIMES in 2 hours? Deng is disruptive. Period. That's why he got the longer block. Deng's block was increased because he was extremely uncivil with me and he refused to take any responsibility. My original block of Deng was 7 days. For Kurt it was 5 1/2. Kurt's block was shorter because Deng's history of disruption is more extensive and he had one more 3RR vio. Kurt is not a saint and I bet that within a week or two, he will be blocked indefinitely as well. I have no doubt about that. But it doesn't absolve Deng. It doesn't give him the right to revert one user on sight, even when the edit is not vandalism. As he tried to resolve it? Sort of. He opened the RfC. Even on his talk page, he says that others have tried to talk to Kurt on Kurt's talk page to get him to stop. Others. Not Deng. Others. That is the most basic part of dispute resolution. And he hasn't tried it. All of his posts to Kurt's page have been of the "what is wrong with you?" variety. He did a request for investigation, but again, that's not really dispute resolution. That's trying to get another user blocked. That's what that is. He refused to follow a correct procedure on RfM. He outright refused an RfAr. Instead he's decided to follow Kurt all over the site and revert on sight, though he's been blocked for it several times and he's been told how to resolve the issues numerous times. To me, that is just as bad as what Kurt has done, if not worse.

And all 3 of the perspective mentors either support Deng's case or in the case of Alex Bakharev, believe in "ignore all rules". That is not going to work with Deng. We need totally neutral admins on this. Non-Russian. Non-WWII experts. People with absolutely no opinion on Deng. Just ordinary admins who don't have a stake in Deng. And you know, that was me 6 months ago. It's been said that he deserves a 2nd chance. 2nd? No. Try about 6th. --Woohookitty^(meow) 22:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then we can find some other mentors. Unfortunately, mentoring is generally thought to be a tough job, so I'm not sure that you will find any admins to mentor him who don't support his case. I'd like to point out that I'm certainly not pro-Russian and I'm not an expert on the second world war in any respect. You were mentoring him? I think it will be quite easy to tell if he is stalking Kurt, and if he does, under mentorship conditions, he will be blocked. I'm quite happy for him to have a more stringent set of rules to follow, 1RR or something, for a trial period of say a month or two... - FrancisTyers · 22:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Restrictions like that would require an arbcom decision to stick. It's odd, I know. We can block without arbcom but we can't restrict someone's editing without it. Just how it works. --Woohookitty^(meow) 23:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if he himself agrees? Thats kind of odd. Where is that written? - FrancisTyers · 00:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well it said so in Wikipedia:Mentorship - When mentorship arises as an outcome of the dispute resolution process, the mentor has formal supervisory powers over the protégé. I propose the following:

• The behavior of Deng was indeed egregious. I think we all agree that he deserved a one month block
• The month is enough time to prepare an arbcom case against him, we could ask to put him under Involuntary mentorship. Then his behavior will be monitored not only by his mentors but also by the whole Wikipedia:Mentorship Committee. It should be enough to stop him before he would make 8 reversions. I think if the both sides agree on the Involuntary mentorship, it could be pushed through really fast (even at the start of the arbcom proceedings as a preliminary action)
• If you need an administrator to be his mentor, I volunteer to be his co-mentor. If you think somebody else is suited better, then it is fine with me. BTW could you, Woohookitty, name any of my administrative actions that may be seen as the WP:IAR or encouraging of violations of 3RR or stalking? I might even deserve an apology.
• I think that permablocking a user for his good faith edits, who did not commited gross acts of inivility, etc. is to strong a punishment. Permablocking by an act of an admin is allowed only if all the admins agree with it. I disagree and I am an admin

If there are no other proposal, I will set the block to one month abakharev 00:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have set the block to 1 month. I will be happy to assist with the arbcom case, but i do not have the full information on the matter abakharev 02:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible sneaky vandalism at Fishguard and Capinota

I have been coming accross some strange looking edits on Fishguard today. After an attempt to cleanup the article I noticed that the text was the result of edits from newly created accounts and an anon, who also (and only) made similar edits to Capinota which is a totally unrelated subject. Accounts in question: Vany90 (talk · contribs) Haniii (talk · contribs) Ba-KaDüÜ (talk · contribs) Skung (talk · contribs) 80.145.197.126 (talk · contribs) Miri2202 (talk · contribs). Can someone take a look and let me know what they think. Agathoclea 20:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Explanation on [42]. Agathoclea 13:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:PROD backlog

For any admins who have some time, there's a fair amount of pages building up at WP:PROD that can be deleted. All of the pages at Category:Proposed deletion as of 29 May 2006 can be deleted, and most of the pages at Category:Proposed deletion as of 30 May 2006 can be deleted (in ~3 hours, ALL of those can be deleted as well). I'm trying to do some of it, but it could probably use a few more people if anyone has any time. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Proposed deletion as of 29 May 2006 is done. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oui. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 23:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed sock puppet: User:212.72.21.53

This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of a indef banned user [43]. Could an admin block them? Paul Cyr 22:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• The Whois for this IP [44], shows that this is one of a seven IPs assigned to an ISP in Oman. This is obviously a dynamic IP, the last edit from it was on May 18. I do not see the point in blocking it. We probably would not want to block all Oman wikipedians by the total range blocking this ISP abakharev 04:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, in that case should I just remove the sock puppet tag? Paul Cyr 04:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Help with a user

User:GJRFMorelligu, (also used User:Morelligu and User:201.208.126.185 is removing image problem tags faster than I can replace them - without addressing the underlying problems. Can someone assist? Rmhermen 00:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:YINever

YINever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User:YINever is repeated reverting the article The Epoch Times and keeps removing warnings from his talk page even though he has been repeatedly warned for it. See User talk: YINever. User:YINever keeps deleting his talk page warning. User:YINever is currently in a revert war with User:PatCheng at the The Epoch Times article. He keeps reverting without attempting to reach consensus. --RevolverOcelotX 01:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This user is due for a block for violating 3RR, for which he has been warned and blocked before. He is attempting to put repeated templates on my page to goad me into excerbating a content dispute, and so far has seen two fraudulent vandalism reports shunned. Apparently he thinks if he can just keep reporting to more and more places, maybe someone will be fooled and block me over his templates. [45] [46]

"User:PatCheng" has just been blocked for his own violations, and so far this one remains free. YINever 01:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"User:PatCheng" was blocked for personal attacks, not 3RRV. Apparently YINever is a new account and most of his edits was in a revert war with User:PatCheng and other editors. He has been amply warned yet he still continues to revert the article. I suspect the IP address reverting The Epoch Times article is his sockpuppet. He keeps deleting his talk page warnings which is vandalism. RevolverOcelotX 01:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article has been protected to give you all a cooling off period. Please discuss your edits on the talk pages. Deleting comments from ones' own talk page may be rude but is not considered vandalism. Since your mutual checkuser requests were negative on all counts, I suggest you stop warning each other and try to cooperate on writing the article. Thatcher131 15:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

GNAA Afd Socks

User:Fimt, User:Fimter, User:Fmnlj, User:Fmmtr and User:Foltre all appear to be the same person per contribs and User creation logs (though not all are editing), interestingly creating and archiving (?) Afds for Gay Nigger Association of America. RadioKirk talk to me 01:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

JtV Sock

Johnny the Vandal, Jr. is a sockpuppet of Johnny the Vandal. I'd give him an indef block, but I'm not an admin.Raichu 01:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What happened to your signature? Prodego ^talk 01:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That user was blocked 10 minutes ago, so there is no need for action. Interesting sig bug, for those interested see [47]. Prodego ^talk 01:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana

This case is closed.

• Marcosantezana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Marcosantezana is banned for one year from editing natural selection and related articles. He is placed on probation indefinitely. Should a suitable mentor or mentors be found, a mentorship agreement may be negotiated with the arbitration committee.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 02:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Protect This Image

Image:Corneal-hydrops.jpg needs to be protected as it's now on the Main Page. joturner 02:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This one should probably also be protected. joturner 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Done too. Thanks. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Admin Input Requested on Suggested Template:AfD Tweak

Would an admin be kind enough to come take a look at this discussion and perhaps make the tweak suggested there (or join the discussion)? I think the tweak could help reduce somewhat some certain types of vandalism associated with AfDs. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks by user Pantherarosa

I posted the issue on the backloged WP:PAIN but it became a cluttered mess that gave no result. Instead of getting into a detailed explaination, below are the personal attacks made by Pantherarosa even though (s)he had been warned numerous times to stop. I think they speak for themselves:

[48] edit summary [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] and [57]

Keep in mind these were being made after Pantherarosa had been warned numerous times to stop. Paul Cyr 04:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello? Paul Cyr 04:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks by user Batman2005 and bad-faith edits by Moe Epsilon

User:Batman2005's user page contains numerous personal attacks on various people. When I removed the attacks him and User:Moe Epsilon reverted my edits and Moe Epsilon gave me a blatant vandal warning even though I was discussing the matter with Batman2005. Could someone re-revert Batman's page to the version without personal attacks, remove the warning from my talk page, and let Moe Epsilon know that his conduct was not very nice? Paul Cyr 05:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

First off, Batman2005's userpage contains no personal attacks. Paul is refering to linking John Kerry to the word douche, which doesn't violate NPA. NPA refers to editors, not real-life people like John Kerry. If Batman2005 feels like linking John Kerry to his userpage, I see no reason why he shouldn't be able too. And, I know my conduct isn't very nice, it's who I am. ;-) The King of Kings 05:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

NPA says no personal attack anywhere. It doesn't say "but it's ok if they aren't a Wikipedia user". If it's not okay to make personal attacks to other users, why is it okay to make them to general people? Personal attacks are inappropriate, regardless who they are addressed towards. And you admit that your conduct is mean, even though that would mean you see nothing wrong with violating WP:civil? Paul Cyr 05:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason we have the NPA rule is that personal attacks prevent good collaborative editing, and that is bad for Wikipedia. John kerry doesn't edit wikipedia. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Theresa, if you were famous but did not edit on Wikipedia, you would find it appropriate for someone to refer to you as a douche? Paul Cyr 05:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Your missing the point. The King of Kings 05:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No you're missing the point! Let's keep the pointless comments to ourselves okay? I think the point Theresa knott is making is that if it is not disruptive to Wikipedia, it's okay to do. However the fact that we have a {{defwarn}} tag would seem to support that any personal attacks are not allowed, which is what NPA literally says. If it's fine and appropriate for Wikipedia, why do we have the defamation warning and a policy that supports the position in the first line? Paul Cyr 05:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I had a point to my last comment. Did you read the other half of her comment. John kerry doesn't edit wikipedia. Doesn't that sound something familiar to what I said? The King of Kings 05:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds exactly like what you said. Sounds flawed. Paul Cyr 05:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresa knott (talk • contribs) 05:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well it can't be a personal attack if it isn't defamation, so it's ok if I do this Theresa knott? Paul Cyr 05:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes No, because she is a Wikipedia editor. Mind WP:NPA. ;-) The King of Kings 05:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You said yes, so you're saying it's appropriate? Paul Cyr 05:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not appropriate. Note the smiley face, I was joking. The King of Kings 05:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Three problems with that:

1. It's a double standard; why is it okay to insult someone in one case but not another? How can you not say that attacking someone should never be allowed.
2. If, by chance, John Kerry were to sign up on Wikipedia, are people going to chase down everyone who previously was allowed to attack him and now remove their insults?
3. What if I knew (or was perhaps friends with) one of the people attacked. Do you not see a conflict there?

Lastly, I would still like you to show me where NPA says it does not apply to people outside of Wikipedia. It explicitly says no attack anywhere, so can you find where it explicitly says unless they aren't a wikipedia editor? Paul Cyr 05:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My two cents is that attacking/insulting someone who isn't a Wikipedia editor isn't per se prohibited, though (in my opinion), the less the person is a public figure the less the leeway for it. However, attacking/insulting someone who isn't a Wikipedia editor with the intent to provoke a reaction from Wikipedia editors is intentionally disruptive and intended to degrade the editing process, and is, as far as I'm concerned, subject to admin review and (if necessary) sanctions. --Calton | Talk 05:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you think batman2005 was doing that? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but since I haven't actually seen Batman2005's contribution to the polity nor was my general comment on the (in my opinion) overly narrow interpretation of NPA policy being floated in any way addressing Batman2005's contribution to the polity, I fail to see the relevance of the question. --Calton | Talk 06:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, no, because he wasn't trying to draw attention to himself. The only attention he got from it was Paul trying to remove it from his userpage bringing this forth. The King of Kings 05:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My comment is not related to the kerry link, but on the images used in Batman's user page. He has placed a lot of Fair use images there. To the best of my knowledge, fair use images are not supposed to be placed in anything other than the corresponding person/subject's page in the main namespace. Thanks. --Ragib 05:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll remove them and talk to the user. The King of Kings 06:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, whether or not WP:NPA is being violated, WP:USER#What can I not have on my user page? says that user pages can NOT have Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia. Which Batman2005's page has. Paul Cyr 06:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As well, calling the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternaty losers would I'm sure be an insult to some of the users here who are in it. Paul Cyr 06:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Anybody here in Sigma Alpha Epsilon? -- The King of Kings 06:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Another pointless comment Moe? Paul Cyr 06:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, not pointless. Your comment above, what if Kerry had an account... I guess if Kerry had an account on Wikipedia, then we should take down personal attacks against him, but thats a one and ten billion chance of him joining this site. You're comment, What if I knew someone being attacked: well, what if? If they had an account on Wikipedia, I guess we could take it down, but ya know.. what if. And it's two differant things the comment made on Kerry and Theresa. Theresa edits here, Kerry doesn't. The King of Kings 06:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so membership in the attacked group by Wikipedians must proven before it's considered a divisive attack? Gotcha.

I'm not a member, and I'm sure User:Moe Epsilon is willing to poll the other 999,999 registered users on that issue, just to be sure. --Calton | Talk 06:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm so up to it. ;-) The King of Kings 06:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Didn't the whole userboxwar thing start when all gwb related userboxes were deleted on the grounds that disliking george bush is a personal attack, you would think that would cut both ways--205.188.116.200 20:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that would definately not be a personal attack. Someone can say "I don't like so and so" but they can't be like "So and so is a loser". Paul Cyr 02:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• My thoughts on this issue: WP:NPA is fairly clearly directed at Wikipedia contributors, therefore I do not believe Batman2005's user page to be in violation of WP:NPA. However, in the interests of harmonious editing, and remembering that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a soapbox, I suggest that Batman2005 tones it down. I also think Moe giving a blatant vandal warning template to Paul wasn't very tactful, as there was discussion ongoing and a more personal message along the lines of editing other people's userpages often isn't the best think to do in situations like these. Finally, instead of arguing about what exactly is a personal attack, why not go and edit something that will contribute to building an encyclopedia. Petros471 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Gosh that was a lot, in fact I did tone it down, quite a bit...you should have seen it before, gosh was it inflammatory. My favorite is linking the word Dead to Stanley Williams. Classic! I'm not attacking anyone, except maybe SAE's but at the school I went to they really were gay, as in....they were men liking men, so its true. If there was a link to the specific chapter I would have linked that! Gosh, Petros is right, lets all go edit other pages, i'm sure there are plenty of arguments that we could start elsewhere! Additionally, i think that I read somewhere that wikipedia was not censored and then something about the protection of free speech. Sure i can be punished for it, but as far as i know..John Kerry, Freddy Adu and Stanley Williams haven't complained about it. (I don't anticipate Stanley complainging though, he's dead!) Batman2005 00:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. There is no right to free speech on Wikipedia. If you wish to publish material espousing your political/social/economic/sexual/religous viewpoints, go elsewhere.-Sean Black

I wasn't talkin about on wikipedia man! Duh! Still doesn't violate no personal attacks though. And i'll stay right here, you have no idea what my political/social/economic/sexual/or religious viewpoints are. My talk page is not in violation of NPA as the first person said, i've got 4 or 5 people here who agree, including a couple admins. It's been toned down from the first version which was really inflammatory, perhaps i'll add a big smiley face to the top that says "NOTE...I'M JUST KIDDING AROUND, SEE WP:GET A SENSE OF HUMOR." Batman2005 13:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate username?

Is User:Richard Branson an inappropriate user name, especially as he seems to be editting articles about Virgin group? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 06:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've left him a note, because he seems under the impression (judging by his userpage) that he is Sir Richard. Naturally I'm skeptical. If he is, he needs to directly say so (but the account will still need to be monitored, of course, until we know definitively). If he isn't, or fails to say whether or not he is after his next edit, than block post haste. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Raul has also left a message that should aid in positively identifying this user. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved from User:Richard Branson's talk page:

Re: Evidence of bad faith adoption of "Richard Branson" username by three-time indefinitely blocked user

Evidence suggests this username is one of a long series of sock puppets that keep springing up as if they were hydra heads.

Here is evidence to support the theory that this user is in violation of the Wikipedia:Username policy:

• This user's activity began June 5, and has been largely focused on the external links sections of the Richard Branson article and related articles.

• A previous user, operating under three known usernames and three known IP addresses, was also intensely interested in the external links sections of the Richard Branson article and related articles. The three usernames have now all been indefinitely blocked. Two of them were indefinitely blocked on June 3, two days prior to the creation of the Richard Branson username.

• One of the edits under the Richard Branson username is a removal of a deceptively named external link in one article; an identical removal of the identical link in a different article was performed within two hours of the edit under the Richard Branson username, but was done by one of the known IP address sock puppets of the three-time indefinitely blocked user. (Notice that this user claims credit for removing linkspam from the article, a perverse claim since that is actually what the rest of us were doing while the eventually blocked sock puppets kept reverting back to the linkspam, up to 8 times.)

• The new Richard Branson user has explicitly referred to himself as if he were Richard Branson. The three-time blocked user's histories are riddled with per se deceptive edits, including describing linkspam sites as being officially related to Richard Branson or Virgin, and going so far as to register deceptive URL's and post them the same day as stealth linkspam. Needless to say, the severally blocked user also has an established predilection for evading indefinite blocks by creating more new sock puppets, like hydra heads. Also needless to say, the three previous usernames were indefinitely blocked with good reason.

• See:

• • History of one of the Richard Branson username's edits

• • History of an identical edit on a related article, within two hours of the Richard Branson edit, under 203.10.59.63, an IP address known to be a sock puppet of a three-time indefinitely blocked user

• • Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Universe Daily, which includes the IP address sock puppet that performed the identical edit to the one done under the Richard Branson username.

• • Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation/Archives/2006/06#Registered_users, the Request for Investigation showing that two usernames and three IP addresses were sock puppets of a previously indefinitely blocked user, which led to the indefinite block of the other two usernames

• - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/ub/w:s/w:l) 05:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion backlog

As of two minutes ago, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion was up to 110 pages and a couple of dozen images. Any admin want to pitch in? --Calton | Talk 06:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Holding steady now at 115 pages and 30 images. --Calton | Talk 07:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Santa's reindeer

I have no idea where to take this, so I'm trying here. A user has created an individual page for each of Santa's reindeer. Frankly I have no idea what to do with this. I was thinking NN until I realized that they really are notable. Chances are more people have heard of Prancer the Reindeer than Yukiji Asaoka. The question is - do they really deserve individual pages? --Bachrach44 14:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how encyclopedic it is, but i'm seriously about to fall out of my chair laughing at the sheer number of edits this person has done on the subject, its REALLY funny. I would say that you should group them together and take them to AFD for discussion there. Batman2005 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason there are so many edits is because I am new to editing not because I am crazy about reindeer. This is like a test project for me to see how far my editing skills can go. --Merond e 18:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I think they are notable. The question is whether they really deserve seperate articles or not. I'm gonna send a message to the creator essentially asking him if he actually has enough info to warrant seperate articles, but to be frank our standards for encyclopedic in nature have dropped so much over the last year or so that my eventualist tendencies are saying we should keep them. --Bachrach44 21:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Filling wikipedia with one liner articles like these, and also on some presidential pets is really a bad idea. All these info could easily be summarized in articles like "Santa's reindeers", List of United States Presidential pets. I really can't see how it is possible, without doing originalr research, to create a non-stub article on each of the reindeers, and each of US presidential pets. Merging them all into a single article on each topic should be done. Thanks. --Ragib 21:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's my thoughts. I realize how it might be more essential to merge the pages, but I would like until the 14th to try to find enought information on them to make them more than stubs and to make them separate enough from each other. If I cannot accomplish that, then yes, merging will be required. Can you grant me that time? --Merond e 10:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As the great MTV Celebrity Death Match Referee/Judge Mills Lane would say "I'll allow it." Batman2005 03:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

AIV

It's getting terribly piled up. In need of some admin attention. Thanks Srik 14:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Under control now, thanks to the efforts of other admins. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Xed

Jimbo Wales has banned Anittas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Following this, Anittas and Xed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) abused User talk:Anittas for the purpose of trolling. When this was protected, Xed continued by using the user page as a talk page. Looking at Xed's recent contributions I see nothing but trolling. I have blocked him for one week. Presented here for review. --Tony Sidaway 15:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a sysop, but this looks like a legitimate block. Much trolling under the guise of being a freedom fighter for those maligned by "The Leader". Few contibs otherwise. Good block. -- Samir धर्म 15:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just realised that Xed is on personal attack parole. Some of his recent edits qualify as personal attacks so I will enter this block into the log on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed_2 (there is no log there at present, I'll have to create it). --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Xed asked Jimbo nicely and was unblocked. --Tony Sidaway 16:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Xed began his Wikipedia career with attacks on Jimbo. I see little has changed. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how Xed and Anittas's actions on the latter's talk page in any way constitute abuse and trolling. They simply discussed the fact that Wales's indefinite block of Anittas was unjust and discussed possible ways of rectifying this error in judgement on Jim's part. Are users not allowed to challange or at least discuss the decisions of administrators on their own talk pages? Anittas might have gone a bit too far at the end, but you can surely understand his anger and frustration and his impulsive block, but Xed truly did not engage in any form of abuse or trolling, he simply criticized some of Wales's actions and then criticized Sidaway's action of blocking the talk page which even to me appeared ridiculous in the extreme. Vox Populi (TSO) 17:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't consider this abuse? User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Had he written that statement in bad faith solely in an attempt to blacken Wales's name, it would have been one thing. However, I am certain that he truly believes that the ban was inappropriate (particuarly in the case of Anittas where he posted the same statement) and that those users were banned not as much for their participation in other sections of Wikipedia, but rather for criticizing Wales, and he wrote a brief and concise message to that effect where the topic was being discussed. Vox Populi (TSO) 17:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have very mixed feelings about this situation. I am quite unhappy that the page User talk:Anittas has been protected. I don't think that the remarks that Xed (with whom, to put it mildly, I have had my conflicts) and Anittas made there constitute trolling, but even if they did, trolling usually calls for "do not feed". Period. Anittas is a controversial contributor (and by "controversial" I mean much could be, and has been, said both for and against him). It seems to me to be odd to block precisely the page where those things might appropriately be said. Is there a different forum where discussion can take place, and where that discussion will not be perforce confined to administrators? - Jmabel | Talk 23:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Your points are well made as usual. - Xed 23:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "stupid timewasting" might be a more charitable fit to Xed's recent edits. Anittas I don't know so well but if his edits on User talk:Jimbo Wales are a guide his contributions to the encyclopedia are unlikely to be missed. Xed is especially blessed; he has been unblocked twice by Jimbo Wales. --Tony Sidaway 23:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, Tony, it is clear where you stand, but none of this even begins to explain why you protected User talk:Anittas. In particular, if I understand correctly the way that blocks work, that is the one page that Anittas as a blocked user may legitimately access, and where he could state his case against being blocked. It is also the page where I would expect to have discussion of the block. At least two other Admins besides myself have, on that page, expressed doubts — and I think "doubts", not "opposition" is the right word — about the whether the block was appropriate. And for my simply raising questions and concerns about process, FeloniousMonk has basically challenged me to go "lecture" Jimbo. I have no intention of "lecturing" Jimbo or anyone else. If it has come to the point where as an Admin and a major contributor (and, I believe, a good one; if someone thinks otherwise, I would welcome an RFC rather than cheap shots on talk pages) I am not welcome to ask questions, then it seems to me we've got a problem a lot bigger than whether this particular user should be banned. Again: I think the situation merits discussion. I don't think that discussion should be confined to Administrators. I would like to unprotect User talk:Anittas. (Note: to unprotect the talk page, not to unblock the user.) I would not like to find myself banned or blocked for doing so. Since I cannot get answers on that page to my questions, I am bringing the matter here. - Jmabel | Talk 06:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Both this page and the talk page are s-protected because of an AOL attack. Unprotect in a few minutes when the attack dies down if I'm not around to do it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the protection now; 30 minutes or so should be enough. --Tony Sidaway 17:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:AIias Flood blocked

I have blocked AIias Flood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely as an imposter of Alias Flood. The user and user talk page were identical to Alias Flood's. Posting here for review. Conscious 16:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:AYAYAYAY has restored aiias flood's user page. Should he be blocked, and should the page be protected? Conscious 19:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

AYAYAYAY indefblocked by me. Guess it depends on if you have it watched, but prolly it should be protected. Syrthiss 19:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Conscious 04:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Prod backlog

The articles at proposed deletion for May 30 have been sitting for about 7 days now. There's about 175 articles in there. Would an admin mind taking a look at them? Thanks, Metros232 01:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking care of it. —Keenan Pepper 01:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that!  :) Metros232 03:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ceraurus

How did an indefinite block on [Ceraurus] in a content dispute/revert fight turn into a permanent ban? 64.26.170.216 01:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

When he violated his agreement not to use sock puppets to get around the 3RR rule. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

e-mail accessibility

A few weeks ago, I looked to see if the first 20 or so admins in WP:LA were accessible via the "email this user" link. Something like 25% were not. I think this might be related to the fairly recent requirement that email addresses be verified. If you think you should be reachable via email, can each of you please check to make sure. See Help:Email_confirmation. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Rafiki House

Can the Article "Rafiki House" please be undeleted? The Article is a 1st person historical account of an international building on the Messiah College campus in Pennsylvania. The building has threatened to be demolished numerous times by the college administration, and this article was the only historical source underclassmen had in finding out this history. ~Benjamin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjancewicz (talk • contribs)

Your request, I'd note respectfully, seems to lay out several grounds (viz., that the article may have been original research but surely was about a non-notable building for which reliable sources do not exist) on which a valid deletion would rest. For more on what is and is not appropriate for Wikipedia, see WP:NOT. If you want simply to preserve the account in order to share it with others, I am sure that some kind admin will gladly copy the deleted text to your user page (or some subpage thereof), so that you might save it to your computer (but not, I think, so that you might host the text on your user page). Joe 04:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Metrocat

I've blocked this "new" user as a suspected sock of a troll. His output comprised bad edits and trolling. Presented here for review. --Tony Sidaway 12:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I thought about doing this a few days ago when s/he 'first' turned up with very nasty 'initial' edits. This seems to be a case of moderately-alright edits carefully interspersed with many many more edits that are not worth the database space they absorb. -Splash - tk 12:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wp:an/i#Metrocat_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29--205.188.116.200 14:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq article bans

I have banned Zeq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) from the following articles under the terms of his probation [58]:

• Hafrada
• Israeli apartheid (phrase) (or whatever name that article might end up having after the ongoing moves)
• Israeli West Bank barrier
• Apartheid (disambiguation)

He may still use the talk pages. He may not move the articles. --Tony Sidaway 14:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I feel this is an bad time to ban Zeq from Apartheid (disambiguation). First, the article is protected anyway right now. Second, he's recently started, on the Talk page, to agree with some compromise wording. Nobody else in the edit war has been at all enthusiastic about compromise since the page was protected. If you're going to ban him from the article, please do so after or shortly before unprotecting the page. I don't know enough about the history of Zeq's editing to comment on the other articles. Su-laine.yeo 15:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If you'll look at the terms of the probation and Tony's note above, Zeq can still use the talk pages and contribute to the discussion. Shell ^babelfish 15:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know he can still use the talk page. My concern is that having a huge, prominent "Zeq is blocked" notice at the top of the talk page is likely to hinder consensus-building from other editors. I don't see how the "Zeq is blocked" notice can help build consensus right now. Su-laine.yeo 15:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. I'll examine the situation and may review the ban in that particular case. --Tony Sidaway 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've examined Zeq's contributions to that article and still don't think they were constructive. I don't feel able to lift the ban.

This ban has generated a very large amount of material on my talk page, most of it from Zeq himself, and much of it based on the proposal that Homeontherange (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (aka Homey) is a major abuser. My feeling on this is that the presence of an abusive editor does not excuse abusive edits by other editors. In the interests of sanity I am now removing all edits by Zeq from my talk page; he is flooding the page with indigestible volumes of counter-argumentation that in no way mitigates his abuse of his probation. The removed edits by Zeq and others are in the history:

• here
• here
• here
• here

Despite Zeq's claims, I am actively examining the Homeontherange case, but it would be impossible to do so if I continued to try to handle Zeq's persistent badgering. --Tony Sidaway 17:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It is important to bring in here other peoples view of the situation:

• Admin Ramallite:[59]

Hi Tony - I want to add my voice to the people opposed to your banning of Zeq from Israeli West Bank barrier. ....I agree that the phrase "Hafrada Wall" is not a common usage term and, barring it appearing in very limited circumstances, does not warrant elevation to the status of 'sometimes used', and as such, is not notable enough to include in the article in question. I agree that Zeq was correct to remove it, and in any case, do not find this particular edit enough grounds to ban him from the article. About 69 percent of those editing articles about Israel and Palestine would have to be banned if a simple edit such as this was cause to be banned. I hope you will understand. Respectfully, Ramallite ^(talk) 22:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Admin SlimVirgin:[60]

Tony, could I ask you to reconsider the ban of Zeq from West Bank Barrier? It's true that Zeq edits from a strong POV (he believes that articles about Israel are biased against Israel), but it's also true that he regularly faces editors on the other "side" who hold equally strong POVs. In the case of the edit that seems to have triggered the ban, [61] it looks to me as though the link was added for the sole purpose of including some anti-Barrier material. The barrier is not called the Hafrada fence or wall "in English," as the edit states, because Hafrada is a Hebrew word, and the previous sentence explains its usage. The link that was added, supposedly to support the edit, did not explain the use of the term Hafrada, but was just another biased article from a group of anti-Barrier campaigners called the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center. I think Zeq was arguably right to remove it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Slim later added this clarification:[62]

"Hi Zeq, by "Zeq edits from a strong POV," I meant that you believe strongly that articles about Israel tend to be biased against Israel. Otherwise, you're right that it has been difficult to discern exactly what your POV is....;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Admin Humus Sapiens about Homey complaint that led to the ban:

This is another attempt by Homey to use WP for political activism. "for good cause" does not include political disgreements or normal content issues. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• User Pecher about the complaint:[63]

Maybe it's high time you relented, Homey? This harassing of Zeq is transcending all bounds: first, you blocked him twice despite being involved in a dispute with him, and now you're trying to have him banned for the second time. Zeq has given you adequate explanations on all purported cases of tendentious editing. If anyone exhibits a pattern of tendentious editing here, this is certainly you: your usage of sources like Sabeel demonstrates sheer contempt for both WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Try adhering to Wikipedia policies for a change, instead of attempting to have Zeq banned so that you could gain advantage in content disputes. Pecher ^Talk 20:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• A decision by ArbCom about articles such as the articles in question (and more):

Verifiability and sources

Information used in articles, especially those whose content is contested, should be verified by reference to a reliable and scholarly source, see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Support:

Fred Bauder 21:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

SimonP 23:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC) James F. (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Charles Matthews 11:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Jayjg (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC) ➥the Epopt 19:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Oppose:

Abstain:

• Admin Izak about Homey initial behaviour in this dispute:[64]

*Homey: Regardless of the fact that you may have had good reasons, it is VERY bad form for an admin to block anyone when they are having a dispute with, when they (the admin) is involved in writing the article (besides I have never heard of a "3 minute block" -- is that meant to frighten and intimidate?) The correct thing would be to call on a one or two NEUTRAL admins, not involved with this article, and ask them for their input. If they feel that someone is overstepping the rules then they should give a warning to the person they feel is wrong and then if he disregards that warning take the needed action, by all means, as long as they can justify themselves. But you should not have acted as both advocate and editor of the article as well as the executioner admin and final arbiter. Justice not only needs to be, it must also appear to be done! And in this case it clearly was not. IZAK 19:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• record of Homey discussion about his 3RR block in this article: [65]

• Record of blocks by Homey (while he himself was under block for 5 violations of 3RR) :

• 03:41, 30 May 2006 Homeontherange unblocked Zeq (contribs) (will reapply block tomorrow afternoon)
• 03:31, 30 May 2006 Homeontherange blocked "Zeq (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (tendentious editing in Israeli apartheid (phrase) as per AdminCommittee probation and discussion with Fred Bauder.)
• 18:50, 29 May 2006 Homeontherange unblocked Zeq (contribs) (Actually, this should go to Arbcomm)
• 18:47, 29 May 2006 Homeontherange blocked "Zeq (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalism of Israeli apartheid article)

• More material about Homey pattern of edit war and false accusations against editor who dis agree with him (inluding Jayjg, Humus, Moshe, Zeq, etc...) will be added tomorow. Zeq 19:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Naconkantari and Guinness

Restore the history that he deleted from there for an unexplained reason! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BDW (talk • contribs) 12:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, do not demand. Instead, bring proofs of the actions so that the administrators can review them. -- ReyBrujo 15:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have cleaned the history of all the vandalism. The above user was also blocked indefinately. Naconkantari 15:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

After examining the page, I agree with Naconkantari, although I confess that I don't understand the block of BDW, as that username doesn't appear to have vandalised Guinness. Snoutwood (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It didn't vandalise because the page is semiprotected. Naconkantari 15:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Then why is it blocked? Snoutwood (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it doesn't take a checkuser to tell that it is the same account as the other vandals that have been blocked. It's first edit was to my usertalk page, [66], which implys that it had to be monitoring the deletion log and page history closely, which a new user most likely wouldn't do. I'm all for assuming good faith, but in this case, I don't have to be stupid. Naconkantari 16:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

New class of warning templates re: WP:POINT

Greetings, noticing that there appeared to be no templates for warning users when they violate "Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point", I've created a new class of warning templates that start at {{Disrupt}} and go numerically up to blocking template {{Disrupt5}} or alternatively {{point}} up to {{point5}} (much like {{test }} up to {{test5}}). Please edit/modify and/or comment on this new class of templates. Thanks! Netscott 16:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point is the most widely misunderstood and mis-cited guideline on Wikipedia. The templates are unlikely to be of any use and will probably only increase the confusion over this guideline (despite the great clarity with which the guideline itself is written). --Tony Sidaway 16:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouraging words. heh :-) Netscott 16:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the templates will do any harm, nor am I aware of any confusion surrounding the guideline. Obviously it is frequently mis-cited, but so is just about every guideline, by those cholerics among us who when in dispute will throw anything remotely applicable at all at their nemesis. human nature. I think it is unlikely that the templates will see a lot of use, however, since POINT-violators are typically experienced wikipedians who are well aware of the guideline, so that a link to WP:POINT (or even mere unwikified mention of POINT) will suffice; there is also no "5PR" (five POINT rule) prescribing that a user must be warned four times before a block. As always, just use common sense. dab (ᛏ) 16:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that crown goes to alternatively Wikipedia:Assume good faith and (for the connoisseurs of the more esoteric acronyms) WP:BEANS. However, I have to agree that POINT is misunderstood a lot, and when someone is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point that is unique (and serious) enough to be explained in more detail than a simple template, unless the editor in question is so disruptive as to be blocked on the spot, and then a template doesn't help much either. IMO, of course. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the templates are utterly pointless, so to speak. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks dab, the different levels weren't really meant as a 5 point rule but were meant more to correspond to a given level of POINT violation. Netscott 16:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that someone who disrupted Wikipedia to make a point would probably be blocked immediately if the behavior was disruptive enough. For instance, if someone who didn't like his favorite articles being tagged for deletion went ahead and started tagging all articles linked from the main page for deletion, this would be sufficiently disruptive to merit an immediate preventive block.

Also I'd deprecate the use of templates for all but the most routine problems such as vandalism. Even in those cases it may be better to make personal contact and write a message in English. --Tony Sidaway 17:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I must admit that I was partially inspired to make these templates when I saw what happend to Template:User Christian when it got to looking like this (the small rotating crucifix is deleted now). Netscott 17:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Generally, experienced Wikipedians find template warnings to be very insulting. That's usually not a problem with the testx and spamx templates because most recipients of these are inexperienced or chronic vandals/spammers. WP:POINT violations may come from both experienced and inexperienced users, but usually the more experienced ones, so I don't see these being used very often. {{point}} might see some use to the less experienced, but that's about it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes as I created them, I figured that {{point}} (corresponding to Deathphoenix's words) and {{point5}} (corresponding to Tony Sidaway's words) would be the most viable in terms of general usage. Netscott 18:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes, and point5 too, of course. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Those templates read as incredibly patronising. The only effect I can imagine them having is inflaming the situation. Henry^Flower 20:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well of course one can be bold and change the text to be less patronizing (something I honestly don't see) but on the other hand there is the TfD option. I happen to prefer the convienience and standardization using templates affords which is also a part of the reason I made these. Netscott 21:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't even think we need these, as the standard {{test-n}} and {{blank-n}} seem to work just fine.--digital_me^(t/c) 21:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Large amounts of non English on user talk pages

Is there a policy about this? See, for instance User talk:Ukrained. It is difficult for a non Ukranian (presumably it's Ukranian but maybe it's Russian?) speaker to know whether there are matters of concern there or not. I went there because I was concerned about some things I saw on the DYK talk page and wanted to learn more about this editor and this editor's interactions with others. I thought there was a policy or guideline requesting English but if there is, I can't find it. Thanks! (note that even without being able to read everything I certainly have some concerns) ++Lar: t/c 20:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see all that much ... whatever language it is. It seems to be mainly confined to one largeish section. But really, I don't think there is, or needs to be, any particular rule about confining user talk page discussions to English. Lots of our users are able to communicate in more than one language, and plenty of us edit articles on more than one Wikipedia. Judging from some of the remarks left on the page in English, though, it seems the user may not be aware of some of our policies. Exploding Boy 23:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with other languages so long as they are limited to User Talk pages and do not dominate the page, but I object to their use in other communications. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If someone is using non-English on a talk page, you can ask him politely if he'll provide a translation. Some people will do so, but bear in mind that some may not be able to because their English skills don't match their native language skills. --Tony Sidaway 23:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have actually never come across a userpage that was anything but English =P --mboverload@ 07:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In that particular example, the user actually told the person talking to him on his talk not to use Ukrainian, since this is enwiki. Also, the paragraphs just below each Ukranian paragraph seem to be english translations. --Rory096 07:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of protected pages

The page is currently "backlogged" in that it is filled with numerous pages that have been protected for too long, some of which are fully protected. We need some more admins to go down there are start unprotecting those pages. There is script at User:Voice of All/UsefulJS for monobook skins that you can use to speed it up. This is getting out of control. Any help would be appretiated. Thanks!Voice-of-All^Talk 21:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I used to pop in every now and then and found it easy to take the protection down as short as three days. I stopped this for a bit because of some questions about how my administrative 1RR would interact with this. I'll take a look. --Tony Sidaway 23:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of some sick trash

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual Acts in Prepubescent Boys. The article was created by User:FreshFruitsRule who has been accused of being a sock. Also, in light of the topic of this article, the double meaning of User:FreshFruitsRule's name is sickening. Could an administrator WP:SNOW this trash? Or, if that is not possible, though not technically speedyable as patent nonsense or vandalism, once he is blocked for puppetry or as a username block, can it be speedied as the creation of a banned user? BigDT 01:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Many thanks to User:Tawker for taking care of it. BigDT 01:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion backlog 2

As of a few moments ago, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion was up to 131 pages, 5 categories, and 14 images. Someone want to take a whack at them? --Calton | Talk 02:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It is empty now. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

AntiVandalBot

AntiVandalBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been created as a backup for Tawkerbot2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Tawker and I both have shell access on the server where it is hosted, and all operators on #vandalism-en-wp have the ability to control the new bot. It should stay off at all times until TB2 goes down, as running two identical anti-vandalism bots at once is counter-productive. --Cyde↔Weys 04:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Now you tell me =P. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It would not be counterproductive if the were specifically programmed never to revert each other. Additionally, some load-balancing could be done. Perhaps even-numbered revisions checked by one bot, odd numbers by the other, etc. — Jun. 7, '06 [05:13] <freak|talk>

It's on the todo list, I'm not sure if Cyde wants to run this full time or just as a backup, but load balancing is a good idea and we're looking @ it. Of course, it will make logging more fun (maybe one main logging server) -- 05:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Gezza.

I have blocked Gezza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for rampant disruption of Criticism of Noam Chomsky and Oliver Kamm after being informed of the matter by arbiter Dmcdevit. It is my opinion that this user is either a reincarnation of a banned user or someone with a political grudge spilling their external dispute onto Wikipedia. This account, nor the other, Delworth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), have made any useful content contributions, and have solely been used to further whatever agenda that they have. See also this old revision of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I happily invite any comments or criticism of this action, whether vented here, on my talk page, or burned into my lawn. Thank you.--Sean Black 05:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't like the edit-warring, and RFCU confirms they are the same user (as if the identical edit patterns were not enough). However, Tcsh has been engaging in the same pattern of edit-warring from the other direction (and his main aim seems to be to keep a link to a parody of Kamm's blog in the article about Chomsky, which seems to me to be completely irrelevant). I'd feel happier if you'd blocked Tcsh too, because I can't see any difference at all, other than the fact that they sit on different sides of the political fence. I don't think it's quite right either to characterise Gezza as having made no useful contributions - e.g. [67], [68], [69]. --ajn (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

AIV again

Vandals making merry & no admins to block them! Urgent help need at the AIV! Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 10:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User posting external links

Pebs96 seems to have a history of posting external links, especially to personal websites, saying that it's perfectly fine because:

If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia on the internet, then there should be "external links" explaining one's sources and being able to share an event.

Pebs96 approached me on my talk page [70] because I removed the external links she had posted on Bloodless Bullfighting. Now the links have been restored by Pebs96. The links are almost all to her website (which she has tried to create articles on but have been deleted several times) and link to almost every individual page of the website. Pebs96 claims that the they are not-commercial links but I think that they are since it makes it seem like her company is the only place that offers bloodless bullfighting and it advertises their brand of bullfighting.

Anyone have any thoughts so I'm not engaging in some unnecessary revert war? Metros232 11:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You may want to check the external link guide, and determine if the links can be accepted according to their suggestions. If you have any more doubts, you can request help in their talk page. From what you say (it is her site?), that might fit in the 11th point of the "avoidable" links. -- ReyBrujo 15:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone is accusing me of vandalism

Can I talk to the manager of the person accusing me on my talk page. 203.158.34.114 12:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have managers. Sorry. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, no managers. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.  :) Metros232 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you sign up for an account to avoid irrelevant messages. To do so, click this link. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 12:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or does it seem odd that someone who appears to not have much experience on Wikipedia is posting here? odd. Netscott 12:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Troll. Now claiming that it can't sign up for an account because it doesn't have a credit card. --ajn (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello other fellow humans! How do I get this bot to stop accusing me of vandalising? Thank you. 203.158.34.114 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Simple - you stop vandalising. --ajn (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not vandalising. A bot is accusing me of vandalising. And we all know how wrong computers can be. 203.158.34.114 12:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

he is trolling, not vandalising. His edits are slightly substandard, but not straightforward vandalism (Christians have a history of forcing their beliefs by the sword. Christians flourished like grass as they Roman army forced Christianity on the people they conquered which mainly were Pagans). I am not even completely sure this is a troll, we might just be looking at a genuinely clueless individual, or a kid. On Wikipedia, cluelessness paired with aggression equals waste of time for everybody, so point the editor to some introductory reading but block if he persists shouting nonsense all over the place :) dab (ᛏ) 13:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've already blocked for 24 hours, for trolling and vandalism. I really don't think (given the speed with which he/she turned up here) that it's someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia. --ajn (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, your edits (like everyone's) are a matter of public record. Also, only one of the people accusing you of vandalism is a bot - the other is User:Stuhacking, a flesh and blood person. --Bachrach44 13:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

never mind, he was blocked for a day; it's a fair cop. dab (ᛏ) 13:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Endorse the block as well. This story doesn't add up. Netscott 14:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

My page is being Vandalized

I was accused and found guilty for the using socks, but the accuser Calgacus is making it impossible for me to return to editing. He insists on putting the sock tag on my user page, and then threatens me when I remove it. Thanks. Bluegold 13:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not willing to do anything without more information on the sockpuppets/actions etc. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 13:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

How is having a sockpuppet template on your userpage stopping you from editing? (This seems to be relevant to the sockpuppetry). --ajn (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally speaking, I just don't like it there, I just will not edit again if it remains. I have seen it removed in other cases, and I want the same. Bluegold 14:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

i wish to creat a page on computer_tom

computer_tom was del when one of my friends created it and just played around and wrote some stupid stuff, can i please re-make it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computer tom (talk • contribs) .

No. Your user page is here, edit that instead. Ashibaka tock 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Religious Userboxes, specifically Template:User Christian

I invite all administrators to view my closing of the most recent DRV on this now notorious template. After three times through DRV, I have tried to settle this matter, although I am by no means authorative. It simply seems to me that earnestly religious userboxes are the last group of templates that need to be drawn into the userbox conflict. I hope, too, to see the template space clear and purely encyclopedic one day, but there is no consensus on that matter yet. Until there is, this species of template -- the type most likely to tug at the hearts, and invoke the fiercest loyalties, of the greatest number of users -- should be left in peace. As I suggested in closing the DRV, I suggest here: speedy deleters of these templates should be considered disruptive. The userbox conflict will only become more poisonous if religion long remains one of its foci. Xoloz 16:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's time to get all German on that userbox. --Cyde↔Weys 16:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Done! Should be no more problems with this one ever again. --Cyde↔Weys 17:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, I actually have no problem hosting that userbox in my userspace (hell, if it will stop the userbox conflict, I'll host them ALL), but I will point out it might have been nice to have asked me before putting something in my userspace. I can see why some people might think you're a bit intemperate and injudicious, Cyde. Do be careful to be polite. Xoloz 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Leaving no redirect at the old template pages with slightly over 70 red links in whatlinkshere is hardy "done." Once again, "problems" were created by an admin's actions. That "solution" wasn't all German by a long shot, just enough to serve a specific agenda. If admins would agree to a respectful migration process, it probably could go a bit smoother. If Cyde and Xoloz support it, I'll volunteer to put in a redirect, bypass it with AWB, and then replace the redirect with {{TGS UBX to}}. If someone wants to protect the old page after that, live it up. Rfrisbie^talk 17:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As I say, I've soft redirected. Let me know however I can help to migrate. :) I believe in smooth and cooperative processes, and support them always. Xoloz 17:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Have you thrown in your two-cents worth at WP:TGS yet? I'm sure your contributions there would go a long way toward moving this thing down the road. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 18:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The one bit I added to Cyde's compromise was to soft redirect the template to my userspace. After consideration, I'm thrilled with the German Solution, so anyone may move any userbox he/she wishes to my userspace, conveniently created by Cyde, without having to ask. Yes -- any template: Star Trek haters, Republicans, even worse (only worse in the sense of being "less like Xoloz"), I don't care. If it will ease userbox tensions, go bananas with it. Xoloz 17:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would have preferred to see a hard redirect followed by some cleanup work to change all references. But I'm not going to quibble. Xoloz' close is acceptable though not ideal. --Tony Sidaway 17:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As you might imagine, I have no problem with a hard redirect either; however, there are those who vigorously oppose all new cross-namespace redirects. By soft redirecting, I have sought only to mollify that concern. If you believe hard is better, be my guest. Xoloz 17:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I hard redirected. It would probably be a good idea not to delete the redirect, as it would likely cause all sorts of complaints. (I added a note in the redirect, but apparently nothing else will show up in a redirect.) —Ashley Y 23:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If someone gives me a big list of old template names and their new userspace locations I can just have Cydebot do a batch run. Here's an example of the format I'm looking for (note that Template: shouldn't be included, but User: should):

• 'User Christian' 'User:Xoloz/UBX/User Christian'
• 'User Buddhist' 'User:Xoloz/UBX/User Buddhist'
• etc. ...

--Cyde↔Weys 17:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User:BrianZ and User:Tommac2

Moved from WP:AN talk page

I am currently in somewhat of a edit war with BrianZ over at atkins diet. Basically the situation is :

1) BrianZ added his website to Wikipedia

2) GraemeL removed it and slapped his wrist for self promition

3) BrianZ underhandedly removed all of the External Links and has basically stated that if his link isnt allowed then none should be

4) BrianZ has been deleting any external links that are being posted to the site regardless of if they are relevant.

BrianZ is trying to use the third revert rule to block me from reverting the external links section back to what it was before making the change.

This issue is currently in mediation. at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-04_Atkins_Diet

I have been trying to work this out with him. But it seems that he is not interested in working things out.

He has been very devious and often resorts to smoke screen tactics when trying to resolve the issue. Please read the mediation.

I would suggest a few of the following solutions:

1) Some admin or other unbiased person step in and help us mediate this at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-04_Atkins_Diet

2) Some admin step in and make a clear decision on the issue at hand.

3) Pleae do not blindly follow BrianZs request for three R suspention. I did revert to undo his reverts. I consider his acts vandalism. I personally feel that he should be suspended until the issue is resolved or I would even say just suspend us both.

Any help would be very appreciative. Thank you, Tom --Tommac2 15:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Both editors have been blocked for 12 hours and the article has been fuly protected until they can come to an agreement. Naconkantari 16:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Undelete Template:User Editor even

Could someone undelete Template:User Editor even? This would appear to be another parting gift from User:Doc glasgow. Rfrisbie^talk 16:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend posting a request a deletion review. Netscott 16:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see the need for that. A normal course of action would include consulting Doc, but he isn't here, so I'll undelete as a clear mistake. If anyone (hi Cyde) has a problem with that, he or she may "German" it to my userspace. Xoloz 18:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Heaven forbid anyone should have a problem with Wikilosophy. Of course, there's more where that came from (but I'm not telling where!).  :-) Rfrisbie^talk 18:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Snowdesign

Could someone with some time and more patience than I run through this users contributions and uploads to see if any are not copyrighted. All his edits seem to be coping-and-pasting off of some websites. Anyone? The King of Kings 19:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, so far every one I've looked at is a copyvio. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't think we'll have to block him, do we? The King of Kings 19:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq circumvented block implemented by administrator Sceptre

Over the weekend, User:Zeq was blocked for 48 hours by User:Sceptre for vote stacking. He circumented the ban with this post[71]. Homey 22:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've warned Zeq that this is not permitted and asked him never to do it again, should he be blocked. --Tony Sidaway 22:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I signed my name very clearly, there was no attempt to mislead anyone. The blocking admin could at least notify me on the block and comunicate with me on my talk page. He did not. There were several other violations of the blocking policy that had to do with that block and comunication (on my talk page) was the first step required by the blocking admin did not bother so I had to go to his talk page. Zeq 03:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

PS Anyone who is bothering to get up in arms about this one (I only left a meesage on the blocking admin talk page, it is not that I have tried to edit any specific articvle to circumvent the block) seem to be putting by far more emphais on "rules" than on common sense. Just one more part in vandeta against me. I suggest this complaint will be removed. I have done nothing wrong and caused no harm. Zeq 03:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq you are not supposed to edit when you are blocked except on your own talk page it doesn't matter if you signed your name. Homey 05:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried using my talk page but the blocking admin did not respond.

Homey, Why don't you start by obeying the rules yourself ? No harm was done by my actions above and you know it. All I did was comunicating (attempting to communicate) with a blocking admin who violated the blocking policy. Your complain here is a form of harrasment) . Read the blocking policy it is VERY clear - the blocking admin should have used my talk page but he did not.

You yourselfalso broken the same rules before (at least twice). As an admin you are supposed to know the rules and apply them. this was comunicated to you clearly here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Homeontherange&diff=prev&oldid=57078266 . Also let's not ignore tha fact that you yourself have edited (blocked people) while under a block and that you frequently edit under anon IP address (violation). Other abuses by you are investigated. Zeq 05:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That is simply false and checkuser has proven that allegation false. Also, User:Sceptre did not violate blocking policy, the block against you for vote-stacking was entirely justified. You just can't accept that any disciplinary action against you is ever warranted, instead you try to blame everyone else for your misdeeds. It's tiresome. Homey 05:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What you say is false, here are quotes from WP:Block:

"Users should be notified of blocks on their talk pages."

• The blocking admin did not do that

"If you disagree with a block, begin by discussing it with the blocking admin."

• This is what I did and since he did not comunicate on my talk page i turned to his talk page.

The block itself was a violation of WP:Spam (and thus a violation of WP:Block since I was blocked for no good cause, for an untermined time (ended up being 56 hours, without anyone notifying me why or when it will end) Zeq 12:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Alex Kapranos impersonation

An IP, 65.37.181.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), appears to be attempting the impersonate (or possibly is) the lead singer of Franz Ferdinand, Alex Kapranos. He is signing all edits related to the band AK, and has deleted a section from Alex Kapranos with the edit summary "My relationship is private. Comments on the state of it can only be conjecture if posted here. - AK". Does this violate Username policy, since while he is probably trying to impersonate AK, it is using an IP address, not a username of a famous person. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 22:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirect assistance?

I created a redirect for disc one to Disc One: All Their Greatest Hits 1991-2001 and it worked; but then I realized that Disc One wouldn't redirect because of caps, so I set Disc One to redirect, and it worked properly. but now the disc one page won't redirect. It just sits there. I Don't think the page is needed anymore thought because disc one would bring up Disc One unless there's a non-cap article in existance, right? Thanks TheHYPO 01:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

WFM. Snottygobble 02:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're looking to make wikilinks work, then both capitalizations are necessary (wikilinks are case sensitive). If you're looking to make the go button work, the two redirects you've added are equivalent (either enables entry of any capitalization of "disc one" to "go" to the article). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User Using 34-Pixel High Image as Signature Despite Being Asked Not To

Not an active incident, but a heads-up that User:Kittyslasher has a huge image as their signature — see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doom Jenga, the one that says "this hoax really sucks poop!" (yeah, that's a cut-and-paste of his comment). He's been asked already. Reference is WP:SIG: "Images of any kind should not be used in signatures." Obliged! — Mike •  02:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The block log shows that this user has already been indefinitely blocked by SushiGeek as a sock of Nintendude. --bainer (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. For some reason, I didn't see that. — Mike •  03:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Unintentional blanking

If while on RC patrol you notice a user making a beneficial edit and simultaneously removing most of the article, especially if it's from an otherwise semi-reputable editor, it may be due to an apparent bug in Google Toolbar for Firefox (see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Problems with Firefox and previews and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Bug with Google Toolbar for Firefox. So go easy on them, OK? (I haven't seen any overly harsh warnings, just thought I'd comment.) — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank god! I was wondering why that was happening! --mboverload@ 07:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

University of Kent

A few admins might take a look at University of Kent. The edit war there concerns seriously potentially-libellous issues, and there seems to be at least one loose-cannon editor involved. AndyJones 13:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Myrtone86's signature

Can we please force him to change his irritating sig (which misuses {{PAGENAME}})? His current sig, as it stands, is [[User:Myrtone86|Myr'''tone'''@{{PAGENAME}}.com.au]]... horribly irritating. At least two users have complained to him, but he has refused to change it. NSLE _(T+C) at 13:15 UTC (2006-06-08)

Please be a bit more tollerant, my signiture may be unusual but I could still say the same of those of many other wikipedians, such as ones with pictures, etc. It is like if you were white (as I am), you grew up never having seen a black, but saw one later in your life, what would you think of their skin colour, if you found it irretating, then you have got my analogy. User:Myrtone86:-(

Other Wikipedians with disruptive signatures are asked to change them. Your analogy is also confusing and not relevant at all. Please consider removing the irritating use of the PAGENAME magic word from your signature; I especially dislike the way you suffix it with .com.au which is completely beyond me, although somewhat dubious. Thank you. robchurch | talk 13:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't say I like it... I seriously thought I had a fan whenever you left a message on my talk page :) Thanks for your quick reply Myrtone86. -- Longhair 13:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This user's insolent attitude to reasonable requests convinces me that he needs encouragement. Blocked for three hours to help him to make up his mind [72]. --Tony Sidaway 13:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

He also seems to have been engaged in some vandalism. Warned. --Tony Sidaway 14:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

He also opposed Gurch's RFA with the utterly ridiculous reasoning of "no userboxes". Talk about trolling. --Cyde↔Weys 15:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

He also opposed Samir's RFA because he didn't speak a differant language? What exactly is he trying to prove? The King of Kings 18:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Still hasn't changed the sig and the race commentary is bizarre. FYI, fluent in three languages. -- Samir धर्म 00:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

His talkpage is just a complete circle jerk of complaints about his behaviour. I doubt his signature was made to do anything but annoy people. He seems to have made a habit out of it. --mboverload@ 23:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No userboxes? Isn't this the guy who made a WP:POINT out of TfDing a ton of userboxes? --Rory096 07:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

MostWanted05

Please could you do something about this user. We tried to reason with this user but it's failed and he is now vandalizing pages as we speak. Please help, dissolve this dispute. Thanks. LILVOKA 8 June 2006 13:55 (UTC)

The new <ref> function improvements

A lot of editors complain about a few bugs they've spotted (along with the goodies) in the new ref function, and even engage in debating and edit-warring about applying or removing it in articles! There's been an extensive (endless) discussion in the relevant talk page (Wikipedia talk:Footnotes). Such discussions often confuse developers who find it harder to recognise what the users desire, than to actually do it. I took the liberty to try and bring these proposals together and formulate a comprehensive proposal for the developers, which has been put to vote. Since most admins here are experienced editors, and probably have a good understanding of these issues, I would like to encourage your participation in the poll, and/or your comments if you so wish. I would also appreciate help with poll procedural issues, since it is my first one.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work in taking this on, NikoSilver. Jkelly 16:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! Snoutwood (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wish I myself could write the darn code too... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation vandalism

A few users opposed to the article Israeli apartheid remove continuously the link to apartheid (disambiguation) from the apartheid proper article. I have used my daily rates of three edits in order to restore the link. Hope some administrator cares to take a look at it. Best regards Bertilvidet 18:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:3RR. "Daily rates of three edits"- three reverts a day are not an entitlement... --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 18:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems like Bertilvidet is admiting above that he haas turned wikipedia into a battleground and does not understand WP:Point#Gaming the system as weel as WP:Not. Clearly the above issue is not a vandalism but a contetent dispute when some user have put a link that would lead people to Israeli apartheid from witin the article History of South Africa in the apartheid era. I fail to see why people who read about history need to get a link to one of wikipedia most non-NPOV article (have never stabalized going through edit-wars and protection all the time) unlesss of course the editor (and the team) that has places this link want to spread their political idology throughout wikipedia. Zeq 18:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:3RR, which also explicitly excludes correction of simple vandalism (and I am not certain if my edits can be considered as such). The apartheid (disambiguation)article has been nominated for deletion, but failed. Attempts to undermine the disambiguation page should not continue at the article about South African Apartheid, where people do a good work. In this regad I believe Zeq's personal opinions on the concept of Israeli Apartheid are utterly irrelevant. Bertilvidet 18:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My personal views are indeed irelevent but policy violations of those who game the system are not:

• 09:34 June 8, 2006–06–08

• 09:53 June 8, 2006–06–08

• 10:00 June 8, 2006–06–08

• 17:43 June 8, 2006–06–08

reported by Zeq 19:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for documenting, what I stated above, that I three times have restored the disambiguation link, that user:Timothy Usher removed three times. May I suggest that we now let some admnistrator comment? Bertilvidet 19:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the various controversy going on about the apartheid articles, the disambiguation link to Apartheid (disambiguation) should be at the top of History of South Africa in the apartheid era (per Wikipedia:Disambiguation), since it redirects from Apartheid. I have left messages on User:Timothy Usher and User:Pecher explaining the details of disambiguation pages, and why the link is necessary, regardless of the disagreements going on. As for a 3RR violation, please list it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR. -- Natalya 20:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why Bertilvidet has decided to flood this noticeboard with their grievances; this is not the right place to discuss content disputes. If Bertilvidet believes that removals of an unnecessary link constitute vandalism, then there are other noticeboards where vandalism is reported. Pecher ^Talk 20:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The chance that a wikipedia reader searching for "Apartheid" is actually looking for "Sexual Apartheid" (for example) is infinitessimal. The link, therefore, is a waste of space from the readers' point of view. It exists only to steer them towards wilfully biased articles about unrelated subjects created in the service not of scholarship, but of political activism. Several of the articles on the disambiguation page appear to have been created only to justify the disambiguation page itself, and to provide cover for the central purpose of making the political statement, "Israel is a lot like Apartheid-era South Africa" - a cynical abuse of this encyclopedia. The removal of the link plainly improves this article, and Wikipedia.Timothy Usher 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The chance they are looking for "apartheid state" which has been used to refer to Israeli apartheid is reasonable as is the chance that someone is looking for apartheid applied to something to do with gays and lesbians without being clear on the term or some sort of apartheid dealing with the third world (global apartheid) without knowing the proper term. Homey 20:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The term "apartheid" refers solely to the practice of racial segregation in South Africa; even if the term was hijacked by left-wing activists for the purposes of vilifying Israel and the West. Disambiguation pages are not search aids; this disambiguation link is plain advertisement of articles started by Homey, articles that are nothing but political diatribes. Pecher ^Talk 21:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Amazing that you are still not aware about the concept Apartheid being used in several contexts. See for instance the entry in Britannica [73]. Bertilvidet 21:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Bertilvidet, your source is not Britannica, but Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary. The first definition is specific, the second only rhetorical and metaphorical, as a more serious dictionary would no doubt show.Timothy Usher 22:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I might suggest moving this discussion to any number of more related pages, so that it can be used to work on the ongoing conflict. -- Natalya 22:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

To User:Natalya

Your involvement in this matter was a result of a request[74] by the prime instigator of the current mess we are in.

I suggest you that you look at this from the perspective of rarely under stood wikipedia policy WP:Point:

• Homey's point, a political one (which is a violation of WP:not) is to use wikipedia to spread the notion that "Israel is an apartheid state".
• Homey's has pushed this idea by creating an elaborate set of articles about apartheid (5 of them to be exact), at which point it seemed only natural to require a DAB page. (no doubt, Homey, an experienced admin, knows how to game the system.)
• Once the DAB page created homey has placed a link to this page in the article about history of South Africa and now each person that comes to wikipedia to look for "apartheid" may click the DAB page leading him/her to an article about the so-called "Israeli apartheid" and... presto the propagation of political message have been suucessful: Distributing political propaganda via wikipedia works !

• Since this whole effort is a clear violation of WP:Point I suggest you do not join this blunt policy violation.

BTW, the diff I placed above clearly show that Homey (the one edited the 4th diff) participated in an edit war to push his agenda - After Bert "exhausted" what he think of as "3 reverts per day" Homey jumps in the continue the edit-war. (This is also a violation of WP:Point: See WP:Point#Gaming_the_system

I hope that in light of this being part of a bigger picture you would think of a better solution than to accept and support this policy violation. Zeq 21:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, has it still not come to your mind that the same behavior, reverting three times and then being replaced by another friend, was conducted by the other side? BTW, I really find the new nickname you gave me - Bert - cute, despite being a bit anglophonic ;-) Bertilvidet 21:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not true. At first there was a legitimate edit, you started the edit-war by reverting this edit. Next were only 2 reverts (not that I aprove of participating in the edit war) so he actually never reached 3. You on the other hand based on your own admission above violated WP:Point#Gaming_the_system - read it , understand it and live by it. Zeq 21:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Which edit you find legimate is your opinion, not an objective fact. Check the history page and you will realize that Tim reverted three times today, and Pech then jumped in. I was unsure of the removal of the link qualified as simple vandalism, and thats why I stopped after three edits. Bertilvidet 22:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, you then solicited Homeontherange to revert on your behalf[75], which he did thirty-six minutes later[76].

The proper use of the term "vandalism" is clearly explained in the relevant policy: good-faith edits are not vandalism. There was no reason, then, to be "uncertain" about it. However, accepting for the sake of discussion that you were uncertain, what changed between then and the time you titled this report, "Disambiguation vandalism?"[77]Timothy Usher 22:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I came here in order to dicuss it. Bertilvidet 22:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, I hope you do not misunderstand my involvment in this matter. It is not to support or disagree with either side of a conflict, but is simply to keep disambiguation pages running as they are supposed to. I do not hope to determine whether the existance of apartheid (disambiguation) is appropriate, but since it currently does exist (no concensus having been come to at it's AfD), it needs to be linked to from the primary topic. If the page were to be deleted, the link would be appropriate to be removed. Until that point comes about, it should still be there. -- Natalya 22:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly by looking an isolated issues and not the bigger pictrure is how the "system" is being manipulated. Zeq 03:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Dick DeVos

I think an admin (or someone who knows more about politics) needs to take a look at (and possibly protect) this page. There's a little revert war going on. --Bachrach44 18:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Steelbeard1 and User:Envix have been blocked for 24 hours. User:Bkonrad will also be blocked if he reverts the page one more time. Naconkantari 19:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

(is the below related?).. I have on the article talk page offered to help work through the issues with this article. I admit bias, my kids play sports against some of his kids... ++Lar: t/c 00:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry: User:209.69.163.69's only Wiki edit to date was to "Revert to Bkonrad's last revision". RadioKirk talk to me 00:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have confirmed that Envix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is associated with the Devos campaign. Mackensen (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep watch on the Dick DeVos article to make sure User:Envix or anyone else from the DeVos campaign does not try to control content of the article. Is Envix blocked for six months like the IP addresses associated with the DeVos campaign were? Steelbeard1 19:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism LARGE backup

Thought you should know - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 19:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Just taken care of - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 19:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been cleared. Naconkantari 19:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Creamy goodness

Name may be inviolation of Wikipedia's username policy.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 21:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to defend that one: its a fairly well-known phrase that seems innocuous enough. What specifically do you think is wrong with it? I guess it could be seen to have a sexual connotation, but that doesn't seem to be the major meaning that Google finds. Gwernol 21:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see anything wrong with the name. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; the innuendo is obvious, but the desire for a plate of fettucine alfredo immediately overcame the thought... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the innuendo is obvious, but as was pointed out to me by a friend earlier today, even a binder clip can be lewd if you just think about it in the right context. Incidentally, I thought of hostess cakes :-). --Bachrach44 02:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It is true that in the proper context even the stiffest amongst us can find a word or phrase lascivious. But the real thrust of the matter is that we should be careful to avoid giving good users the shaft simply because their name may be somewhat bushy. Now, it is easy to rectify the situation if a heinous blockage occurs, but hopefully we can allow the flow of good edits to emerge from our editors without the repeated blocking and unblocking beforehand, even if it is somewhat fun; remember that it can also be dangerous.--Sean Black 02:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Teehee, you said "rectify". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh heh... heh heh heh... heh heh... he said "stiffest" RadioKirk talk to me 16:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"When correctly viewed, everything is lewd!" -- Tom Lehrer

Atlant 12:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was quite amusing. Exploding Boy 22:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeing the name first, my first thought was that someone was claiming that the user name was inappropriate because of the violent conotations from Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Willow compares a demon that is removing people's organs to a person who doesn't eat the outside of Oreos "but takes out the creamy goodness" (slight paraphase since too lazy to go over to Wikiquote at the moment). JoshuaZ 23:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Strange. I've never seen an episode of Buffy, but Oreo cream is exactly what came to my mind when I saw the phrase. Joyous! | Talk 23:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually cream cheese came to mind but this is what first got my attention [78].--Dakota ~ 00:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade

This arbitration case is closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

Sam Spade is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation and is cautioned to avoid unwarranted assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks and admonished to comment on content, not on the contributor. He is reminded that administrators are empowered to block for such policy violations if they disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Issabella16101610

User repeatedly made nonsense personal edits in Paducah Kentucky (which user made) even after I warned and redirected it to the existing page Paducah, Kentucky (with the comma). User proceeded to make personal POV edits in that page, and I can't revert again with violating 3RR. Can someone help revert and try to explain to user? thanks. --mtz206 (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Done, and I'll block the next time. Sasquatch t|c 23:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --mtz206 (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I didn't find the name even remotely inappropriate. Exploding Boy 00:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

HUH? Sasquatch t|c 00:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that was supposed to go here. RadioKirk talk to me 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:GeorgeMoney's user page

He appears to have C&Pd the entire Main Page to his user page. It's very confusing, but he seems passionately attached to it. Some assistance convincing him otherwise might be good. Exploding Boy 00:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want me to fix it, then all you have to do is ask me to do it instead of reporting me here like a vandal. Thanks to Chuck I found out about this. It is not so hard to press the "+" button next to the "edit this page" tab on my talk page, and ask me, "George, will you please revert your userpage back to normal because it is confusing" and I will be happy to do it. Also, I didn't copy&paste it, I transcluded it.--GeorgeMoney ^T·C 00:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap, I never thought I'd ever agree with you, Exploding Boy (this isn't an insult if you read into it properly, please don't take it as one, just as a statement of...utter shock). I reverted him and was promptly called "a vandal" and told "it's my userpage, I'll do what I want with it" (see my talk) — Nathan ^(talk) 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I called you a vandal because you called me a vandal for inserting a stupid little HTML comment on your page. All you have to do is ask. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 00:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Enough. Please calm down. I've answered you on my talk page, there's absolutely no need to bring that up here, and I won't answer comments about that when it's brought up in such an inappropriate place. — Nathan ^(talk) 00:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

After multiple edit conflicts...

Yes, you're right. I should have left you a message on your talk page. Sorry. It's just that looking at your edit history you seemed unwilling to change it.

While we're on the topic though, why is it that your talk page header says that the page is for discussing the Main Page? Is that a holdover from your transcluded user page?

Anyway, I'm going to leave this here for a few more minutes and then remove it; it's obviously not needed here. Exploding Boy 00:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be my fault. I thought I reverted everything, sorry. I'll accept blame for it. — Nathan ^(talk) 01:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason I seemed unwilling to change it was because Nathan reverted it without asking me first. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 00:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Enough arguing. The reason why is posted on my talk page. Any admin can look there and read it for themselves. The question remains: Why did you senselessly transclude the main page onto your userpage. That's what Exploding Boy is asking, and that's what I'd like an answer to as well. Please stick to the question asked. I refer to two policies: Wikipedia is not a place to put your own personal homepage and we don't own our contributions to Wikipedia. Not our pages, our signatures (thus leading to refactoring which I still don't agree with), nothing. We don't own any of it. — Nathan ^(talk) 00:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Now is my userpage ok? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 01:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit, in this case I think the first step would have been to contact GeorgeMoney, rather than just editing it yourself (in particular if the "problem" is just one of annoyance, not of critical importance to the project). People feel a lot better about changes to their user page if they themselves make them, in my experience, and a polite request can go a long way. Just my two cents. Thank you for changing your page, GeorgeMoney. --Fastfission 02:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I should have left George a message. Nathan should probably have left him a message. However, the issue seems to have been satisfactorily resolved, and is now closed. Thanks to everyone. Exploding Boy 04:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm shocked to agree with you a second time (please, don't make a habit of this). Yes, I probably should have. — Nathan ^(talk) 14:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

When an RfC is ignored

I've taken this back to the RfC. It makes sense to keep it there. --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! FreplySpang 20:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion at Talk:Ejaculation#Use of picture

Moved this to the talk page of the article. --Tony Sidaway 04:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Given the uploader's history of contributing images without proper source information (I see several Orphanbot messages on his talk page) as well as the very suspect use of {{NoRightsReserved}} on Image:Pink36.jpg and Image:Pavel Novotny & Ales Hanak 3.jpg (that second image is not work safe!), I'm not inclined to trust that the image Image:Cum.JPG being discussed is actually the creation of Perkyville (talk · contribs). I note that an image of the same name was deleted as a copyvio back in March.

While discussion of the appropriateness of the image perhaps belongs on the article's talk page, addressing the copyright issue is in the purview of admins. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sysop's actions re photo on Ejaculation

Although the discussion has been moved my question is about the sysop so I will place it here: May I ask for some feedback as to how appropriate it was for an admin to revert an image that is obviously so controversial back into the article and then completely protect the article from editing by anyone other than sysops? Surely whilst there is no consensus an image that some find offensive should be removed until further discussion has taken place? And why the heck would full protection be placed after one' change has been made??? Anyone help me here? - Stollery 04:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify that one admin reverted the picture back in, and a different one protected it 2 minutes afterward. ChChcknwnm (Chuck) 05:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes correct Chuck, apologies, my bad. Still the question remains, why the hell protect it with the controversial image included whilst discussion is still taking place? - Stollery 05:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I follow the question. If there was controversy, surely protection was advised! See Wikipedia:protection policy. --Tony Sidaway 15:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Since when did small blue worms travel through the vas deferens? Ral315 (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As a doctor, I can say never. Never blue ones. -- Samir धर्म 10:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not the image that was disputed... Nonetheless, I do agree, and we're looking for a better diagram. It's a hellofalot better than the previous image though, IMO at least. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean they're not supposed to? Oh dear ... *goes to doctor* Proto 10:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

See m:The Wrong Version. Kotepho 06:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"An image that some find offensive should be removed"? See Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons Naconkantari 15:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As that article is about the image, the image is appropriate. As Ejaculation is not Highly controversial image of ejaculation, the criteria should be does the image improve the article in any way? IMHO it does not. It illustrates nothing which is not easily understood from the text. Illustrations are to illustrate, not for any other purpose. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Updated, apologies: I typed with brain half-engaged. Meant to say, If it does not, etc. Stand by "Illustrations are to illustrate". KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• On the image, I think it was an excellent illustration, especially useful as there will be many younger people who will not have a clue what ejaculation is (and may be worried if it happens to them). Providing a good illustration of ejaculation would be of great benefit to the encyclopedia. This was a pretty good one, very well illustrating the intensely joyfully explosive nature of the event. --Tony Sidaway 15:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Seconding Tony ... now I haven't even seen the picture, but it has to be better than the diagram we're currently using. That diagram shows a flaccid penis ejaculating. D'oh!!!! --Cyde↔Weys 15:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, per my discussion on the talk page, I would argue that while Wikipedia is not censored, neither is it an internet pornographer. A visitor should have the option via an inline link, or via page-bottom placement with a warning at the top, to see such an image or not. Page-top placement of hard-core pornography should never happen. RadioKirk talk to me 16:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel that you're prejudging the issue by equating sexually explicit pictures with "hard-core pornography." I agree with your suggestion of appropriate placement (sizing also helps) but we have a general disclaimer so warnings and the like would be superfluous (not to mention insulting). --Tony Sidaway 16:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, this almost seems evasive. First, hardcore pornography (apparently, "hardcore" is now the preferred spelling) is defined as the photographic depiction of explicit sex acts (and, neither a partner nor mutual activity is a requirement for a "sex act" IMO) so, in the context, I find the terminology identical. Second, The disclaimer is linked from the bottom of each page, long after this article would have shoved (porn/a "sexually explicit" image) into the viewer's face. RadioKirk talk to me 17:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

RadioKirk, it's a page about ejaculation. How could you not expect to see something sexually explicit there? ~MDD4696 16:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Easy: go try to find a similar image in the Encyclopedia Britannica; if any image exists at all, it will be a diagram. I reiterate my stand that Wikipedia is not a pornographer. RadioKirk talk to me 17:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm more concerned that it was decided in the middle of the dispute to delete the image (image deletion is permanent). The deletion log says that it was flagged up as db:pornography (which isn't a reason) and was deleted less than 10 minutes later for having no copyright info when it was tagged as pd-self (and hadn't at that point been tagged as needing copyright info). [79] Image deletion should not be used to settle content disputes like that. Secretlondon 16:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise that; I thought it was deleted because of licensing terms. If true, this is very disturbing. In context, the image was not pornographic as far as I was able to tell. It simply showed a masturbating man, frontal torso view, ejaculating. --Tony Sidaway 16:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The deleting admin tried to restore 8 mins later but doesn't seem to have realised that image deletions were permanent. It was apparently listed as a speedy and got deleted:( Considering the % of false speedy claims this is worrying.. Secretlondon 17:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

So .. did we lose the image permanently or did someone have a backup? At the very worst we could hide it in a linkimage or something. But just deleting it outright like that ... hrrmmm ... that seems like a clear abuse of speedy deletion. --Cyde↔Weys 17:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It ain't abuse when the speedy tag was false. In such a tense and high-pressure situation, not many people, including myself, would check the history and would rather just proceed with the deletion. I don't think xaosflux can be blamed, nor accused of misuse of speedy. NSLE _(T+C) at 17:16 UTC (2006-06-09)

You HAVE to check - people add false speedy tags to all pages all the time. It's especially important with images as image deletions are permanent. Secretlondon 17:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

WHAT?! It's not an admin's fault if he deletes something which has a bad speedy tag? Am I the only one around who still thoroughly checks up on something before deleting it? Deletion is a tool only given to administrators for a reason. If an admin acts as a rubber-stamp, deleting everything that any user happens to put a speedy tag on (whether or not the tag is deserved!), then the system is broken. --Cyde↔Weys 17:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not THAT high pressure - there are always other admins, you don't have to do it all. If you delete without checking you are a liability to be honest. Secretlondon 18:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This was just a one-off case. It would be nice if sysops deleting pictures could grab a copy (unless the photograph is clearly illegal, such as child pornography) and hang on to it for a bit, but I can understand why a lot of sysops don't go to such lengths.

No doubt other photographs of ejaculation will appear in time--probably better than the deleted one--so it isn't a huge deal.

We do need to make sure that the animation there at present is properly licensed and sourced, however. --Tony Sidaway 18:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a big deal, though, if we have admins regularly going around deleting stuff without stopping to verify whether it's actually a candidate for speedy deletion, or whether the page hasn't been manipulated so that it looks like a candidate when it isn't. Deletion rights are given only to admins because regular users can't be trusted ... but if admins are just running around deleting everything nominated for speedy deletion by regular users without verifying it, then that is a baaad thing. --Cyde↔Weys 18:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've not always agreed with Cyde and Tony apropos of how admins ought to exercise discretion in speedying things, but Cyde (with whom Tony seems to agree) is wholly correct here; thorough checking, important for articles, is crucial with respect to images, which, as many note, can't be undeleted. Joe 18:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth my views on speedy deletion are heavily influenced by what deletion candidate we are considering. If it's an unencyclopedic template? Mehh. If it's an article or an image used in an article? Hold up buddy! --Cyde↔Weys 18:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by regular users can't be trusted? Chuck^(contrib) 20:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Regular users can't be trusted with access to the "delete" button. It's very simple. If they could be trusted, then it would be available to all users, not just admins ... but it's not. --Cyde↔Weys 20:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User with previous warnings of copyvios upload an image containing a nude human being. Happens a fair bit. The percentage that turn out to be copyvios is rather high.Geni 20:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - however this seems to be a "delete as tagged" problem. If they checked the edit history of the uploader they would have checked the edit history of the image too. Speedy tags *are* used in edit wars - it's up to us to know what deletion policy is. All our images in sex related articles are contentious and we need to be extra careful with contentious topics when the potential for admin manipulation is higher. Everyone should be more careful with images because image deletion cannot be reverted. If in doubt always ask - IRC or any of our talk pages is a good idea. I wonder if we should start a voluntary mentoring project for new admins - people you can bounce ideas off if you want to. Lots of stuff is borderline but where the lines are drawn isn't always obvious as we basically work on something like case law. I'd happily handhold a new colleague - I'm sure others are the same. Secretlondon 20:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that Cyde's "trusted" formulation is altogether appropriate; nearly every consistent contributor could, IMHO, be trusted with the power to delete things, even speedily, but surely those users who partake of the project for less-than-encyclopedic purposes (either to disrupt or simply to impose certain views) mustn't be permitted to exercise deletion deleteriously. Admins are not necessarily preternaturally infallible, and neither does some special brilliance entail from one's being approved as an admin. Adminship is, on the whole, not a discretionary task; admins act only to implement consensus, either as expressed in a specific situation or as codified in policy, et cetera. To say that "regular users can't be trusted with access to the 'delete' button", is, I think, fundamentally to misunderstand what adminship is and unintentionally to underestimate "regular users". Joe 22:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleting personal information from history

Is there a central page where you can find a description on how to fast delete personal information from a history when that history is HUGE? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well if it is really HUGE, you may want to just ask a dev to do it for you. Well, really anyone with Oversight powers. They have selective deletions. Perhaps Essjay or Brion? I don't know if they are around though. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 05:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the page in question? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I solved it, there is a quick way to do it actually, so, if there is not such a page, I will create one tomorrow to describe it. It is actually quite simple. I just did homosexuality, which has 6900+ revisions. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete all, restore recent twenty or so, move to your userspace, delete, restore non-inflammatory items, move back, and restore all? Still a lot easier if you got someone with oversight to do it in one click. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If a page has a few thousand versions, having the ability to check all boxes in one fell swoop is a great help. However, when it's several thousand versions, it's best to go to someone with oversight powers. As far as I know, those people are Brion VIBBER, Dmcdevit, Essjay, Jayjg, Mindspillage, and Theresa Knott. There may be others. If the information is very confidential, I wouldn't leave a message on the user's talk page: I'd rollback the edit, and then check contributions so as to make a judgment as to which oversight users were most likely to be online, and would then send a private e-mail. Apparently it also helps the oversight user if after reverting the vandalism, you make another edit — even a small one like putting in a comma. Also, I think that an advantage of the oversight method is that the bad edit can't be accidentally restored by an admin who removes personal information from the same page six months later. For example, if someone puts User A's phone number into the article on Vitamin C on 14 March, and an admin deletes the page and restores all the versions except the bad one, and then someone comes along on 27 August and posts User B's real name, an admin who doesn't check the history of the page to see what edits have already been deleted before deleting the page will delete the page and restore it with everything except User B's name, so User A's phone number will once again be retrievable from the history. As far as I know, there's no way of knowing which versions were once deleted once they've been restored, or once the page has been deleted again, but I could be wrong. AnnH ♫ 08:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Full list can be found at Special:Listusers by looking at the group oversight. Basicaly arbcom puss a few devs.Geni 16:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, much easier. If you see personal information, not even bother to rollback or revert. Do the following:

1. Delete page (Foo) on sight.
2. Restore bad version (yes, the bad version)
3. Move bad version to Foo/Bad
4. Delete Foo/Bad
5. Restore remaining versions of Foo

Advantages:

• If there is a second time in which personal information needs to be removed, there is no change of accidentially restoring the removed personal information of previous times. All Bad stuff wil accumulate in Foo/Bad.
• It is fast, regardless of the number of revisions, and it is effectively a ons checkbox operation.

I think it might be actually a good idea to scan the database for partial restores and move the personal info (or other needs to stay deleted stuff) out of the way so that it stays deleted. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it is not fast irrespective of the no. of revisions in Foo. Not so long ago (Dec?) someone deleted George W. Bush and locked the whole database for about an hour. So don't delete on sigt, delete on judgement and, if there are many revisions, get someone with the unfortunately-named Oversight to do it. -Splash - tk 12:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. But would it be a good idea to describe this methiod anyway somewhere, in a page dealing with Wikipedia:How to deal with personal information? I searched yesterday, and could not find it, maybe I just did not find it, but I suspect it is not there. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a good chance that no one with oversight will be around. Jimbo and Brion are devs, not just wiki admins, they are not usually patrolling. Filiocht ‎left Wikipedia. That leaves 14 people.Voice-of-All^Talk 20:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can't find someone with oversight hassle your admin of choice. We can do it but it takes us a little longer, that's all. Secretlondon 20:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll just use javascript to speed it up, unless the article is very long, its faster than spamming the oversights.Voice-of-All^Talk 00:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm around, able to be pinged via talk page message (even if it's only "check your email, please") between twelve and fifteen hours a day, sometimes longer, basically between 22:00 UTC and 14:00 UTC. That covers much of the day, and does not constitute a "good chance" that nobody will be around. To be honest, Mindspillage and I cover most of the day; she is usually getting up and beginning work (online all day, everyday, working for Wikia, and just an email away) as I'm going to bed, and I'm already online as she's going to bed.

I've seen quite a few people say "nobody's ever around", but I'd like to see some evidence, as I *know* how much I'm around, and I know how much I see the others around. I've yet to see anyone able to produce a case where private information was discovered, and no oversight was online; I find it very hard to believe that there are many periods where an oversight is unavailable. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

some art of revenge vandalism

See please User talk:Cerveny kohout and the contributions of this user. I presume it is one of blocked users on cs.wiki where there are great problems with such vandals in last time. I vote to block him, but if he is that one whom i mean, it will not help - he uses dynamic adresses, on cs.wiki he has now about 100 accounts... Thx anyway, -jkb- 17:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

My block of User:Konob13

I've sort of gone out of process and instituted an indefinite block against this user - as I noted on his talk page, he claims in one of his vandalistic edits that he has been ""banned... 12 times now", so I assumed good faith, took him at his word, and banned him again. Was this improper, in anyone's view? BD2412 T 18:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You actually only blocked for an hour, your blocks are conflicting with each other. Prodego ^talk 22:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Why you little *%&#$! Ok, now that the block is fixed... BD2412 T 22:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

An indef block seems fine, not necessarily because he's previously been blocked/banned but because the account appears a disruption-only account. Joe 22:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

sock of previously banned user. dissruptive sock. Yeah I think there is a fairly strong case for blocking.Geni 02:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the block as well. (If I didn't I would have conveniently forgotten to mention the block conflict ;-). Prodego ^talk 22:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.....

1. User:Konob
2. User:Konob2
3. User:Konob3
4. User:Konob4
5. User:Konob5
6. User:Konob6
7. User:Konob7
8. User:Konob8
9. User:Konob9
10. User:Konob10
11. User:Konob11
12. User:Konob12

Prodego ^talk 22:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

6, 9, 11, and 12 are not indef blocked, the rest are. Prodego ^talk 22:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I think this was the guy going around accusing a bunch of people of being anti-semites (like, people who deal with all the anti-semitic garbage that comes up). Mak (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Attack of the autoblocker

Chud Manzier (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • logs)

Hi folks, I originally indef blocked the above user and then unblocked a while back. This user still can't seem to edit because it seems that the autoblocker is blocking him. I tried unblocking any IPs that get hit with the autblocker, and I even tried to unblock him again, but to no avail. Could an experienced admin please take a look and let me know what the heck is going on? Chud Manzier can't seem to edit because he keeps getting hit with the autoblock. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 00:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to unblock this Auto-block. It seems the automated tool is down. Prodego ^talk 01:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've done that one. Seems that every time Chud Manzier logs on, he gets hit with the autoblocker. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I wish we could remove the autoblocker. The idea is sound but it just creates way way too many issues. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee accepting applications for new clerks

Due to recent inactivity of several of our current clerks, the Arbitration Committee is now accepting applications for new clerks. The role has evolved into mostly a janitorial one, more fully described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks. Good candidates will be trusted administrators, uncontroversial and with enough time to make the commitment. We'll appoint about three new clerks after privately reviewing the candidates ampngst ourselves. In preparation for new applications, I have blanked Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Candidates#Clerk_Candidates, where anyone interested should list themselves. Thanks. :-) Dmcdevit·t 01:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert war at Template:Infobox City

I'm vaguely involved so have not protected it, but I suggest somebody watch Template:Infobox City and protect it if reverts keep happening. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Añoranza not being allowed to request unblocking

Could some uninvolved admins take a look at this:[80]. I really don't think Anoranza is being treated fairly here. Even Rex/Merecat was allowed to request unblocking. This all started because of this incident: [81] There's also an RfC related to this: [82] -- Mr. Tibbs 05:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, third opinions (or fourth) are always nice. I'm open to suggestions. Sasquatch t|c 06:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not just let him request unblocking? Instead of removing it repeatedly like you did and then demanding that if Anoranza dares to reinsert an unblock request that you'll protect his talk page? [83][84][85][86] Even User:Merecat was allowed to request unblocking. Why the beat down of Anoranza and the domination of his talk page? If that one week block of Anoranza really is for him to "cool down" it doesn't look like you're helping. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Because he's done it [87], [88], [89], [90] times already and the first one included a continuing attack on other user's intelligence... Why let a user edit again when he's still angry and the first thing he's probably gonna do is seek vengence? Sasquatch t|c 06:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, Merekat's page was protected per policy if a user keeps repeating the same thing over and over. Sasquatch t|c 06:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You posted links to Anoranza requesting an unblock. The same requests you promptly took down and then threatened him over before any other admin could even pop in. I'm not getting your point here. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That's because I am the second admin already. Well, thrid really, 2 admins have blocked him (JDoorjam and NSLE) and I came in after. Usually that's more than enough. Three admins all agree. But again, I'm open to other opinions on here. Sasquatch t|c 06:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That does not explain why you removed Anoranza's unblock requests. You did not respond to Anoranza's request to unblock and say "No", you removed it and then threatened him. And JDoorjam blocked him falsely over a 3RR, not this one week block. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I said no the first time, agreed to one of them, reduced the block, then he continued to put them in. Your right that the first one is not for this block but it does show one of the reasons why he's blocked in the first place. Frankly, I'd gotten sick on the same rhetoric on the unblock over and over and the same accusations of admin abuse. I think I was well within my powers to warn him against it. Sasquatch t|c 06:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sasquatch. SushiGeek 06:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Gotten sick of the same accusations of admin abuse? I think thats pretty much whats happened here. JDoorJam falsely blocked Anoranza for 3RR. Anoranza contested it and it was lifted. Anoranza was then blocked for one week for not contesting it humbly enough. He made some insinuation about an admins counting ability and boom one week ban. Which amazes me because I've seen much more venomous things and I don't see many people getting one week bans. Frankly, I don't know what you wanted Anoranza to say in response to a faulty block; "Thank you sir, may I have another?" -- Mr. Tibbs 07:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

He could of said nothing, he could have said "Don't do that again", he could of said "be more careful next time" he could of said a lot of other stuff. But he chose to insinuate that other users are idiots right during the brief period he was blocked and after. He also showed no consideration that he had done anything wrong showing he obviously will not respect WP:NPA if we let him continue. Frankly, if he wasn't so combative I would have considered a block shortening but all he has done is insist that the other party is at fault and cry wolf over and over. You know what, until another admin says otherwise, I'm leaving this conversation. This is getting nowhere. Sasquatch t|c 07:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Myrtone86 blocked for 48 hours for continuing to use disruptive signature and other incivility

New section as the old one looks stale. I have blocked Myrtone86 (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for a) continuing to use a disruptive signature (an email to me confirms that he currently has no intention of changing it) and b) paranoid incivility and trolling over a period of some days, e.g:

• here, where he removes Tony's explanation for his block with the edit summary "remove personal attack by user that possibly "talks with an American accent," never trust the Americans",
• here where he appears to be trying to rally defence, claiming he is being "scapegoated" (for what, I can't imagine).
• He has also been opposing RfAs for no reason - while he claims to be opposing users which don't say they are multilingual, after opposing Samir, and having it pointed out to him that Samir speaks three languages, he refused to change his vote. [91]
• He has been making good-faith contributions to article space, but many are highly dubious [92].

Going back through his other recent contributions will find similarly dubious edits. Hopefully he might straighten out if the Wikibreak he claims to be taking is actually enforced. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a "used up the communities patience is a good reason for this paticular block. It's all the little things. --mboverload@ 09:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Upload error

Whenever I try to upload a file, when I scroll down to the form, the window suddenly crashes. I Love Minun ^(talk) 11:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dusted: FYI

There was an AfD debate on Dusted a while ago. It was closed on December 03 2005 by Mysekurity, who had requested that a note be issued in the event that the page has been re-created.

The page was recreated by Tildebeeplus on May 31 2006, and the current content satisfies notability requirements.

At any rate, I am about to move the content to a separate page, as there is another noteworthy entry which has been suggested by several links. --Folajimi 13:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Posting of Personal Information And Defamation

An anon user at 71.112.137.120 is posting my full name, place of employment, and defaming my reputation by claiming I am a member of an illegal organization. I am being retaliated against because 71.112.137.120 has been unsuccessful in crafting the Duke University lacrosse team scandal page to their liking. Please take action against this user.

See: 1, 2

Abe Froman 14:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've given the anon a week's block in recognition of the nature of the personal attacks and unauthorised posting of personal information about another user, both of which are strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. -- ChrisO 14:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've disappeared the edits.

James F. (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Picking up where 71.112.137.120 left off, Voretus is reposting my full name and repeating 71.112.137.120's defamation on his user page. See 1. I have asked him to remove it. It remains up. I am being retaliated against by frustrated editors of the Duke University lacrosse team scandal page. Please take action against this user. Abe Froman 18:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed your real name from that page (and from the history). Eugene van der Pijll 19:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC

This arbitration case is closed.

• DarrenRay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2006BC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AChan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The three editors named above are banned indefinitely from editing Dean McVeigh, Melbourne University student organisations, University of Melbourne Student Union, and any related article.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 14:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit war on Serbs of Croatia

This page was under edit war previously, then I protected it and requested discussion, no discussion ensued, I then unprotected the page and promised to block next person to make undiscussed revert, and I just did that as you can see here. But, the only problem is that I feel manipulated by User:Luka Jačov, as you can see from the former link, and I'm not sure the edit war will end here. And protecting of the page didn't help. As being new and underexpirienced administrator, I request help from mode experienced ones. What is to be done? Protect the page? Make WP:RfAr? Block everybody for a week and get drunk? Feel free to unblock the users I just blocked if you feel I shouldn't have done it. --Dijxtra 15:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support the blockings, and I'd suggest longer blockings (a week or more) if they return after 24 hours and continue revert-warring. I'm currently having to put up with complaints because I protected Bormalagurski's user page - see above - because he can't be trusted not to fill it with abuse of other nationalities and nationalist sloganeering. Bormalagurski is one of the people Dijxtra has just blocked. There are far too many people from the former Yugoslavia who seem to see Wikipedia as a chance to continue the wars of the 1990s by other means, and it needs to be made absolutely clear to them that this is not acceptable. There does seem to be some reasonable editing of Serbs of Croatia going on, so I think the solution of blocking the revert-warriors is the right one. --ajn (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

NSLE desysopped

The Arbitration Committee has been made aware of very strong (but necessarily privileged) evidence that NSLE (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) abused his sysop privileges in unprotecting an article which he then used a sockpuppet to edit, and we believe that these actions were done under the direction of a permanently-banned user.

Despite repeated pleas over many weeks from the Committee for some benign reasoning of the evidence, no such satisfactory explanation was forthcoming. Thus, NSLE's administrative privileges are hereby revoked. He may not reapply for them without first obtaining the Committee's approval. The Committee would particularly like to thank Greg Maxwell and Kelly Martin for their efforts in dealing with this situation.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I attest to the veracity of the above and concur. Raul654 18:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur Fred Bauder 21:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur ➥the Epopt 21:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Realizing that Checkuser results etc. are confidential, could you direct interested parties to the record in the log that led to this ArbCom action? What page(s) was unprotected/edited? The more transparency in this case, the better, wherever feasible. Thanks, Xoloz 20:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Xoloz give us more info, NSLE was one of our better admins, and I had no idea what is taking place Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I, too, think transparency to be a good thing and concur in Xoloz' request (I've not always been a fan of NSLE's admin activities, but I'm inclined also to concur in Jaranda's assessment of his efforts, FWIW). Joe 20:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to contact the arbitration committee privately, this information is confidential for a good reason. In the interests of disclosure, I do know the details of the case, but I will not reveal them unless the Committee does so itself.--Sean Black 21:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw this case come past, but missed the vital sockpuppet clue, so I left it as is. Apart from the sockpuppet (I have no checkuser), I can confirm that the above is correct. Kim Bruning 20:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Same here. I can't confirm the sock, but the rest (unprotecting an article in a quid pro quo exchange) is damningly proven publicly. I don't know if the arbcom wants the specific evidence made public so I will defer to them, but rest assured, dig hard enough and it won't be too difficult to find. Johnleemk | Talk 21:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, practically anything more said here would be a dead giveaway, and would be quite damning for NSLE. So I'm clamming my lips shut too. One last thing I can say: It was technically not his fault. Kim Bruning (after triplechecking that I really didn't give anything away with even that) 21:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

So question then... If it wasn't really NSLE's fault, then why the desysophood? Wouldn't a "Geez, NSLE, you messed that one up. Don't do it again." be in order? Or were his privileges revoked because of the lack of explanation? I'm a little confused. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this is giving too much away, but this is only technically the fault of the banned user who used NSLE as his meatpuppet. How to interpret this I leave to you, but clearly someone has to be consciously acting as a meatpuppet. Johnleemk | Talk 21:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Kim's comment did not add to the clarity here. I'll state the obvious by mentioning that there is some activity around the infamous Daniel Brandt in NSLE's protection log, but I see nothing improper in my superficial analysis. Xoloz 21:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Gee, some of the replies here make it seem like nobody believes we will trust the correctness of Kat's statement, that her veracity must be independently testified to. I trust ya implicitly Kat :-). NoSeptember 21:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of trust. The idea that someone can be desysopped in camera isn't thrilling, I think, and a precedent needs to be set to make anything that can be public, public. Xoloz 21:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you need to know? He knows why, the Committee know why. That's more than sufficient. Titilation and curiosity is not the basis for chosing the appropriate mode of action.

James F. (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Me too, but I think the problem is that the same could have been said for NSLE as well. Martin 21:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I was as surprised as you are when I saw the evidence. Johnleemk | Talk 21:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In this instance we have endorsements from several respected editors/admins/arbitrators who are familiar with the evidence, so this is not a matter of trusting a single individual's judgement or veracity. -Will Beback 21:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, it is more about curiosity than anything else. On a different note, I hope NSLE does return as an admin eventually, admittedly I am not familiar with anything to do with this case, but I am familiar with his previous work. Martin 21:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to say "never", but after an act like this I think it would take a lot to assuage serious concerns about NSLE's trustworthiness. --Tony Sidaway 23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

So much for clamming. Those meddeling kids will blab anyway. (or worse, investigate on their own). :-P I'm really not saying another word, because in the end I think it's unnescesarily hurtful to NSLE. But if you insist on doublechecking, I can't stop the curious wikipedian spirit, so by all means, do so! When you come back here, just leave out the clues, and just go "confirm" or "deny" on this page. (that, and that way you won't leave spoilers for other curious folks too :-P ) Kim Bruning 21:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sadly I agree with this after I found out what happened privately in IRC and with research, it's a big shame and im sickened to my stomach that this has to happen. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have better things to do with my time than deal with this kind of puzzle so I'm going for the dirrect aproach:

Is there any significant risk of further problems relating to whatever it is? yes/no.Geni 22:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Most likely. That's honestly the best answer I can give. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well as long as those in the know are ready to deal with them I'll go back to trying to figure out internation, US and UK copyright law.Geni 22:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If the ArbCom members think it's to the advantage of the project to make this public, they'll presumably do so. It's presumably very difficult to become an arbcom member, so I think we should trust the people we've chosen, if they feel it's better to keep it confidential. After all, checkuser results aren't made public either, but only very trustworthy Wikipedians are granted checkuser privileges. I'd feel more comfortable if we could drop the speculation, hints, and half hints. I know nothing about this case. I don't want to know, unless NSLE or the committee chooses to make it public. I found him a conscientious admin. I'm sure it's horrible to be de-sysopped, so I'd like to give him as much support and sympathy as possible, while still respecting the integrity of the members of the ArbCom. AnnH ♫ 22:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It'd be really nice of everyone "in the know" weren't being so coy. We can almost hear your giggles. Really, either say nothing or say everything. Don't drop hints, just tell us or say "concur". Stop being children. --Golbez 22:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes granddad ;-). Concur. Kim Bruning 22:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC) (good wording)

Trust me on this -I am not giggling. I've just decided to remove someone's admin rights for fucks sake. We had to say he's lost his admin rights, we had to say we concur so you know the decision was taken by all of us. We are being coy because we think that's the best cause of action not because we want to titllate. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I know what this is about (unless there was some other page unprotection involving NSLE and a banned user), but am not sure why it amounts to a desysoping. Nor do I understand the need for secrecy. The unprotection doesn't seem to have been unreasonable... is it the action on behalf of a banned user which is objectionable? That certainly could cause problems... but I don't see where it did any harm in this case. If a banned user asked me to correct a factual error, which I could verify to be an error, I would probably do it. Why not? Obviously that's not a direct parallel as the change here was not an unambiguous improvement... but nor was it in any way obviously harmful. Just a fairly generic edit which people might asthetically agree or disagree with like any other. For the record, I don't know much about NSLE except for vaguely recalling a couple sysop actions which I disagreed with (easier to remember those than others) - so my comments are not motivated by any sort of personal connection. I think alot of us have an instinctive aversion to 'secret trials' with 'secret evidence', but even knowing the details I'm not sure what was driving this desysoping. The idea of 'exchanging favors' with a banned user absolutely could be a very bad thing... I just don't see where it actually was in this case. Very dangerous / questionable ground to stray out onto, but what actual harm was done? --CBDunkerson 23:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It amounts to a desysopping because it was a very grave abuse of admin powers in the service of a banned user. --Tony Sidaway 23:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Very vague - which article, which banned user? It would be more serious if it were a featured article than a stub, etc. --Telex 23:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ask the Arbitration Commmittee if you have a reason to know. --Tony Sidaway 23:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that means if you have to ask, you don't need to know ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it means what it says, no more and no less. --Tony Sidaway 23:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is, if a banned user contacts you and asks you to make a change to a protected article (or allow one to be made), and you happen to think the banned user's request is reasonable, the correct thing to do is bring it here and ask the community how they think you should proceed. Our actions must be transparent as well. BD2412 T 23:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Our actions must be transparent, but the Arbcom can make backroom decisions? --Golbez 23:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, not a hotbed for intrigue and secrecy. If someone made a mistake, then let everyone know about it so as to not make the same mistake while writing this encyclopedia. --Telex 23:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me help you out "NSLE abused his sysop privileges in unprotecting an article which he then used a sockpuppet to edit, and we believe that these actions were done under the direction of a permanently-banned user". Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Adrian Bunk

I have just blocked Adrian_Bunk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 1 hour for WP:POINT disruption and trollish wikilawyering. Adrian Bunk is dissatisfied that bad articles about notable topics often don't get deleted, and his PRODs are often removed. He created lots of substubs on German second league players in response (containing just "John Doe is a German football player"), most of which I deleted while trying to clear CAT:CSD. He was told by several editors to stop, and then answered by recreating Andreas Aepken, a bad stub with an external link. Can somebody else help me tell him that he is wasting our time by this? Kusma (討論) 20:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Kusma said on my talk page about Andreas Aepken: The article was admittedly an A7, not an A1, the notability was only asserted in the external link, not the article. You can recreate it and state the notability better using your link if you want, and the stub will not be deleted. This is what I did. And this is what he blocked me for. If this is considered an appripriate usage of administrator privileges, I do hereby request that an administrator other than Kusma deletes my account at the English Wikipedia ([93] with an arbitrary new username). TIA Adrian Bunk 22:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• • You're wikilawyering again, which is a pointless waste of time. What I meant was obviously "You can recreate it and state the notability better using the information provided in your link if you want, and the stub will not be deleted." Your recreated stub was the same as the one I deleted before (except for your addition of "second league"), and was deleted again by Naconkantari. Kusma (討論) 22:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)