Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Erik the Rude (talk | contribs) at 15:10, 18 July 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)

    Visual archive cue: 52


    Tasks

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

    General

    please investigate vandal administrator KillerChihuahua

    The following pertinent and highly researched links keep getting removed by birdmessenger. I have been blocked a few times by a rougue administrator that vandalizes by the alias: KillerChihuahua

    Someone please investigate KillerChihuahua's history in reference to the prayer page.Spicynugget 18:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hasty Blocking by Some Administrators

    The trend to use blocks more liberally has been here for a while and, generally, I view it as a good thing. When I came here, 3RR and ArbCom was about the only source of blocks. Wikipedia changed and the policies written originally became outdated. This is all fine and understandable. Admins now issue blocks at once when the bad-faith behavior seems obvious to them or even for other less clear-cut reason. Again, I don't object to this trend. With more and more editors involved in Wikipedia, the danger of loosing potential edits became of lesser priority but the benefit from preventing the disruption outweighs the cost. However, certain blocks alarm me and I request trigger-happy admins, as well as anyone interested to calmly consider the following case-studies below. Recently, four valuable editors have received some short and medium blocks: Lysy (talk · contribs), Mikkalai (talk · contribs), Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) and Piotrus (talk · contribs).

    The first user in the list (blocked now for 8 hours) have shown some clear head and good judgement despite his having rather strong views on the issues. The other three (each of them having their own issues no doubt) are WIkipedia's Golden Contributors, true treasures of Wikipedia by the amount of the exceptional quality content they add to it on the daily basis. Take out those three and perhaps 10 more people, and Wikipedia would lose about half of its value. Since, according to WP:BLOCK the blocks of users with substantial history of valuable contributions are "always controversial", proper examination of these blocks should not be taken as an offense by the admins involved.

    Let's have a quick look at these 4 block histories:

    • Lysy (talk · contribs) was involved in the edit war today over Erika Steinbach article. User:Donnog reverted there 4 times but Lysy reverted three times. Lysy was assisted by user:Halibutt who reverted once, thus getting an advantage in the revert war. Lysy reported the violation to 3RR board and following which Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (status held since March 2006) blocked both for 8 hours. Lysy, now grossly offended, requests an apology and the one doesn't seem coming. Lysy is obviously aggravated. The polite warning to him would have certainly have the effect without aggravation.
    • Mikkalai (talk · contribs) was involved into an edit conflict with Nixer (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) at the Bolshevik article this June (see this). Nixer has been a problem user for Wikipedia most of the time which is not an excuse for Mikka but should have be taken into account in making a decision on acting against Mikka. Also, an extremely high value of Mikka's contributions is unquestionable. Mikka was blocked at the time by Samuel Blanning (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) in status also only since March 2006. Mikka takes a block lightly and the issue is closed. Mikka's previous block, much more controversial was issued by Ronline (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), a newbie at the time. That block caused quite a stir, especially since Mikka was reverting Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was abusing the articles though open proxies IPs to avoid 3RR. Many people remember that block, Mikka behaved as really and seriously offended and demanded an apology, which was never issued. I was very much afraid that we are loosing this invaluable Wikipedian. Thanks god, things cooled off and Mikka is around, one of the most valuable editors and no-nonsense admins
    • Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) was involved today in the edit conflict with Circeus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) over the Spanish baroque, an especially fine article Ghirla wrote single handedly. A word needs to be said about Ghirla. For his contributions see his userpage. His value of one of the most knowledgeable, dedicated and prolific editor is unquestionable. At the same time, the user is often rather opinionated and, at times, even rude. His immense positive impact overall is no excuse for the occasionally short temper, which I am pointing out myself before someone comes here and starts to deflect the discussion into the civility issues. I do acknowledge them. Now, back to the issue. Following the edit conflict, and a unnecessary harsh reaction of Ghirla (which I don't condone) to the meaningless (IMO) edit of Circeus (talk · contribs), the latter places a "template:Civil" warning to Ghirla's talk. Now, this action is easy to perceive a provocation. The patronizing templates like "test", "vand", "civil" were not intended to be used to communicate to anyone but the newbies. Furious Ghirla responded by calling the template placement "trollish" and Circeus who feels offended responds with a block(!). An angry dialog ensues and more is said at WP:AN here. Judging from the reaction, several users found the block unnecessary. It is also notable that Circeus, like the admins above, is a relative newbie, who said himself on this matter "It's mostly that I haven't been doing much user-related stuff since becoming an admin, so I preferred to get some guidances". However, the natural thing to do in such case, especially if one feels like the guidance would be helpful, is posting a notification of the problem to WP:ANI. This wasn't done. Block was issued and only then the guidance was sought. Please read the entire section "Third Opinion Please" above.
    • Piotrus (talk · contribs) is one of the most prolific and knowledgeable contributor to the Polish topics, also one of more neutral ones (we can only be neutral to a degree when writing about own nation). Last April he was blocked for an edit conflict at the Red Army. The conflict was obviously with a Sock, a new account that did nothing but edit warred with Piotrus and quickly ran to WP:3RR with a report. [That block was issued by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), not exactly a newbie Admin but known for being exceptionally stern in throwing blocks including the lengthy ones (I do not consider that bad per se, to the contrary, old policies with soft approach are outdated). However, the admin did not bother to check what was going on, to see that a conflicting party was an obvious sock, something he must have done when dealing with an editor like Piotrus. Also, why was a polite warning not sufficient?
    • A little different case, but on the same topic. In April Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who though blocked, keeps returning through new open proxies and sockpuppets, produced a false report on myself alleging a 3RR violation at Uprising of Khotin. Those 4 edits he produced where not within a 24 hour time frame to begin with, of those only two were reverts, and reverts were not about the content dispute, but on the POV-tag the sock was reinserting to a well sourced article refusing to give a required by the tag explanation at talk. A detailed analysis is here but the overall issue is similar. There were plenty of red flags to give a complaint a detailed analysis (submitted by a non-use IP accountr, time stamps in complaint missing, etc) and still the analysis was not done.

    I could see how nice it could feel to decide who to punish and who to spare, but getting into judging the issues requires an utmost responsible and careful approach. Studying the matter carefully instead of making a hasty decision should be a must. Yes, people are busy, but no one requires from any admin to frequently check WP:3R and WP:ANI and impose blocks on the problem users. If one doesn't have time to do it with care, better not do it. There are plenty of other admins. If one takes upon himself to enforce the rules whose misapplication is emotionally sensitive to the editors involved, he should take an extra time to study the matter. We've seen the aggravation of some very respected editors for being illegitimately blocked or chastised on the sock/troll provocation or by the conflict co-participant or otherwise inappropriately when the blocking Admin didn't care to study the matter or was too eager to exercise the powers, or lost his temper or because those powers were newfound or because they were acquired too long ago to remember about the responsibilities that come with them.

    Summary. To summarize, I do not advocate any special treatment for anyone just because of his past contributions. Violators should be punished. I also do not advocate the return to softer treatment times. Blocks by judgement are necessary. However, no block should be issued in haste or when someone's own head is hot. Such a common sense rule as studying the matter, especially when the user is established enough to be sure he knew what he was doing (perhaps there were reasons), is no less necessary as before when the blocks were more rare. I submit these thoughts hoping they would help to decrease an amount of future aggravations for all of us. --Irpen 06:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to add that a day or two after posting this, Irpen was blocked himself for the first time during his long stay in Wikipedia, evidently as a punishment for Irpen's having started this thread. Another typical case of a controversial block, which should not be undertaken without proper consideration, as per blocking policy. After such a long stay in WP Irpen is getting blocked for the first time... for what?.. has he violated 3RR? nope, his edits were not even reverts, strictly speaking. He just did not care to get adminship early enough and now he will be blocked at whim. I suggest all prolific contributors on Eastern European topics should leave this project to the mercy of trolls, nationalists, rogue admins, and Polish Cabal. Amen, Ghirla -трёп- 07:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no WP:CABAL of administrators, Ghirla, just as there is no 'Polish cabal'. Such offensive remarks are not going to change people's opinion of you for the better, I am afraid.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to admins: It's a good read --mboverload@ 06:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I have unblocked Lysy, but it is mostly a symbolic gesture as his block was about to expire anyway. I do not think he deserved this block anyway. In the other three cases the blocks have expired, so now we have to mend the hurt feelings of the extremely productive users. People who work more on Wikipedia then on their paid jobs see us, admins, as the people who owe them some gratitude and respect, it is worth to spend a few more minutes before taking an administrative action if we can make solve a problem in a more respectful way. It is easier say than done, obviously ( I am afraid I am guilty in a harsh 3RR block as well), but lets try. abakharev 06:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that many young admins are too trigger-happy and prefer to exercise their tools on those who have lots more wikiexperience than themselves, rather than focus on vandals and trolls. I believe Ronline, when blocking Mikka back in December, felt like one of those rogue referees at the World Cup, hoping to assert his authority by handing our a red card to Zidane. Too many admins think that blocking the most prolific editors around is great fun. Unfortunately, there is no working mechanism to stop their antics. And never will be, as long as lack of responsibility is in the interest of other admins. When I pointed out to these concerns following Mikka's block half a year ago, there followed WP:AAP, and that's where the matter ended, as best I know. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will make one comment on factual matters, that is that Lysy requested an apology on my talk page fifteen minutes ago, and this was the very first I had heard of it so could not be expected to make one by the time of this post. Stifle (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • After consideration, I wish to observe that blocking Lysy did not serve a useful purpose and was incorrect on my behalf. However, I remain on record as saying that he revert warred. I also wish to note that Alex Bakharev neglected to consult or even notify me about unblocking Lysy. For now, though, everything is at its desired state. Stifle (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since Stifle wished to mention here that I've requested an apology on his talk page late and that Alex Bakharev neglected to consult him for unblocking me, I think it should be also noted that I've suggested an apology would be desired immediately in my unblock request while Stifle apparently was busy with other edits. I've also sent him an email asking to have another look at the case. Yet Stifle had chosen to ignore both my unblock request and my email. I could not have written in his talk page as I've been blocked at the time. I had also not emailed any other admin but the one who had blocked me. Alex Bakharev's unblock was more an act of courtesy than anything else, as I had the last hour of my block time left. I believe he could not consult Stifle at that time, as he was unavailable then. All this said, I too think that everything is at its desired state now and consider this case closed. --Lysytalk 06:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Your block of Lysy is only a part of the problem. Pity, there is little interest to what I wrote from others and little feedback. If others don't see the need to avoid aggravating valuable editors unnecessarily by acting hastily and enjoy feeling great by deciding whom to spare and whom to punish without due care, we will be loosing editors that we could have kept. So be it if others don't see the problem caused by simply lack of due diligence in disposing of admin duties that has so sensitive consequence. --Irpen 04:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, come on, you found a wrong page to raise the issue. Do you seriously think that any admin will discuss the problem of admin's responsibility? Don't be naive. Rogue admins block content creators because they know that no punishment or investigation will ensue. As I said many times, there is no such thing as admin's responsibility in this project. No defrocking procedures, nothing at all. It's clear from the above summary that admins, who were given tools to counter vandals and trolls, increasingly turn them towards some of the most prolific content creators, while the others either connive or don't care. As all the above blocks are clearly in violation of the Blocking policy (see "Controversial blocks" section), they not only expose the ignorance of blocking admins in WP guidelines but also should be subjected to a detailed scrutiny in separate RfCs, not here. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment is that while I agree that administrators should be careful and considerate when administering blocks, the errors or misjudgements will happen - that's understandable and expectable. I do however fully support Irpen's summary of the issue. --Lysytalk 06:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Pity, there is little interest to what I wrote from others and little feedback. Maybe you were just so thorough that no-one found anything to add and so careful that no-one found anything to disagree with :) Haukur 11:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe you can be interested in this discussion about the policy.--Pokipsy76 15:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I wish to publicly compliment Irpen for his excellent, and quite detailed analysis of the matter in his above remarks. His summary is also right on the money. For a non-Native English speaker your contributions are superb. A second reading of his remarks and some reflection on them, would do us all a lot of good. Dr. Dan 13:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ghirla is probably right about, nothing coming of this, at least not on this page. Nevertheless, better that the idea goes "on record", at this time. Irpen, I re-translated or copyedited the title. I think this conveys your point a little better. Forgive my presumptiousness (sic), for doing so, and change it back if you think the original is better. Dr. Dan 15:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a nice summary of a problem. I probably would be harsher in describing Ghira's behaviour but then I am not objective here so I won't :) So back to the main issue: what to do? I'd suggest introducing some rule (or guideline) that when considering blocking an experienced contributor (how do we define experienced?) admin should consider warning the user instead. On the other hand, there are users who are known to completly disregard warnings, and for those, I am afraid blocking maybe the only 'shock' strong enough to make them more cooperative. Nonetheless I'd suggest that when in doubt, admin should warn the party (parties) involve, if he sees they are composed of experienced editors. Block should be the last resort, talk should always be first.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, before even warning, double check! Maybe there is a good reason. Actually, always double check and when dealing with Piotrus, Mikka, Ghirla or alike tripple check. There is likely a reason for what you see since these users know policies. Second, do warn, unless you are crystal clear that the block is deserved. When in slightest doubt talk first and ask at WP:ANI. Third, never use admin tools or even admin clout in the edit conlict you are involved. If block of the edit conflict opponent in the conflict is warranted, use WP:ANI. --Irpen 02:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure about the warnings in case of 3RR violations. An experienced editor would know that he's violating the 3RR and that he should not be doing this. Certainly we can assume that an experienced editor knows the policies better than a novice does. --Lysytalk 20:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. But what to do when user deletes warnings and his common reply to criticism is their deletion ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6])? In such a case it seems to me like blocking is the only remaining course of action, and it seems to me it had a desired effect (caused the user to rethink his position). I do hope that Ghirl returns when he has matured enough to be a civil contributor.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Lysy, exactly because experienced users usually know that they violate 3RR it is worthwhile to check that maybe there are reasons for it. For instance, they are dealing with a sock or a vandal or a sneaky vandal/sock whose account looks like a newbie's one but who apparently knows how to quickly submit a 3RR report, like the one who caused Piotrus' block or the one that caused the first Mikka's block and who managed to get myself "warned" by William who did not bother to check at that time.

    Piotrus, I find your using even this very page to continue your anti-Ghirla crusade totally appalling, I am sorry. You may be happy though, since he indeed have left, at least for now. --Irpen 02:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Irpen, I think I should point out that the term like 'anti-Ghirla crusade' maybe considered a personal attack, as it creates an impression I am making remaks designed to hurt or otherwise attack Ghirla - although I am sure you didn't mean it it that way. As you have started this thread, and lumped together me, Halibutt and Mikka with Ghirla, I thought I would point out that not all cases are as similar as you make them out to be. I will not comment on my case, and I agree with your use of Halibutt and Mikka's cases to illustrate the problems with some blocks, but in case of Ghirla, I am afraid his block was long, long overdue. Still, I would much prefer the outcome that sees Ghirla educated in wikiquette and such, back here, and building encyclopedia with us then scenario involving him not being here. However, the current scenario of him being here, creating valuable content while being impolite, biting newbies, calling estabilished users trolls, engaging in revert wars and generally creating an unfriendly working atmoshere left much to be desired. Whether it is better to have an uncivil but prolific editor, or not have him at all, is a complex matter, but I think all can agree that the best outcome would be to have a civil and prolific editor. Hopefully where years of carrots and appeasment in form of talking have not worked, some ban-sticks may yet yeld that desired effect.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Piotrus, you know I don't talk with you until you are defrocked. Your unqualified happiness at my departure is premature, as after reading all of your recent triumphant postings celebrating the successful end of your months-long anti-Ghirlandajo crusade, I may want to review my decision and to return to contributing on Polish-related topics. Take care, Ghirla -трёп- 07:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This "threat" is exactly what I was talking about. Ghirla, I hope you come back, but I hope you will learn how to behave, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Piotrus and Ghirlandajo, please try to reconcile your differences. You are both valuable editors, and the English Wikipedia is best served by having both of you contribute, despite some of your differences. Under this discussion thread, please try to stay focused on the issue raised by Irpen-- hasty blocks of valuable content editors in general, which I think we all can agree is an important matter deserving serious consideration. 172 | Talk 08:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with 172 and could not help but point out that this exchange of spats here was started by Piotrus who carried his grudge against Ghirla even to this thread which is about a totally unrelated matter: what an admin should do when an editor like those two seems to be deserving a block.

    As for the issue itself, I already suggested the answer: do block, but not without a thorough investigation, because perhaps, what may seem like a block-deserving behavior may turn out to be a legitimate dealing with a sock, vandal, troll or WP:BRD. I would like to point out that Piotrus, along with several other valuable content creators, is frequently my opponent over various article's. Many times we went through WP:BRD-type development, and when this was going on, the discussions at talk pages were intense but the articles were edited intensely too. Never did I go back to check the article's history to find out whether Piotrus or Halibutt or Balcer (or myself) produced anything that may be suitable for WP:3RR report because I would never try this on those editors and I was sure no one of the users above would try doing this to me. If, however, an uninvolved admin would have just reigned in with a bunch of blocks, instead of looking more carefully at the matter, it would have been utterly useless for the article and utterly harmful for the editors involved. --Irpen 02:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What grudge? What spats? I agree with you almost completly, with the exception that I think Ghirla deserved his block, and you are doing yourself a disservice by using example of Ghirla, a user warned by ArbCom about his behaviour, in arguing for an otherwise worthy case which I wholeheartly support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been blocked just for inquiring why I was previously blocked on Admin Nlu's discussion page. Then Nlu went back to the Administrator's noticeboard and deleted my notice of his/her violation of the 3RR rule on my discussion page. Welcome to Wikipedia. - Policeman of the Control Freak Wikipedia Admins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcyu (talk • contribs)

    This is not relevant to this thread. The three revert rule does not apply to vandalism. Werdna (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is against the rules to delete a 3RR review request - if Nlu felt justified, the issue should have been addressed, not deleted. This point is relevant in that Admins have authority without having to answer to anybody, which as we all know from Stanford_prison_experiment, can be counterproductive. - Policeman of the Control Freak Wikipedia Admins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcyu (talk • contribs)
    This looks to me like a content dispute spilling over onto this page. I cannot see any comments by you to either his talk page or the administrator's noticeboard for 3RR violations. Checking the deletion log, I cannot see any comments that have been "deleted" by him, either. I am therefore forced to believe that you are (a) Lying; and (b) Unjustified in using this space as a soapbox. Werdna (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Role Account - User:Hydnjo

    I don't want to do this. They are great users who've been around for a while. But, it goes without saying that User:Hydnjo is a role account. Period. Thus, shouldn't they be blocked? The answer is yes, of course, but I haven't blocked them yet because these are two very nice users that folks generally seem to like, who have never hidden that the account was shared (although, unless I've missed something, it hasn't really been pointed out that it is technically a role account) and who contribute good work to the project. This is a tough call: We have a job to do, which will risk losing two great users, or we have a job to ignore, which makes our jobs harder in the future. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • No. Apply common sense. They're good, nay superb, editors. Antandrus (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly, no. The only reason we block role accounts is that it we don't know exactly who mades which edit, for GFDL purposes; but in these cases, where two individuals are closely connected, there is an extremely low probability of any trouble if the exact person is not identified. (Is the husband going to sue the wife for a misatributed Wikipedia edit? No. Come on.) As they are not causing any trouble, but the contrary is true, there is no reason to block. Titoxd(?!?) 00:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing on meta about GFDL issues, although even Hydnjo's contributions could be a theoretical concern if GFDL is an issue. I think a bigger picture needs to be reviewed here: does allowing the first and so far only non-Foundation role account force the community into creating a process of role-account-approval? Because, you know, what's good for the goose... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is most likely not the first shared account, nor will it be the last; it's just being pointed out right now. We do not suggest using accounts this way ever, but no harm no foul. What's the worst case scenario here, they get divorced and havea custody battle for their edit attributions? — xaosflux Talk 01:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, if you 'don't want to do this'...then don't. For one, it's bordering on disrupting Wikipedia to make a POINT. To wit, "If you wish to change an existing procedure or guideline...don't push the existing rule to its limits in an attempt to prove it wrong..."; "[one should not]use...Wikipedia rules to thwart Wikipedia policy." Suggesting that we ban two perfectly good and highly productive editors because you believe that there has been a breach of a technicality is...well, how about you tell me? What do you hope to accomplish by this?
    Second, it's only a rather ungenerous reading of the rules that would demand that the account be blocked anyway. From WP:SOCK#Role accounts (my emphasis):
    Role accounts, accounts which are used by multiple people, are only officially sanctioned on en: Wikipedia in exceptional cases at this time. The one currently permitted role account on en: is User:Schwartz PR, the account for a public relations firm working closely with the Foundation. If you run an account with multiple users, it is likely to be blocked.
    We should congratulate the exceptional editors Hydnjo for their unofficially sanctioned role account that, despite the likelihood that it would be blocked, hasn't been.
    Finally, Wikipedia policies are descriptive, not prescriptive. If the sockpuppet policy lags a bit behind actual practice, or fails to exhaustively describe and consider all possible situations, we ought to update the policy or – perhaps more wisely – simply acknowledge that this project's rules are necessarily flexible sometimes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's a husband and wife team and they're good editors then let them be. I think it's sweet. Ask yourself WWJD? ("What would Jimbo do?") --mboverload@ 02:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the reasoning behind the current role account policy? ~ PseudoSudo 02:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Umm *blush*, if this is of any help, I'll add that I (Joe) have been doing all of the keyboarding (see [7] [8] [9] [10]). Although the username in question is indeed a neologism constructed from our names, and although many first person references are plural, I find no evidence that this problem is anything more than a tribute to my wife's inspiration to and patience with my WP contributions. In that way, she feels a part of the goings on around here and I see nothing wrong or confusing about that. Thanks to all for your kind words of support. --hydnjo talk 03:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate Jeffrey Gustafson sharing his concerns; that is the correct action, of course. However, I agree with the others that I don't feel any further action is necessary. I believe following the spirit of our policies is far more important than following the letter; they are not laws which we must abide by (nor is the lack of a policy automatically make an action acceptable). I think this is just one of the areas we use our judgment; I've been aware of Heidi and Joe's shared account for quite some time now (and I consider them wiki-friends), but I am quite comfortable in my assessment that community opinion would favor their continuing. I don't really see how GFDL could be a concern if we allow edits from unregistered users. Of course, I'd be unlikely to support a shared account gaining access to administrator privileges. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think there is any problem here. In my opinion anything which helps blind people contribute is probably a good thing. Haukur 10:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with the support for Hydnjo. A husband providing all the keyboarding for himself and a legally-blind wife who would have some difficulty keyboarding otherwise is a very different situation from a dozen employees using an account to edit an article on their company (for example). --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In my view, this account is technically really only used by Joe... it is just that Heidi gives him most of the suggestions and advice... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The circumstances here are unique. There appears to be no problem whatsoever, and no likelihood of a problem. Consensus is obviously strongly in approval. The blindness issue mentioned demands special dispensation. There are always exceptions - this is one of them, but it should be noted it is a very specific exception. Tyrenius 22:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In the words of Judge Mills Lane "I'll allow it." User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I see absolutely no problem with this account. Everything posted to Wikipedia from that account is posted by Joe. As I see it, he (they?) chose the name Hydnjo to emphasize the sharedness of their thoughts, since Heidi is blind and cannot post messages herself. It's not as if Heidi logs on on Monday and Joe on Tuesday. Nor do I think that Joe types his own posts on one occasion and has Heidi dictate to him what to say on another. As far as I know, every use of first person singular referred to Joe, but he used the username to acknowledge the influence she has on his thoughts. AnnH ♫ 22:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If anyone blocks this account, I will unblock it and block the block-ity block block blocker for being a total blockhead. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Seconded, as it goes against an obvious community consensus for special dispensation. Tyrenius 09:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think we can say that this is our "officially sanctioned" role account, and if so, could we ammend the role account section to include this account? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a role account. If only one person is doing the posting, then it is a one person account. There is no rule against allowing others to look over your shoulder. Even if it were a role account, obviously it is non-abusive and should not be blocked. NoSeptember 09:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

    I thank one and all - Jarandal, Antandrus, Titoxd, Xaosflux, TenOfAllTrades, mboverload, PseudoSudo, Knowledge Seeker, Haukurth, Deathphoenix, Zzyzx11, Tyrenius, Zscout370, AnnH, Rick Block, Tyrenius (again), Zscout370 (again) and NoSeptember for your support.

    To Jeffrey O. Gustafson who initiated this block request I ask why? We have had no interaction until now so how do you come to this requested action at WP:AN? Did you come across my account during your own research or are you acting as a proxy for another admin/user with whom I've caused to be angry with me? In reviewing your contributions I see no such "letter of the law" before now and so I feel singled out by you and I have no clue as to why - that to me is most disturbing. If you've come to this action on your own then should I be always wary of another admin challenging the legitimacy of my account?

    For TenOfAllTrades who advised me not to worry and Rick who made me laugh I give special thanks, you've helped me to not take this so personally. And to Jeff, thanks for being courteous in informing me of your action and for letting me feel that your heart wasn't for blocking me.
    Except for my one explanation above, I haven't edited for a few days now so as to allow y'all to comment about this based on my history of contribution rather than my reaction to it.

    I wanted to say all of this before it all goes to archive heaven. I still have a lingering concern that this may arise again and don't want to go through WP life looking over my shoulder or worrying that I might piss-off some admin and cause another inquiry about the legitimacy of my account. If any of you who have been so gracious as to take the time to support me here have any suggestions to prevent such an action, please drop your thoughts on my talk or by email.

    Finally, on a personal note to all, I never ever expected so much supportive response from all of you. I know that I've been moody at times and have spoken in ways that I have regretted the next day. I hoped otherwise but it seemed that those unfortunate responses might end up being my legacy as they were the foremost in my mind. And so far as this being a "role account", I think that I'll let the descriptions of AnnH and NoSeptember (both above) stand as the most intuitive descriptions of this account. My (and our) warmest regards to all of you for your understanding and outward support for the continuation of hydnjo's user account and future contributions. Again, my delighted and humble thanks :-) --hydnjo talk 02:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    user:AdilBaguirov making attacks

    I merely point something out on the discussion page and user:AdilBaguirov attacks me and my nationality. He then insults my country men as shown here [[11]]

    I mention something for academic reasons on Talk:Talysh-Mughan Autonomous Republic and he decides to attack me and insult me by attacking my nationality. Iran's human rights records had nothing to do and no relavancy to the subject at hand. Basically he was telling me to shut up becuase he did not like what I had to say. Good thing I am not a blind nationalist, I am upset though becuase it was clearly a personal attack. I reacted calmly and told him to keep comments directed towards edits and not editors.

    It must also be noted that this user has almost consistantly been the subject of conterversal behaviour including uncivil behaviour, disruption, and ongoing edit wars. Here is one example of what he has been up to recently [[12]].

    He really needs to cool down and be handled by someone. If the information I have provided needs further clarification, please do not hesitate in contacting me. Thank you. 69.196.164.190

    Protected, deleted pages

    There is a discussion at Template talk:Deletedpage#How temporary is this? about deleted, protected pages that should not remain protected after several months, with no reason to think they will be recreated, and whether there should be some automated system or guideline for getting rid of them. —Centrx→talk • 04:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No idea how to work backwards to solve the existing instances without running a bot over the categories, but if the {{deletedpage}} template was dated like {{prod}}, it might help. -- nae'blis (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is no reason to think they will be recreated is there in harm in having them there? --pgk(talk) 17:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is reason to believe that they could be recreated as legitimate encyclopedia articles. I provided one example, Paris Flood, and there are undoubtedly others like that. Less obvious are articles about persons, which is one of the common uses for protecting a deleted page. There are always many people with the same name, some of whom could warrant an article, or the original person could become notable. There are more than a thousand protected-deleted pages, and the default on Wikipedia must be for it to be editable, not protected. If there is no reason to think that an article will be wrongly recreated, then it should be unprotected. Even if there is some minor reason to think that it will be wrongly recreated, it should be unprotected for the same principle by which we don't just protect every page that has more than average vandalism. —Centrx→talk • 06:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Another important point is that we want to avoid metadata clutter in the article space. For one thing it uselessly shows up in search results. Haukur 08:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Really need to look into.

    I got a message from 24.192.44.141 which really scared me. I believe that this user is a predater and needs to be blocked immediately. Karrmann 07:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The best of intentions in asking to meet a fourteen year old boy? A case of AGF gone awry - air on the side of caution, here. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It is irresponsible to ignore a request for protection from a 14 year old who has received an inappropriate message. It is not usual for blatant requests for meetings to to be posted on wikipedia. 24.192.44.141 could see that Karrmann was 14 as it states it on his user page, where the message was also posted, not on the talk page. At the bottom of the message was the request "Please delete after you read this." The user did say, "I know where you live", to be precise: "I live near you (Detroit area)". It is no wonder that Karrmann is frightened. The user who posted this message either has untoward intentions or is incredibly naive. Whichever way round, such a message is inappropriate, and would be interpreted with great suspicion by most people. It would certainly not look good if it got wider publicity (which is not unlikely with wiki watching sites) and could be very damaging for wikipedia. I suggest the block is reinstated and also the abuse report. This has to be taken seriously. The euphemism mention does not help, and, if Karrmann's (understandable) fears that he has been contacted by a predator are true, it is hardly likely that a predator would announce his intentions blatantly. The edit summary for this invitation to meet is "Vandal hunting". It is also the user's only edit. Tyrenius 02:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have copied all of the above to Jimbo Wales talk page. Tyrenius 03:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "Vandal hunting" is the name of the section that he edited. --Chris (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)copied from User talk:Jimbo Wales Tyrenius 05:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm starting to think I'm alone in seeing the concern over this as a rather panicky overreaction. For the record, I'll state that I'm uninvolved in this situation, other than as an observer & commentator. Alex Bakharev has already acted immediately to block the user until the situation could be investigated. After he gathered the facts, he unblocked the user, even before I finished inquiring about the block. The user said nothing other than that they lived in the same metro area (them and about 1 million other people) and that his car, pictured on Karrmann's userpage, was available if Karrman wanted to see it. On that page, Karrman states once that his age is 14, and several times that he drives one car or another. At the least, Karrman's talkpage gave mutiple messages about his age. However, without there having been a specifically inappropriate message, I'm not sure how much the age matters. The comment could be interpreted badly, but I really see this as a classic example of the need to assume good faith not only in article edits.
    The discussion of this issue has bounced from WP:AN to WP:AR to Alex Bakharev with a sidetrip into User talk:24.192.44.141. We are building a fear-fueled Chinese wall between adults & youth, both here in the project & in society as a whole. Growing up, I knew nearly every adult in my neighborhood, spent time with some of them, even visited their houses unescorted. I emerged unscarred & unmolested. Karrman & Alex Bakharev both exercised extreme caution in this situation. However, the situation has been considered in several fora, investigated by the blocking admin, and resolved. Where is the remaining issue? And why isn't it an issue of dispute resolution, if there is some dispute with respect to this action, rather than (another) discussion in Jimbo Wales' talk page? --Ssbohio 14:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The first thing Karrmann says on his user page extremely prominently is that he is 14. It is at best a bad lapse of judgement for an adult to contact a 14 year old in this way and to suggest meeting. At the very least he should have asked Karrmann to let his parents know. Instead the user ends the message "Please delete after you read this." It is the first and only edit from that IP address, and the user has not come forward to offer a public explanation to reassure us or Karrmann. Karrmann has obviously been badly frightened by this, and it is a duty of care towards him to show that we are taking this seriously. I don't think this is something that admins were chosen to deal with and it at least needs to be known about at a higher level of the Foundation. This is not building a fear-fuelled wall between adults and youth. That already exists in society when an adult stranger suggests meeting a youth in this way, and also wishing to hide evidence of that suggestion. The fact is that Karrmann is seeking the help of adults he trusts, in order to protect him and make him feel safe over one he doesn't. He is entitled to know that he can do this, and it will be taken seriously, not trivialised as "a rather panicky overreaction". I'm not panicking: I am exercising caution and due diligence. Tyrenius 01:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm inclined to think that the IP user is the same as Loungelistener (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) who uploaded the edsel. (→Netscott) 01:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Another thing where does Karrmann (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) legally drive his vehicle(s) if he's 14? (→Netscott) 01:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    From Karrmann user page: "Cars I've owned - Ok, well, technically, they are my parents' cars, but you get the point." On private property I hope. Tyrenius 02:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. There is seriously something untoward here. No one with good intentions would instruct you to delete a message afterwards like that. They might suggest you can delete it if you so choose, but not impress its neeed for deletion. It certainly doesn't sit well with me, though a block at this point might be pointless. With dynamic IPs they could have had 3 different IPs since then. I think the page was semi-protected, I'd recommend continuing that for now.--Crossmr 01:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Marco Materazzi

    Please keep an eye on this page as some anon's and new users (perhaps the same person) are vandalizing and adding attacks and other comments irrelevant to this article. I don't think it would help much or warrant blocking, as the person just gets a new IP, and a lot of it is caused by random people finding this article and thinking its discussion page is for gossiping about the World Cup. —Centrx→talk • 10:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Trying using a semi-protect. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    03:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC) The anon commentator referred to is me. Talk page is for discussing changes. Which is what is being done. I firmly protest the user POV being pushed by both Panairjdde and Centrx above. This is against the guidelines provided, and everyone has a problem with Panairjdde who obviously has a conflict of interest as an Italian. This needs a neutral POV .The dicussion page is civil, and none of it is gossip, but news from various sources. Terming other's comments as gossip on the other hand is more direct than tangential. Please someone do have a look, and tell me what is vandalized here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.141.69.21 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

    See [13], [14] for blanking of other users' comments and other vandalism from this particular IP. Other IPs involved, with the same behavior and taunting messages and likely the same person, are 202.141.64.243 [15] and 11:04, 202.141.64.107 [16]. —Centrx→talk • 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Only one user Panairjdde, after he did the same to my decent request for providing Sources and adding an extra Heading. I assure you I havent changed IPs(yet) ,and none of my remarks have been taunting. 05:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)~

    I think that the person is new. I note that someone issued a block warning on his page, which is bizarre. The parties involved both wrote to me, and as usual both cases can be argued. Centrix would like to limit the discussions and stick to the topic, and our new friend has a different (wider) definition of what can be discussed. I cannot see any problem with that. It just needs an agreement.

    The real problem is a third party threatening to block a new person. This can cause trouble... Wallie 16:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure this could be characterized as a new "user". If indeed he has been at the same IP, he has no article edits and all of his edits are related to Talk:Marco Materazzi, none of which discuss improving the article.[17] —Centrx→talk • 01:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    userpage copy

    It appears that User:Pido1337 has dropped a slightly older copy of my userpage into his, subsitituting his name for mine. Is there any problem with my removing that? Joyous! | Talk 17:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Your userpage is released under the GFDL. As long as he complies by those terms (through attribution), there's absolutely nothing you can do to get him to stop "ripping off" your userpage. Hell, I do believe I copied my talk page from someone else awhile ago ... I no longer remember who, though it is somewhere in my talk page history. --Cyde↔Weys 17:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but IMHO copying the barnstars and the contrib list is at best uncool. Just my 2 cents. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not concerned about my layout being copied. If someone feels that the design of the page works for them, then more power, and all that. I am concerned that he's copied the "I'm an administrator" note. And I'm missing any attribution from the article history, or elsewhere. Joyous! | Talk 18:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Copying userpages is not really all that big a deal, I copied my first real design from Cool Cat. After all imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I did remove the reference to being an admin however, and left a note. Prodego talk 19:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see attribution anywhere, and apart from the barnstars and contributions he also copied some lyrics by Yusuf Islam, which are most certainly not GFDL, under the heading "Some of my works". There's also what I assumes to be the US constitution <edit> and the lyrics to The Battle Hymn of the Republic</edit>, but presumably both those are public domain. I removed the barnstars, the contributions list and the copyvio lyrics, but as far as I can see the whole thing is technically a copyvio. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not by the editor, as the editor doesn't own the page anyway. Copied user pages have come up before and been OK'd. Maybe strictly speaking for GFDL purposes the edit history of the page might need to be copied across as well. Tyrenius 04:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Offensive

    Freerick created a user box with the message "someone thinks this user is fuckable" and a corresponding category. Not only are these most likely to be offensive, they are also likely to be sexual harrassment. The user has placed them only on 3 pages (besides his own).[18][19][20]. I have deleted all instances, the template and the category. This would seem to be an aberrant lapse of judgement on the part of Freerick, (intended, he says, as a compliment), and there is no immediate evidence of similar previous behaviour, so I have placed a strong warning. I am posting this in the interests of transparency over this matter and my actions. Tyrenius 00:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Good call. -- Francs2000 File:Flag of Buckinghamshire.png 00:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it'd be okay if "fuckable" were changed to "attractive". Deco 03:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I, the author of the content in question, strongly disagree with Tyrenius' assesment of this situation as described above and I am disappointed that he chose to deprive me of my right to freedom of expression by censoring content that I created and that I have used and distributed in a manner that does not interfere with the rights of others. First I'd like to address content that I place on my own user page: since that page is created by me and its primary purpose is to relay information about me its cannot be considered sexually harrassing to me, or anyone else. The reader is under no obligation to visit my user page. Moreover, profanity is not banned on Wikipedia, instead it acceptable per Wikipedia's policy on profanity.
    As far as other users' pages are concerned, users may remove the content that I put on their user pages at will. I will not re-instate content on another user's page after the user in question, _or_anyone_else_, for that matter, has deleted the content. I may advise the user, however, that someone has deleted content that I placed on their user page. The user in question has the option to keep the content or discard it. My actions, therefore, are in no way harrassing or offensive. The allegation of (sexual) harrassment would be justified if I distributed content in a discriminatory, derogatory or otherwise demeaning manner, and if I did so clearly against the will of others, or pervasively, even after specific complaints have been received. So far no one has complained, except Tyrenius, and I did not modify his user page in any way or associate my content with his account. I have made it clear, as Tyrenius contends, that the content I authored is gender-neutral, not meant offensively, and intended as a compliment. To underscore my point that the content in question is not offensive, please note that the content in question has remained on the users' pages for a long time, with the users' full knowledge, as I have made them aware of the situation in some cases via their talk page or the edit summary. The user(s) in question had every opportunity to remove the material, address the appropriateness with me, appeal to an administrator or take other remedial actions. None of this, however, has occurred.
    I feel that Tyrenius' actions not only encroach on my rights to freely express myself, I find that they also create a chilling effect, discouraging myself, as well as others, to continue to contribute to Wikipedia with an open mind, for fear of being expelled from the Wikipedia community, should their views not be in line with those of the administrators. Specifically, Tyrenius' threat to block my account in spite of my obviously positive contributions to Wikipedia underscores the chilling effect that his action has on the community.
    Unless I receive a specific request from someone who finds my material offensive or harrassing, I believe that I have the right to distribute it freely, so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. Should that situation occur, the affected user, admin or guest should address the issue on my talk page, rather than executing an arbitrary summary judgement.
    Since, as I stated above, I respect other users' rights to edit their own user pages, or any other pages, for that matter, as they please, I will not revert deletion of my content from other users' pages. However, I believe that I share the same right as other users to include the content that I want on my own user page. Therefore, I disagree with Tyrenius' decision to remove benign content that he personally happens to finds offensive, but does not violate Wikipedia policy. If we cannot reach an acceptable consensus, I do intend to appeal his decision and would like to thank him for his candor and forthcomingness when explaining his decision. (Patrick 05:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a forum for free speech, and your suggestion that removing a userbox, which could easily be taken as offensive/harrassing (if you don't think that walking up to someone and saying "hey, you're fuckable" might be taken as an offense, you have severe social problems), may discourage people to "continue to contribute to Wikipedia with an open mind" is nothing less than utter bollocks. Wikipedia is not Myspace, it's an encyclopaedia. We don't want this kind of 'contribution'. I think Tyrenius' warning was lenient and you are severely pushing your luck with this ridiculous defence. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Fellow Wkipedian, please note that according to the page you refer to above, Wikipedia is not censored and "...may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." Sam, are you suggesting that defending my position on this is grounds for suspension of account privileges? I cannot conceive that Wikipedia has any policy that would support such a stance, so if such a policy does exist, kindly point me to it. In addition, your comment above starting with "We don't want this kind of 'contribution'. [...]" suggests that you believe you are speaking on behalf of *all* Wikipedians, which I do not believe to be the case. If you have evidence to the contrary, however, please let me know.
    As far as potentially offensive content is concerned, I am only referring to content I posted in user space, not content in name space, which should certainly be kept encyclopedic. In user space, Wikipedia policy traditionally provides an outlet for editors to post on a wide range of topics, including their own opinions, even if such views may be unpopular. I noticed that the supporters of censoring material in user space who commented above use ad hominem attacks and threats of suspension in an attempt to possibly discourage those with opposing views from speaking up or perhaps to shield their arguments from public scrutiny. This is understandable, since conformity by the masses is an essential requirement for authoritarian leaders. Please be advised, however, that such arguments may provoke and encourage those with opposing views from yours to enter the discussion.
    In order to provide a fair playing field for other Wikipedians, please refrain from personal attacks and threats, especially if you are advocating to other users to refrain from distributing offensive content. Thanks!
    “If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.” (Avram Noam Chomsky)

    (Patrick 04:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

    You say "I noticed that the supporters of censoring material in user space who commented above use ad hominem attacks and threats of suspension in an attempt to possibly discourage those with opposing views from speaking up or perhaps to shield their arguments from public scrutiny." I would be grateful for an apology over this use of the plural, which obviously included me in a sweeping statement, as I opened this discussion in the first place precisely for people to speak up and express opposing views if they wished. Tyrenius 04:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree with userbox removal. -- Samir धर्म 10:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Tyrenius, indeed, I'm sorry that I wasn't precise with my language above. I should have said "...the supporters of censoring material in user space who commented above and use ad hominem..." (emphasis added, of course). Again, I do appreciate that you mentioned the matter here in order for others to comment; this shows that you believe that your decision was justified and that you acted in good faith. (Patrick 20:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

    Samir, Tyrenius, Sam, et. al, I don't have the consensus needed to keep the userbox content that I created but I disagree nonethless with the decision to prohibit me (or anyone) from posting this (or any) content on my user page, so long as its removal is not absolutely necessary (e.g. as required by law), and even in such extreme circumstances such a decision might frustrate me and I would most likely raise questions regarding the justification of said action. I'd like to again emphasize that I feel that even the suggestion that stating my position regarding this matter, even if it is the dissenting position, would warrant expulsion or other repercussions, does not contribute to a positive and efficient working environment. On the contrary, and without regard to the content discussed above, such a suggestion discourages editors from making statements (in user space or elsewhere) that may not be popular, but valid, nonetheless. Many editors, especially those who are newer members of the community, may not see themselves in a position to withstand a personal attack, or the threat of a summary judgement by an opposed admin, which may result in, possibly unwarranted, blocking. Unless this is disputed, I think it is necessary to clarify here that a user ought not be banned or otherwise reprimanded for stating his viewpoint in discussion, in the appropriate space therefore provided, regardless of the matter that is dicussed or the position that is taken. (Patrick 20:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

    I don't think Samuel Blanning is threatening to block you for expressing your opinion in a forum which is available for comment, more a figure of speech to indicate how strongly he feels you've got it wrong. We can all make mistakes, and an apology clears the record. The very first use of it caused offense,[21] for which you have not apologised to the user. To continue to argue for it so vehemently is now reducing your credibility, when third parties have pointed out how unacceptable it is.Tyrenius 12:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Free speech is free speech, and if you think that saying that another person is 'fuckable' means you lack social skills, then perhaps you've never been to a bar before. Or perhaps no one thinks you are fuckable. Regardless, I agree that the userbox could be construed as offensive. However, simply being offensive does not seem to be enough to warrent its total deletion and threats regarding account suspension. (Toaster 06:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    This comment was posted by 72.197.178.213 who has 2 edits -- Tyrenius 05:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, Why exactly does 152.163.100.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) have a 1 week block applied?

    It seems like people have gone a bit crazy with AOL IP blocks in the last few days. Just because you can give an insanely long IP block doesn't mean you have to--152.163.100.200 00:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    HAsn't there been a vandalbot attack from AOL ranges recently? That might explain it.Circeus 00:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's always one form of attack or another, but whatever vandal was using that IP probably continued to use it for about 5 or 6 minutes before passing it on, which means about 6 days, and 23 hours worth of needless collateral damage--152.163.100.200 00:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, I don't consider preventing AOLers from editing anonymously to be much in the way of collateral damage. As long as the block was applied properly registered users can still edit. Thatcher131 02:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm not the vandal, and it would have (and did) prevent me from editing, several times in a row, long after the vandal had moved on I'm sure, that does seem like collateral damage.--152.163.100.200 02:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any reasons for you to not work as a registered user? abakharev 03:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It was my block. I have removed it now. Frankly I was impressed by the amount of vandalism from this particular IP and by a complete absence of productive edits. Still assuming that allocation of IPs by AOL is not completely random and that the number of determined vandals using AOL as an open proxy is low, then long blocks on a few AOL IPs would significantly reduce the amount of vandalism from there. The only collateral damage will be that some users would have to spend a few seconds to register. abakharev 03:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, god forbid, change ISPs. No one has a right to edit Wikipedia, it is a privilege granted by the foundation and its agents. If it turns out that we gain more by blocking AOL, then so be it. If it means that much to you, then change ISPs. This isn't the mid-90s anymore - there are more than enough ISPs for anyone in any location in America to choose from. --Golbez 02:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jerry Jones and CongressRecords

    I have been exchanging emails with Jerry Jones. He wants to return to editing. I think he has done a pretty good job of identifying the problems that got him banned. It might be that he won't work out, but I will monitor him closely and coach him a bit. The original problems are at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive103#Jerry_Jones.2FJJstroker. He wants Jerry Jones and CongressRecords restored and the rest of his sockpuppets deleted. Fred Bauder 01:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is guaranteed to end in tears and would say he's caused too much trouble to return, but if you want to monitor him etc., I wouldn't stand in your way, provided that any return to previous behaviour is dealt with promptly. Tyrenius 09:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think I can do that. One thing I don't want to do is go through a rehash of all of his past offenses. I'm afraid that will be a lure both for him and others. Maybe I'll advise trying a new name. Fred Bauder 13:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly object to lifting the community ban of Jerry Jones/JJstroker/CongressRecords/etc. This user was legitimately blocked due to serious, repeated violations of core Wikipedia policies. Most seriously, he plagiarized material over and over again, and then refused to acknowledge the behavior when confronted with the evidence. Similarly, his image uploads have been problematic, as shown by the numerous warnings on his talk pages. Furthermore, he has been a very one-sided POV pusher, even posting on Stormfront.org asking how to justify his edits here. Lastly, he has used a string of sockpuppets to evade his ban. Bauder has given no particular reason to unblock him. If he can share in detail this user's admission of guilt and promises to refrain from all of these inappropriate behaviors then it might be different. But a sneaky, plagiarizing, neo-nazi editor is not someone for whom we should be bending our rules. (Since when do we "delete" accounts?) -Will Beback 03:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If it is necessary to bend rules I won't unblock him. He seems willing to follow our rules at this point. I have no interest in his point of view. Fred Bauder 03:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What has he said to you to convince you to overturn his ban? Has he admitted to breaking the rules in the past? If he doesn't admit to making past errors then his promise to not make future errors is worthless. -Will Beback 03:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe we should assume very cautious good faith. If this user really has reformed, he will have to prove it, and, furthermore, prove it for a long time. There should also be a strict understanding that any blatant violations will cause this user to revert immediately to current status. Editing should also be strictly limited initially, probably by exclusion from certain articles and/or limits on number of edits per day, so they can be properly monitored. Tyrenius 04:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am going to unblock Jerry Jones so he can join the conversation here. He is expected to edit only in this dialog, not on any other page. That way he can be questioned regarding his admissions about past activities. He has admitted errors in the past. Fred Bauder 11:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone explain why he needs two accounts? -Will Beback 18:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not 100 percent certain about the correspondence between the committee and Mr. Bauder, but if there are any remaining questions I will be more then happy to address them openly and honestly. If it is possible I would like to be integrated back into the wikipedia community. I promise to comply with any conditions set upon me. I can honestly say that I have seen the errors of my ways and it is my personal guarantee that if allowed back to the project that I will refrain from any behavior that can be deemed inappropriate. I can objectively see how some of my past behavior constituted a critical lapse of judgment on my part and for that I apologize. I just want to put all of these issues behind us and work together to build a quality encyclopedia.

    Thank you all for your time.

    Jerry Jones 21:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    PS: As for the two accounts I didn't know the procedure. I believed that administrators needed to unblock the Jerry Jones account to keep it on file just incase they needed it as a reference for some reason. You are free to delete them and in fact I encourage you to delete all of the sockpuppet accounts. I apologize for creating them as I know it was against wikipedia policy and for that I am dearly sorry. Jerry Jones 22:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jerry, thanks for having that attitude. In our prior conversations you denied making any errors, so I'm not sure what it is that you have now seen. Can you please list your previous errors? If you don't recognize your previous errors then it will be impossible for you to avoid them in the future. Also, we need to account for all of your other usernames? There's a partial list at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jerry Jones. What others are there? -Will Beback 22:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, I did this as an administrator, not as an arbitrator. This is an administrative talk page. I just suggested your new name be known to the arbitrators since they are somewhat close-mouthed. But please answer Will's question. Fred Bauder 00:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    New name? We haven't yet finished discussing whether this user should be unblocked. Per Bauder's terms, he is only allowed make edits to this thread. -Will Beback 00:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was definitely wrong when I made controversial edits without seeking a consensus first on the discussion pages. I should have definitely asked for a third opinion if I entered an edit war as wikipedia policy instructs people to do. I think this really applies to my edits concerning use of the term racist and far right. Reviewing these edits now I can certainly understand how I presented a questionable image of someone with an agenda. The reason I didn’t remove use of the term “far left” for articles was because it simply wasn’t necessary and the term is not nearly used to the same extent as far right. I still believe that I am not as bad of a guy as I was made out to be, and I feel my edits can be justified if looked at objectively in the proper context. I believe the biggest mistake that I made was the copyright violation for 1924 immigration act article. At the time I didn’t really understand proper referencing and copyright laws in relation to wikipedia, but as you have brought that to my attention it is hard for believe that I was able to do such a thing. Repeating such mistake to me now is just morally out of the question. I am pleased to say that I have learned how to properly reference material. As for copyright violations with regard to photos, I believe that was a little blown up out of proportion. On my Jerry Jones account I uploaded around 500 photos and the vast majority of them were properly uploaded with the correct copyright tags. But given that copyright laws are sticky things, even the most experienced editor can run into problems and be asked to verify the copyrights of certain photos. Pinkville told me that the time to be 100 percent sure for copyrights is before and not after. I thought about that a lot and I believe that he is right. If there are some photos where I am nearly over 90 percent sure that the image is free use that is not ok I need to be 100 percent sure. So I will not go and add copyright material and if I chose to reference something I will be sure to do it correctly and rewrite the material. I will also not go and remove use of the term “far right” or “racist” especially without seeking a consensus first on the talk page and strictly comply with the decision reached there. But I do not plan to make such edits anymore.

    I created this name thesettingsun recently because I didn’t think that I would be allowed back to wikipedia. I was reading an article and I noticed that an image was removed and wanted to help by adding the picture back to the article that had a copyright problem because I knew that the copyright was fine and wanted to help the editor who originally added it. I apologize for creating it but I didn’t intend to use it further I just wanted to help and follow the decision of the committee. I can’t edit in the shadows and I just want to come out if that is ok. If you can monitor me I will be sure to be on my best behavior. I apologize for creating the name.

    Thank you for your time.

    71.131.192.42 00:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked TheSettingSun pending resolution of this matter. It seems to me that editing with a sock puppet even while asking to be unblocked is not evidence of good faith. Exactly when did you decide that you would start following WP policies - just in the last 18 hours?? You have not answered my question about your other usernames. The copyvio and plagiarism matters are two separate, though overlapping issues. Please explain what error you made at the Immigration Act of 1924, and at Breckinridge Long. Separately, please explain how you know of the copyright status of this photo that you just uploaded? Image:Baarovaax.jpg Did you use the right image tag? You say that the webmaster of a website told you this this picture is fair use. Image:Baarovaax.jpg. Could you please email to me a copy of that statement? [22]. I ask because you have uploaded dozens, maybe hundred, of copyvios under your various account names. I count 67 complaints on User talk:JJstroker, 7 more on User talk:Jerry Jones. Image:ProhibitionClosedSign.jpg - why is it free use? If you are uploading images it is incumbent on you to know the correct copyright status. You have been told this many, many times. Regarding your POV pushing, it extended to articles beyond "far right" or "far left" topics; in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive103#Jerry_Jones.2FJJstroker we discussed your edits regarding Jews, Democrats, and African Americans. We also discussed your disruptions to Wikipedia to illustrate points. What is your response to that discussion? (Recall that you've said you didn't get enough opportunity to respond at the time). -Will Beback 01:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Dipping into your upload log, can you please explain the copyright status of these images: Image:Mug1173.jpg, Image:BobCerv2.jpg, Image:CharlesCoughlinSpeech.jpg, Image:FrederickJelinek2.jpg, Image:Barnett L.jpg, Image:Bakula22.jpg, Image:Gsmith2.jpg, Image:42_Burns.jpg, Image:Winrod22.jpg, Image:Amrally.jpg? -Will Beback 02:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I had discussed creating a new account so he could get a fresh start. I was thinking of disclosing it only to the arbitrators. My thought now is that it should be disclosed to those who are familiar with his past problems. I am disappointed to see him using another account on the 15th of July to edit with. Fred Bauder 03:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jones neglected to mention that he's also been editing using 71.131.192.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). His POV edits have included removing unflattering information about a major topic of his, Charles Coughlin [23], adding a dubious claim of conditional use to a photo he'd upoladed,[24] and buffing the biography of Goebbel's mistress.[25]. This editors doens't need a fresh start: he keeps coming back to the same topics. -Will Beback 09:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    RisingJapaneseSun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (by checkuser) Fred Bauder 11:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reblocked him, as a community ban. Thank you for your input. Fred Bauder 11:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that is the wisest course of action, as this user's promises of reform seem to be empty. I now see that he has been making improper assertions of "public domain" regarding images he's been uploading to Wikicommons.[26] -Will Beback 21:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    thecelebritycafe.com

    I came across this website when doing some cleanup; it's linked from several Wiki pages and does contain some original content (such as an interview with Oz Garcia) but the site is as advert-laden as any I've ever seen. I'm tempted to go through each one and keep or delete based on relevance and original content. Thoughts? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 12:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Makes perfect sense to me; it's what should be done with any website, really. That link is currently used on 23 pages; anyone interested can find a full list here. Essjay (Talk) 16:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, 14 links remain, and each appears to be an original interview specific to the site. The rest have been replaced with a legitimate news site link or, where appropriate, nuked altogether. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know about that feature. Thanks, Essjay. -- Kjkolb 03:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This page was previously requestd for page protection but the request was not properly fullfiled or denied. Myrtone

    As the article has only been vandalised 13 times in the past year (albeit 6 times in the last two weeks), I don't think it necessarily needs page protection. Proto::type 14:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just semi-protected it for now, but will remove within a few hours. Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the response. It was I who listed it for semi-protection. A few hours protection will make absolutely no difference, you might as well unblock it now. The problem is with a proxy spammer over several weeks. The article is low-traffic, with few regular editors, and all the edits within the last month have been the spam, or (mainly my) reverts. I was hoping protection would serve to foil the spammer's plans, but it might as well serve as a proxy honeytrap for now. Please add it to your watchlist. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, the spammers are all beleived to be open proxys or Zombie computers and have been forever blocked. Myrtone

    Indeed a different one each time. Just like in the films it doesn't matter how many you kill, they just keep coming. :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Luis Jiménez (sculptor) needs help

    The article about Luis Jiménez (sculptor) really should be Luis Jiménez and then one of those pages that allows the seeker to choose between the sculptor and the footballer. Currently googling Luis Jiménez to find the sculptor [who is probably (opinion) getting more searches than the footballer] does not lead one to wikipedia. Help. please. Carptrash 18:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, we can't be responsible for Google, but Luis Jiménez is and should be a disambiguation page. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    US Military Bases

    The unblock list has received an e-mail from a US serviceman. It claims that editing from that base is banned because of the actions of one particular user. Are military bases s special cases like schools or AOL users?Capitalistroadster 19:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    216.143.138.153 (talk · contribs) troll at large

    FYI. Phr (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD closing review

    As I feel I might possibly get some heat and questions regarding an AfD I just closed, I figured I'd report it here for community review. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent-Meridian High School. I am not an administator and I was involved with the discussion at this AfD, but I closed it several days early as keep. The article that was nominated is now far removed from the article that exists (it was improved dramatically. The discussion in the AfD has digressed to sarcasm and personal attacks. There is no point in this remaining open for those reasons. So I'm offering this here for review of others. Thanks, Metros232 20:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You didn't remove the tag from the article; by all means be bold, but please also be careful. -- 86.131.218.85 21:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Done with my apologies. Metros232 21:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You state good reasons and the nom was withdrawn as well. I'd recommend still letting something in dispute run for the 5 days. You can put up a note asking for civility. Check out non admins closing. There doesn't seem to have been much heat to date. Tyrenius 16:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue, however, seemed to be that no one was reading the entire discussion, so a civility request would have been easily missed. If people had read the whole discussion, they would have seen her withdrawl of the nomination. They also would have seen that the article had dramatically changed since its nomiation. I don't think the discussion was still in dispute, I think the consensus was not in doubt based on the updates to the article. After the article was changed and updated (around 00:00 13 Jul) 1 delete vote was added, a couple of deletes were changed to keeps, and 13 keeps were added. And yes, I probably shouldn't have closed the discussion since I was involved, but it had barreled into a forum of sarcasm, finger-pointing, and personal attacks that probably wouldn't have been solved with a civility note. And fortunately, aside from one apparent troll, I haven't gotten heat over this. Metros232 17:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed the points you have made, and this is doubtless why no one is creating a fuss. However, I suggest in a future similar situation to make all those points in the discussion, particularly drawing attention to NPA and CIVIL. If things are getting particularly nasty, then ask for admin assistance, and abusers will get warned and, if they persist, blocked. However, people on AfD sometimes get carried away and then respond positively once inappropriate behaviour is pointed out. Try putting the civility request in bold, or at the top (which everyone presumably looks at) or repeating it each time there is a problem. Also re. change in article, try inserting a space, then an announcement in bold that the article has been rewritten and earlier comments apply to the initial version. Anyway, you are acting in the interests of the project. Tyrenius 01:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Impending edit war at Republika Srpska

    I am going on vacation and will not be able to monitor this page. I had it protected and it clearly needs some effort to deal with some obvious edit warring. It's unprotected right now, but heads up, if some admins want to go take a look it would probably be a good idea. Thanks. Wikibofh(talk) 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Wipfeln

    [27] User talk:Wipfeln [28] [29] I smell trouble. WAS 4.250 23:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you know???

    I'm putting out a call to all interested administrators. Recently, Template:Did you know has been falling far behind the times. Currently there are plans to have an update roughly every six hours. At this moment-in-time, it has been roughly 20 hours since the last update. If there are perhaps one or two interested Admins that would be willing to help out with updates in the next few days, we could really give some of the regulars (For example, in no particular order: MGM, Lar, Brian, Cactus.man) a break. There are easy enough instructions to follow on the talk page and the guide and bold updaters would be appreciated. Let's pitch in and give these guys and gals a hand! Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The template is now updated, but more helping hands are always welcome :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 10:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll second this call. DYK is an important program and the more admins we have updating it, the better. For many new authors this is their first chance at "fame" and it often can set the hook to convert an occasional editor to a solid contributor. The old hands will help you out so please, give it a try, we have loads of great articles waiting for selection and as I speak, the template is eligible for update. ++Lar: t/c 15:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    PoolGuy again

    User:NavyBlueAnkletMarionette. Some people never learn do they.... Raven4x4x 01:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wikipedia is fucking shite

    isnt that name a policy violation?Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me petition 03:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked. Thanks Naconkantari 03:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do I get the feeling that wasn't a question? hehe --mboverload@ 04:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tyrenius

    User:Tyrenius is using his new-found admin powers to edit my talk page and delete a relevant link that has been approved/endorsed by other more experienced admins, and is threatening to use his new powers to block me if I do not subject myself to his censorship. - Chadbryant 03:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As Chadbryant is effectively claiming he has a community consensus for his viewpoint, I am leaving his page as it is, so we can see what the community consensus is. He has posted a link (the link can be found here) to what he claims is the real identity of another editor. It is obviously forbidden to post personal details of another user, and a link violates the spirit of this, even if the letter might be deemed to have been observed. Chadbryant claims this user is a vandal who has harrassed him and admins have therefore approved this link. There are procedures for dealing with vandals, and this is not one of them. Even if all that Chadbryant claims is true, it is still unacceptable, and furthermore leaves the door wide open for this "loophole" to be completely misused. Tyrenius 04:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This may be one stepped removed from actually posting the content of the link on Wikipedia but that argument is sophistry and it may be that this incident invites a clarification of the policy section posted above—something to the effect of: "Note that edits which have the effect of releasing personal information, such as posting a link to an external source where personal information is contained, with the intent of disseminating that information, will be treated the same as if the content was directly posted on Wikipedia." Though it should be clear by context, I endorse Tyrenius' actions, and would be interested in seeing substantiation that the "link...has been approved/endorsed by other more experienced admins."--Fuhghettaboutit 04:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the link should be removed, as well. In my opinion, personal information should only be released when necessary to prevent harm, such as serious vandalism. The intent of the page linked to appears to be to embarrass the subject. There are enough admins that you can find a couple who will endorse almost any position (although not the same admins for every issue), but I doubt that there is a consensus among them that the link is fine. -- Kjkolb 04:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The link should be removed. A user talk page link to a webpage claiming to expose the identity of any other editor, and defaming the individual in question (dink or not, abusive sockpuppet master or not) is inappropriate -- Samir धर्म 10:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed this link. See user talk page. Tyrenius 16:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Infobox Actor

    We need some help with the actor infobox template Template:Infobox actor. We need the image field fixed so you can simple put "example.jpg" in the field and it will image tag it and resize- I'd say 200px seems to be the norm for infoboxes. Once that's done, we'd love a bot to fix all the exiting ones, where users have been using [[Image:Example.jpg|200px]] inside the field, as the fix would cause duplicate pictures. Thanks a lot, I think it's an important infobox that just needs some professional TLC, as it will be useful on hundreds of wiki entries. --TheTruthiness 06:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking up the discription of a Image moved to the commons

    Hi! I found this image on the commons, which hasn't a proper source discription. It only states the English Wikipedia as a source, but since the image is deleted here, this is not enough. Could an administrator please look up the deleted discription page of that image an tell me, if there is the real source given? Thank you? -- iGEL (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

    03:09, 14 August 2005 . . Wikiman86 (Talk | contribs | block) 1,489×1,164 (267,709 bytes)
(Hapkido students practice throwing and locks in a dojang. {PD})

    -- Drini 15:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Original descriptive text: Hapkido students practice throwing and locks in a dojang. {{PD}}
    Someone later changed that to PD-US, but same difference. No source or anything given, so I wouldn't trust the claim of PD much... Shimgray | talk | 19:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PIO blocked on it.wiki

    Hi, I saw you also had some similar troubles with this user, so better to let you know that this user has been blocked for one year in it.wiki for personal attacks and verified use of sockpuppets ([30], [31], [32], [33]) enforcing a political agenda. We removed some malicious comments on his userpage which could eventually lead to legal troubles. He escaped the accusation of legal threats only because expressed in a wrong form. He might also be proposed for definitive ban, we are at an early stage of discussion and we are still ckecking his edits. Greetings, Sn.txt --151.44.43.149 12:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Psychomelodic's userpage

    I feel his userpage is in violation of WP:UP, can I get a second opinion? — The King of Kings 16:09 July 15 '06

    His userpage is violating WP:UP I think. That's my feeling. Do you want to say anything to this user about his userpage? ForestH2 t/c 16:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I do feel it violates two points made in WP:UP under "what cannot be on your userpage":
    • Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia
    • Opinion pieces not related to Wikipedia or other non-encyclopedic material
    I think these need to be addressed to him, but I wasn't sure how to without looking like a dick while doing so. I think he should just remove the big bold letters of communism has killed...give it another chance. Everything else can stay if it wants to though. — The King of Kings 16:28 July 15 '06
    Yes, maybe you want to remove them or I can. ForestH2 t/c 16:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'll be WP:BOLD. :) — The King of Kings 16:44 July 15 '06
    Darn, you Bold without me, thanks for removing it. — The King of Kings 16:48 July 15 '06
    Ho hum. Watch his page and if he reverts revert after him. I've also left a message on his talk page. Logging off. ForestH2 t/c 16:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not an offensive content, but a true encyclopedic fact. Get your hands of people's userspaces.  Grue  09:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, but I think shouting in BIG bold letters Communism has only killed 100 million people, lets give it another chance is beyond encyclopedic. — The King of Kings 22:12 July 17 '06

    User uploading a lot of images without tags

    User:Fame has uploaded numerous images without copyright tags in the last month+ (about a month and a week or two). Since June 8, the user has received 18 different notices about them from OrphanBot. Some of the images have been tagged by other users, but I don't think I've seen the user go back and correct the tags on his or her own. What's the best way to handle something like this? Metros232 16:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I went through all his uploads and tagged for orphans and nsd's so most of them are tagged now. I'll leave a message on his talk page about uploading Images without tags. Best way to handle it is to talk to them. — The King of Kings 17:07 July 15 '06

    1921 in New Zealand and up to 99 other 19xx in New Zealand a huge mess

    Please help fix these articles, most contain untrue, embarrassing, and insensitive content left from the template that was used to create them, in the race to be the millionth page creator. Most of the articles are decades before the content, and most say that a leader of a non-existent political party at the time those articles cover, is a person who in fact is recently deceased. If its not fixed it is likely to become a national scandal in New Zealand, and flow over to wikipedia internationally. I have tried many times to bring this to the wiki community in New Zealand, but only a few pages have been fixed as a token gesture, eg 1925_in_New_Zealand. I have just checked 1935_in_New_Zealand, 1941_in_New_Zealand, 1938_in_New_Zealand, 1921_in_New_Zealand all with erroneos content. A few have been partially cleaned up such as 1927_in_New_Zealand but still have false ontent such as Triple J Hot 100 songs, a radio station that didn't exist until 1970's, ie at least 70 articles, and in fact is Australian, NOT New Zealand radio. I believe intervention at a higher level is called for after several months of relative inactivity on these articles. How does the wiki community allow such outrageous behaviour, and what is the correct process to fix it?moza 16:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I would note that this user has made similar complaints in the past and that the articles are being actively worked on by several people. In the last 30 days there have been approx 850 edits to the articles to improve them. None of these have been made by User:Mozasaur however. See [34] and increase the 500 to a larger number for stats source. - SimonLyall 02:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is wrong, and you know it is, or someone else knows it is, presumably you or they lived through these events. simply delete it. I saw a couple of statements on Wikipedia about some event, and rang up a person who I knew was an eye witness to see if it was correct. The person said it wasn't, so I deleted it. Simple. Wallie 15:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    enough banter, the only important thing is to clean up the mess. Its not about editors, its about editing. I created a management page to check on the progress, although the matrix needs a wiki format. New_Zealand_Wiki_cleanup.moza 04:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You should have created that page at your User space, as it is not allowed to have them in the main space. -- ReyBrujo 04:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Make it a Wikiproject and move it to the Wikipedia namespace. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So User:SimonLyall knowingly made a whole bunch of articles full of incorrect information out of a desire to create the 1000000th article. That's deplorable. I don't call that editing in good faith. Simon, you should be pulling all-nighters trying to fix all the errors that you knowingly and wilfully introduced into Wikipedia. Snottygobble 04:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am begging an admininstrator for help.

    I am begging an administrator to give me a little help. I seem to be under attack. I believe a lot of false accusations have been leveled against me. I am ready to leave the Wikipedia project. I feel as if I have entered a vicious insane asylum. Please email me at MichaelDWolok@aol.com Michael D. Wolok 17:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Since you apparently have a Request for comment currently ongoing concerning your conduct, you might be better off explaining there - you don't seem to have given your side of the story... -- ChrisO 17:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Table of maintenance tasks and who does them?

    Anyone know if there's a more or less complete list of maintenance activities anywhere and who does them? Seems like there could be a table with daily/weekly things that need to get done with a list of folks (or bots) who do them. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've started a list at Wikipedia:Maintenance/tasklist. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    SUKI(tm) claims

    Could someone have a glance at Talk:Suki? There are escalating problems with a collective hoax: edits, notably to Suki and New World Religion, from various IP addresses asserting the existence of a major world religion called SUKI(tm). No reputable published sources have been provided. Prime mover is 64.110.251.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). It's been merely a long-running nuisance until now, but is starting to turn nasty with threats of disruption and retaliation towards specific editors [35]. [36] Tearlach 23:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The above was moved from WP:LTA as it seemed more appopriate for notice here; no comment from me. 68.39.174.238 20:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin help required in moving You (song) to You (Kumi Koda song)

    "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move." (repost, this was removed by Werdnabot. Maybe this request needs to be posted elsewhere or?) Br, Brz7 21:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes it needs to be taken to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Joelito (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've redirected You (song) to You (Kumi Koda song) as the content of the two pages was identical. Gwernol 21:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That was not the proper way to do this. The page history now rests at the redirect. I will make the move properly. Joelito (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The move has been performed. Joelito (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Br, Brz7 22:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    AMorrow tries to edit by proxy

    Andrew Morrow , who is banned from wikipedia is curently trying to rewrite considerable pieces of wikipedia related articles, including Larry Sanger, History of Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales, but also Barbaro and John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. All pages are now semiprotected, and I have undone the more recent changes, but would appreciate if others would like to go through the last two as there is a lot of stuff going on there.

    At a seperate note, he has tried in the last days to edit the Jimmy Wales article by proxy, trying to to use me as his online editor (which misserably failed, as if I am stupid). For several days, I have just let this go, but after the recent flurry of edits at various pages, I fee I can not let this go. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree that we need more eyes on these articles and several more. I'll post the others in a few minutes. --FloNight talk 14:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Incomplete list of articles that Amorrow is suspected of editing in the last 2 weeks. District of Columbia Civil Contempt Imprisonment Limitation Act, Florence Nibart-Devouard, Wikia, Wikimedia Foundation, Digital Rights Management, Wikipedia:Wikimedia, Wikia, Inc., MediaWiki, David Kelley, Michael Davis the disambiguation page, Wikipedia:List of banned users

    Suspected recent sockpuppets of Amorrow. ConeyIsland (talk · contribs) Doublespace (talk · contribs) Double2space (talk · contribs) TechsMechs (talk · contribs) TechsMechs2 (talk · contribs) TechsMechs3 (talk · contribs)

    Will add more later. Welcome those familiar with his MO to review for errors. FloNight talk 15:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Checkuser indexing

    Begin Public Service Announcement

    For those who don't know, an index of previous public checkuser requests are kept at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case; each case has its own subpage, and all are indexed there. All requests, including those that were denied and/or came up unrelated are included. (Let me be clear: Having your name on that page does not equal being a sockpuppeteer. We include all requests, even those made in bad faith, so there is a permanent archive that a request was made.)

    Now, for the public service announcement: The checkuser index is only complete insomuch as we know about requests. If requests are not made, or results are not reported, on RfCU, then they are not recorded there. Often, someone will make a request directly to a checkuser, or will post something here or at RfAr that results in a check, with the results being delivered in the same place. Unfortunately, those often fail to make thier way to RfCU, and as such, aren't indexed.

    In the interests of maintaining as complete an index as possible, a report page has now been created for posting such results. Anyone who sees a checkuser result posted somewhere on Wikipedia other than RfCU should copy it to the "reports by non-checkusers" section of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Unsorted results with a diff of the original posting (so we can confirm authenticity). The checkuser clerks will then see that it is indexed.

    Thank you for your time and assistance. Essjay (Talk) 15:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    End Public Service Announcement

    User:Antichrist

    Can someone look into this user? His username appears to be in violation of our username policy. This user has been here for a while, but nothing has been done about it. — The King of Kings 17:55 July 16 '06

    Wow. King of Kings vs. the Antichrist. - Jmabel | Talk 17:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats ironic, but my signature isn't a religious referance, its a referance to a song. — The King of Kings 18:03 July 16 '06
    Which specific part of the policy is violated? Do you have any evidence that the user is disrupting the project? I briefly reviewed his/her contributions, and didn't see anything obviously amiss. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically, WP:USERNAME which the policy states:
    Inflammatory usernames: Wikipedia does not allow potentially inflammatory or offensive user names. Inflammatory usernames are needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and distract from our task of creating an encyclopedia. Inflammatory usernames consist of names like... and Names of religious figures such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah", which may offend other people's beliefs.
    — The King of Kings 18:13 July 16 '06
    The characters listed are pretty major, the heads of various religions. The 'antichrist' is only referenced in one part of the bible and isn't actually an 'end boss'. What's the level of religious notoriety we should stick to? Would User:Thomas or User:Peter be subject to this as well? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Um.. no. Peter and Thomas are common names, the name "Anti-christ", is not. I think that Christ is just a big a "character" as you said as God, Allah, Jehovah or Buddah. Point is, Christ, and being anti-, could offend editors religious beliefs as could saying being anti-god, anti-buddah, etc. and policy says username blocks can be applyed to said names. At the least, he should be encouraged to change his username. — The King of Kings 21:26 July 16 '06
    The user name is wholly inappropriate. It is synonymous with using "Satan" as a user name, and any argument about how that's just an angel and only some people think it's the source of evil would just be silly. We rule out usernames where people cleverly try multilingual puns and numerical combinations to get to "fart" or "lesbians are yummy" or similar, so this is well past the line. Geogre 03:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to agree with user:Jmabel that I see zero difference between the offensiveness potential of Antichrist and King of Kings. Both users are quite consciously flouting the letter while disingenously arguing no intent to flout the spirit of the rule. Both the letter and spirit of the rule are to avoid user names that a large proportion of readers are likely to take as a religious allusion, either positively or negatively. All we need is an accumulation of names chosen to press others' buttons! I really doubt the veracity of those who claim that they are unaware of the religious connotation but who don't cheerfully say "oops, didn't mean that, i'll pick a name that doesn't annoy people" when it is pointed out. alteripse 03:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Alterprise, if you bothered to see my comment above that the name King of Kings which is just my signature, is in reference to the King of Kings song, not a religious reference. I did know about the religious reference it was never intended on being it nor do I want it to be because of annoyances like this. — The King of Kings 15:03 July 17 '06
    Of course I "bothered to read" your comment. Your "I didn't intend it as a religious reference" defense was exactly what I was referring to. There is no point asking people not to use a certain class of username if the user can say "oh I wasn't referring to that Mohammed" or that banned user. I, and this policy, don't really care what you had in mind, if to a large proportion of our readers it immediately conjures a holy or an unholy or a politically offensive name. If it was chosen in good faith and you didn't intend the religious allusion, then why not actually prove the good faith by changing it? If you really don't understand what your username means to most of us, just google "king of kings" and see what more than 90% of the hits refer to. So we either have a policy of asking people not to choose religious names, or misleading names, or banned names, or politically offensive names, or names that immediately suggest any of those to most of our readers, or we don't. But it makes no sense to have a policy that can be evaded by saying "mohammed really refers to the name of my neighbors' iguana". I don't really care whether you keep it or not, but the hypocrisy when you supported the policy against another username made comment irresistible. alteripse 02:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I think your assume good faith switch has been disengaged. You and the policy don't care? I do believe it's just you that doesn't care. In good faith, I would and have asked everyone who had a problem with it to ignore it, and if you really had a problem with it, I would refractor on their talk page if I chose to comment there. I think changing my signature would only prove that I was pressured and bullied into something I didn't want to do, in which I won't change. I won't change my signature because of a Motorhead reference, if you don't like it, I ask you to look the other way because policy doesn't say anything about not making a reference to a song. 90% of the google results show that King of Kings probably refers to the religious reference because it's been around since BC times. The song I make reference to has been popular since March of this year. Theres a few hundred thousand years differance between our topics. The "Mohammed the iguana" comment you made was a little irrelevant, eh? Mohammed the iguana doesn't have an article on Wikipedia, but does the topic in which my signature is based upon? Yes there is an article. The "song reference" isn't something I just pulled out my ass. Its a popular song by a popular band, so live with it. Now excuse me while I puke to your Ad hominem attacks. — The King of Kings 03:58 July 18 '06
    Wow. Do you do realize, Moe, that fighting fire with fire doesn't actually put that first fire out? Alteripse is, to some degree, correct. Your name is not as inappropriate as Antichrist's, but the correlation is nothing short of ironic. However, the name Muhammad is not even close to comprable to what we have here. Muhammad is a very popular name (the most popular in the world) and so signing up as Muhammad (which, by the way, no one has done) is not necessarily an insult to Islam (unless the editor is making anti-Islamic statements). Likewise, having the username "Jesus" does not necessarily warrant a block either since it's a popular name (note User:Jesus is not indefinitely blocked, or is that in error?). But Buddha, Allah, God, Antichrist... those are almost always religious references and so, based on the policy and the idea that they may offend easily, they should not be allowed. On "King of Kings", I think it wouldn't be a bad idea for Moe to change it, but I'm not going to make a fuss over it; the song it actually refers to, as far as I know, does not make religious references and the King of Kings article takes awhile to get to the religious references. Regarding the idea Alteripse tried to convey with the iguana example, I agree that we can't just allow people to say "oh I wasn't referring to that [insert religious figure here]", but I think we need to look at each instance individually and try to discern the intention of the user in question. Having a song by the same name does not automatically make a username okay. Yes, there is a song entitled "King of Kings". But there is also a song entitled "God", but "God" is certainly not a reasonable username. -- joturner 04:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Crossing out "Antichrist". I'll take a wait-and-see approach on this person. -- joturner 04:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But, responding to you, even if someone made a reference to the song God it would still be making a religious reference because its a religious song by a Christian group. Motorhead is far from a religious musical group. — The King of Kings 05:31 July 18 '06
    I think both King of Kings and The Antichrist are not generally innapropriate, yes some people might find them innapropriate but they aren't generally considered innapropriate nor do they really fall under the famous people or inflammatory sections of it, I'd suggest this be taken to RFC for wider commment, unless of course there's enough comments from people here. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 07:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "King of kings" can be a reference to God or Jesus, yes, but hundreds of rulers both BC and AD have also taken that title: see King of kings. "Antichrist" can only refer to the Biblical figure. --Carnildo 18:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And a multitude of other things, King of Kings (disambiguation), in which mine is a Motörhead reference. — The King of Kings 21:38 July 17 '06
    Irreguardless of "King of Kings" being inflammatory or not (not even a username in this case even), "Antichrist has come to mean a person, image of a person, or other entity that is the embodiment of evil and utterly opposed to truth". So yeah, a self-procolaimation of being pure evil and a liar. Its basically the devil/satan to christians. Politics and flame wars, like to throw this term around as an insult to the opposing side. Vandals like to redirect articles about people, like George W. Bush, to Antichrist or Adolf Hitler or something silly. Don't see how it can't be taken as being potentially inflammatory. So then, can the Ad hominem on the person starting this conversation be avoided? All that need be discussed here is wether or not that name is potentially inflammatory. Kevin_b_er 02:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This user's sparse list of contributions suggests for a moment that he edited Qif conditionals, which would put him a level above the average teen, but actually he just added a blank line and then deleted it. In Til Death (film) he pointed out that heroin is something that everybody hates (which may come as news to its consumers). Nobody's going to think he's the antichrist, and I haven't heard of any worshippers of the antichrist who are likely to be offended. Yes of course his name is potentially inflammatory, as we're in a culture where the small-minded imagine slights everywhere: consider for example the signature "Kevin_b_er", for the significance of whose underscores some very silly and simple people could imagine anything. -- The Antihoary of the Antihoaries 02:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As above: if we stick to the subject under consideration, "antichrist" is an inappropriate user name. Forget examining the trees when you're looking for the forest, please. "King of kings" is a common self-appointed title throughout history. "Prince of peace" is not. "Antichrist" absolutely is not. There can be no ambiguity, there. Geogre 02:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What about User:False Prophet, who has been contributing for nearly four months? Now, we have a problem. We can't possibly say "Anti-Christ" is inappropriate and not say "False Prophet" is inappropriate. -- joturner 04:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You are again pointing at the trees. The question is whether this particular user name is inappropriate. It is. Arguing by analogy for precedent won't do much good for the conversation. The analogy is invalid as precedent in this case because one can be "a" false prophet, whereas there is only "the" antichrist. Anyone who pretends to be speaking for God and isn't is a false prophet, and the world is and has always been lousy with them. On the other hand, being the antichrist is specifically to claim to be or speak for the son of Satan. It's an entirely different world. One is silly, and the other is infuriating to fundamentalist Christians. Still, we needn't argue by analogy at all. There is one question here: is this an invalid username? Yes, it is. Geogre 11:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Look, all I wanted was a second opinion on the situation and apparently there are others who feel indifferant about it. I don't care if he's blocked or not, all I wanted was another opnion. I would appriciate it if this conversation just died out now. — The King of Kings 05:27 July 18 '06

    User:Mroliver83

    Could someone please take a look at the contributions of Mroliver83? I don't want to do anything unilaterally, but he looks to me like an unannounced PR flack. As far as I can tell, 100% of his edits promote Seattle's Fifth Avenue Theater. - Jmabel | Talk 18:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like it. Warned. -- Infrogmation 01:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone requested this page for protection, see WP:RfP, but the request has not been properly fullfilled or denied, what do you think? Myrtone

    I'd say no. Not enough vandalism for semi protection or full protection. There are some days with 0 edits and even the worse days only have 4-5 pieces of vandalism. And your idea for blocking the IPs who hit the article alot isn't something we should do with IPs unless we know for certain that they are static. The IPs you listed are either from vastly different ranges or they've only contributed 2-3 edits, so a warning for vandalism is barely warranted much less a block of any sort. --Woohookitty(meow) 05:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Undeletion of article "Jason Soroski"

    Jason Soroski is a regional artist in Southeast Texas, and I was approached to enter an article about him, as he is growing in interest here lately. When I heard the article no longer existed, and verifyid it myself, I was a bit confused. He is not a "national" act, but does deserve recognition to the local scene in Texas and Missouri. I am unaware as to whether anyone else edited the page but myself. Please let me know if this article can be restored. Thank you.

    Arthur Kransboldt kransboldt@yahoo.com

    From the deletion log, the article was deleted by user:Mushroom because it did not assert the signficance of the subject. To get it undeleted, please see Wikipedia:Undeletion policy (it might be best to talk to user:Mushroom about it first). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Who "approached" you, and why was it you that was approached? Is this some PR campaign? Could you please review WP:BIO to see if the subject meets our guidelines? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Essays in Wikipedia Namespace or Userfied?

    I would like to make a policy inquiry. A fellow editor has, without my consent, moved two personal essays from the Wikipedia namespace to my userspace. I have reverted the move, and asked the editor to, if he wishes the move to proceed, initiate a Miscellany for Deletion discussion, casting his initial starting vote as "userify." This seems to be a course of action supported by WP:MM#Cross-namespace moves.

    However, I am wondering if any criteria, policy, or guideline exist as to when an essay belongs in Wikipedia namespace and when it should be userfied. Is this something that just arises out of whatever consensus arises from a Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion process, or are there criteria one can refer to in such a dispute — much as those policies people would refer to when debating a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process? — Mike (talk • contribs) 02:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • From my response on Leflyman's talk page: "I understand that administrators aren't the arbiters of policy, but as the wikimop and bucket puts them in a position to enforce them every day, my experience is that they're often more familiar with it, and, indeed, being familiar with policy is often an element tested at requests for adminship. The policy village pump might indeed have been a more fruitful place to inquire, however, I agree, but I question how frequently it is visited." — Mike (talk • contribs) 15:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's unlikely to be amenable to a policy anyway, and a policy might well be rejected as instruction creep. The bar to inclusion of WP:essays is quite low and they tend to get deleted only if they openly advocate behaviour which is contrary to policy. I don't think these ones do. It's always best when they attract multiple editors to polish them into something resembling a useful example to cite - I started WP:HOLE and it was Edited Mercilessly [tm] into quite a useful document detailing how, in the end, we can't be expected to realise how interesting, significant and relevant a subject is unless the author makes at least some attempt to tell us; it's not really fair to castigate people for not wanting to keep an article based on evidence which is not presented in the article. The proof here is that I'm not the only one to have cited it in debate. WP:NCR is another bit of nonsense with a serious underlying theme which goes directly to policy. My suggestion, then, would be to fix the essays rather than try to nuke them. WP:NOTPOLICY certainly falls under the umbrella of fair comment, and reminds us that we should always go back to policy not precedent. Just zis Guy you know? 09:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel this is a policy discussion that's of note beyond administrator's noticeboard, and thus not appropriate here (and thus should be moved to the Pump). Citing essays, in my view, is a policy run-around. If there's a clarification that needs to be made, then it should be to the appropriate policy/guideline itself, not in a new parallel "unofficial" realm of essay-creep.--LeflymanTalk 14:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I've said in the parallel discussion we're having on our talk pages, I simply don't think your opinion is the view held by the consensus. I think a RfC is probably the best methodology you could use to clarify the policy in question. Essays can be the equivalent of useful "legal briefs," nonbinding interpretations of how Wikipedia policy governs a particular situation. I don't feel what you're suggesting is practical — imagine if our government had to write or refine policy to explicitly state every point proven in a legal brief in court proceedings. It'd be a madhouse. I could see Wikipedia encountering similar problems. — Mike (talk • contribs) 14:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a courtroom, nor (as I noted on your talk page) an experiment in rule making. You may be involved in the legal profession in real life, but please don't inject Wikilawyering into the framework of an online project. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to generate essays about how we think we should build an encyclopedia.--LeflymanTalk 15:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm making an analogy, comparing the relationship between essays and Wikipedia policies to the relationship between legal briefs and government regulations, so I'm not quite clear where your response is coming from. I'm already familiar with what wikilawyering is, but rereading its definition again on the linked-to page, I see no support in that link for calling such an analogy wikilawyering. Furthermore, the section regarding Wikipedia not being an experiment in rule making seems to address instruction creep, not letting procedural errors invalidate posts, and keeping to the spirit of policies — none of which seem to apply to the discussion at hand, either. — Mike (talk • contribs) 15:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally, an essay in the Wikipedia namespace are attempts to express a particular viewpoint within the community, and are open for editing, whereas essays in userspace more clearly belong to a particular user and are generally not edited by other users. So no, there's nothing wrong with it being in the Wikipedia namespace, you put it in your userspace if you don't want it to be edited. You should also consider moving it to Meta unless it specifically relates to the English Wikipedia. --bainer (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Interesting Problem

    An anon user 68.106.55.227 (talk · contribs) seems to be trying to delete a section of BJAODN to remove personal information, does anyone want to try and evaluate its claims? and/or possibly remove these edits from the page history if appropriate? It left me a rather long message to that effect on my talk page with this edit, probably in response to the suggestion I left on user_talk:68.110.110.155 after this user tried to file an AFD on the BJAODN page in question--AOL user 17:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the entire section per WP:DICK. BJAODN is just a joke, most of it not even funny, and all sections that someone objects to should be removed. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yaihr (talk · contribs)

    How should I deal with this user? They're new, but they refuse to respond to my questions on their talkpage, upload unsourced images, write articles of questionable notability (does a special DVD edition of an album deserve an article?) and erase my deletion tags. Someone help!--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    External links - buy.at

    For info, User:88.107.111.55 altered the external links on 13 articles about companies/products in order to introduce links which earn a revenue via users.buy.at. I have reverted all the edits before this post, but having not seen or heard of this before I thought it might be worth flagging up. Ian3055 22:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I burned the links out O2 plc or 3 (telecommunications) by User:87.113.12.67 and User:87.114.10.152. I asked and mindspillage said he blacklisted .at/aaoffers, which is the common spam set for them. Spam of that nature is particularlly nasty because they're replacing real, legitimate links, with spam links without altering the link description, so that 'official site' links go to spam sites rather than the real ones. As for the IPs themselves, they're dynamic and the spammer is probably on a different IP by now. I have some doubts about an admin blocking it, as its a dynamic IP, and spam bots come and go, but at least some more spam has been flushed down the hole where it belongs. Kevin_b_er 03:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing by corporate IP

    Would you be able to investigate the editing of the Turnbull & Asser web page by the ip user 80.168.52.51 which according to this site belongs to Turnbull & Asser. You will find a number of contributions to the article here. As you will notice these are severely POV and you can understand why I went and did a WHOIS search. Thanks for any assistance you can muster. MyNameIsNotBob 23:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I do realise this, but am wondering whether there is a place where this information should be made public - not every WHOIS search directs to corporate IPs muddling with information. MyNameIsNotBob 23:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to tag IP editor's talk pages with the information from a $whois [IP ADDRESS] using a template I created {{ispinfo}}. To use the template you just type in {{subst:ispinfo|COPIED AND PASTED WHOIS INFO}} and that way editors can quickly glance at the talk page to see if a pattern corresponding to the ISP of the IP user and their edits is evident. I've just tagged this IPs talk page using it. (→Netscott) 00:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For that matter, there are WHOIS links at the bottom of every IP talkpage anyway. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WillC

    For the page of Job (professional wrestling), I made a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling over a disputed section in the List of jobbers heading. User:WillC has been adamant that because his edits are valid, that they should be kept, when there are users against his inclusions (including RobJ1981, who made an edit that WillC reverted, which I reverted back, as it was valid). WillC put two messages on my talk page, quoted, “removing true information is not a valid edit.” And “STOP REVERTING MY EDITS FOR NO REASON; YOU ARE REMOVING TRUTHFUL, USEFUL INFORMATION.” And put a message on the wikiproject page saying “Burgerworldz: stop deleting information on the jobber page; you are deleting truthful information; stop this stupid revert war. i will contact an administrator. you at least need to justify your reverts with a valid explanation”. He has also put other inflammatory info about me on the talk page at the wikiproject, and has also included in his edit summaries: “don't edit comments i have left, violator” and “burgwerworldz is deleting/editing comments i have made on this page; he has no right or authority to do so. GROW UP!”, which are in violation of WP:CIVIL. I’ve seen a long range of disruptive behavior on the part of WillC, including several bans, and I think another short ban should be considered to avoid disruption of the issue we are trying to remedy at Wikiproject Professional wrestling. Burgwerworldz 23:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute resolution is → Over there. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What to do if a move poll is determined by partisan reasons?

    I'm rather troubled by the problems which KimvdLinde has reported over at WP:ANI#Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin massacre: move poll closure review requested. As I've posted there, the article's current title of "Battle of Deir Yassin" violates Wikipedia:Naming conventions, Wikipedia:Naming conflict and Wikipedia:No original research (it's a novel term with negligible use outside Wikipedia - only 81 hits versus over 21,000 for the alternative "Deir Yassin massacre"). It also probably violates Wikipedia:NPOV, as it seems to be a novel and minority-POV term for an historical incident which is generally known by a different name. (It's comparable, for instance, to renaming Srebrenica massacre to "Battle of Srebrenica" or American War of Independence to "War of American Aggression".)

    In the light of these issues I would normally simply move the article myself. However, the page has already had a move war today and sparking another wouldn't be helpful. Ordinarily, a move poll would be a good alternative. However, there has already been a move poll in which the participants deadlocked, with many on both sides explicitly stating POV reasons for their votes (see Talk:Deir Yassin massacre#Clarification). There seems to have been relatively little consideration of what Wikipedia policy and guidelines require. Starting a new move poll would undoubtedly bring out the POV warriors again and, unfortunately, it's more than likely that they will again ignore policy and vote for their personal POVs. Are there any other alternatives short of taking the whole thing to the Arbitration Committee? -- ChrisO 23:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm, this is why voting in the main namespace is a bad plan. :-/ Each time people have to find out the hard way. <sigh> Requested Moves should be strongly discouraged as a means for well, anything. Oh well.
    Perhaps something can still be salvaged? You can look at who is supporting and opposing, and start a discussion with each, one at a time. Perhaps a more neutral name is possible? Kim Bruning 00:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately I've found in instances like this (Republic of Macedonia comes to mind) that POV warriors usually won't agree to anything other than their own POV. Am I right to think that the Mediation Committee can't do binding mediations? Perhaps this is where we need some sort of intermediate stage between the Mediation Committee (non-binding) and Arbitration Committee (binding but not usually dealing with content disputes). We really need to have some way of dealing with these disputes that would involve taking them away from the POV warriors and giving them to neutral editors or administrators who know, understand and respect Wikipedia policies. -- ChrisO 00:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Although formal mediation isn't binding, I think most editors would respect the conclusions of it. I think the key in this case is to use the term most often used by academic historians i.e. academics who are actually employed as historians by universities. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The quick and dirty method is to attract as many uninvolved editors as quickly as possible, because POV warriors work by fighting in packs and outnumbering their opponents. But polls like that are almost always confrontational, so it would be better to try some form of mediation (formal or informal) as Kim suggested. Even if it fails then it's something to show to other users who can determine for themselves what caused it to fail, if it's because someone wasn't cooperating then that will be detrimental to them. A good first step would be to do a survey of the academic literature to see what name is more commonly used, Google is unlikely to settle this one. --bainer (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the suggestion. I've done a quick check on the literature using Google Books/Google Scholar, Amazon's "search inside" feature and a number of encyclopedias on Xreferplus. It almost exclusively refers to the events at Deir Yassin as the "Deir Yassin massacre", the massacre at Deir Yassin and similar formulations. None use "Battle of Deir Yassin". So it seems plain enough that the article's current title is a novel term. The problem is, of course, that the POV warriors don't care about WP:NOR, WP:NC and all the rest. Mediation is certainly appropriate though I wonder if it's ever likely to work in a situation where the participants are riding roughshod over Wikipedia's fundamental policies. I suspect it'll probably end up in arbitration, one way or another. -- ChrisO 07:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I thionk is a main problem for wikipedia, as the focus is consensus and prevention of disruption, and not so much upholding basic policies (Such as NPOV of which Jimbo states: NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."). However, in practise, NPOV is negotiated, just as other unnegotiable policies such as WP:NOR. The bigger question is, can these policies be enforced, or are they negotiable? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 09:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Kim Bruning is right. Discussion is the solution. As an experienced mediator, Kim is likely picking up on the fact that you are in too big of a hurry to settle the dispute. Having an article in the The Wrong Version is going to happen for some of the parties in the dispute. Mediators (and experienced editors) need to reinforce the idea that Wikipedia is not going to be ruined by having an article in the The Wrong Version. IMO, mediation goes astray once you began reverting or making moves based on the idea that there is a wrong version. Patience and discussion are mediation's friend.  : - ) FloNight talk 10:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this mean that unnegotiable policies are negotiable? And if mediation is not working because people insist on violating NPOV, ArbCom? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 11:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here is that you hold a particular POV, you got involved in the dispute, you got an editor banned from the page, and then you moved the page as an admin, so that has helped to entrench positions and increase hostility and suspicion. It would be a good idea if you would remove yourself from the debate entirely and allow the matter to be discussed by editors who were not involved in it. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    SlimVirgin, your opinion about me is clear. Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 11:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't just my opinion. I don't see that you have any support for what has gone on here. You've caused trouble first at Israeli apartheid and now here by acting as an editor/mediator/admin as and when it suits you, mixing up the roles in pursuit of a particular POV. It's a textbook example of what admins shouldn't do, and yet at the same time you take process fetishism to new heights when you think it'll help you. It's not on, it really isn't. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For those uninvolved, SlimVirgin and I are both involved in the same ArbCom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Kim, the existence of WP:NPOV as a policy which must be followed is what Jimbo is describing as non-negotiable. Obviously the process of reaching a result which is considered NPOV involves some form of negotiation. When we talk about "enforcing" NPOV, we mean taking measures to make sure that editors work together with the ultimate goal of achieving NPOV content. --bainer (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kim van der Linde at venus I mean that impartial experienced editors do no care if the articles is temporarily The Wrong Version. This dispute is one of many daily editing disputes that occur on Wikipedia. You are involved in it so it seems extra important to you. If I can make a suggestion. I think you need to take a break from this topic. Perhaps some distance from these articles will help. There are 1,261,193 articles in English. Many of them are in desperate need of editing by an experienced editors/admin. FloNight talk 12:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    FloNight, I share your idea about "The Wrong Version". -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm copying this to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Battle_of_Deir_Yassin.2FDeir_Yassin_massacre:_move_poll_closure_review_requested. Please continue any discussion there. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably if the matter is reported to the Admins' noticeboard, one of the admins will use their "resolve conflict" button. -Splash - tk 13:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In order to facilitate resolving or deleting old copyright violations (Template:Copyvio) and resolving or eliminating old deletedpages (Template:Deletedpage) that no longer warrant protection (for discussion about deletedpages, see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Protected, deleted pages & Template talk:Deletedpage#How temporary is this?), I ask that dated categories in the vein of CAT:PROD be created for them. This requires changes to a bot (User:DumbBOT is what handles CAT:PROD) and someone with template ability, and in the case of Template:Deletedpage, someone who can edit protected pages. —Centrx→talk • 00:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Instead of having automatically added subcategories for dates, each page could be included in the category sorted by date, like [[Category:Possible copyright violations|20060718]], which would only requiring changing the templates and would no worse than the monolithic categories we already have. This I just conceived. Is there a reason why PROD done the other way? —Centrx→talk • 11:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Irongaard (offensive name)

    The name User:Irongaard is based (at least in part) on the Iron Guard according to the User's talk page. The Iron Guard was, according to our article, an "ultra-nationalist anti-Semitic, fascist movement and political party in Romania in the period from 1927 into the early part of World War II." When in power the Iron Guard were enthusiastic participants in the Holocaust, so much so that, according to Raul Hilberg "There were... instances when the Germans actually had to step in to restrain and slow down the pace of the Romanian measures." They also instigated the Bucharest Pogrom in January 1941 in which 125 Jews were murdered and the Iaşi pogrom in July 1941 in which 10,000 Jews died. Homey 01:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and his user page also states "I, for reasons that will not be disclosed at this time, feverently hope that the University of Chicago burns to the ground and that the entire student body and faculty, especially the members of the admissions office, disappear". Disappear links to Forced disappearance which is defined in the following manner: A forced disappearance occurs when an organization forces a person to vanish from public view, either by murder or by simple sequestration. The victim is first kidnapped, then illegally detained in concentration camps, often tortured, and finally executed and their corpse hidden.. Homey 01:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The userpage message about the University of Chicago is a little disturbing, but apart from that, a random sampling of the user's contributions shows some pretty good, level-headed edits. His userpage claim about the name is that it derives from the Iron Guard and Søren Kierkegaard. I personally don't see grounds for taking action against this username - he seems more interested in the history of German militarism than in being a fascist. Gwernol 01:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally, as a Romanian Jew, I think calling onself User:Irongaard is as offensive as calling oneself User:Al-Quaeda, User:Nazi Stormtrooper or User:Ustashe. I'm not quarreling with the user's edits but his username (though I also find calling for the torturing and execution of all students, faculty and admission officers at the University of Chicago somewhat creepy.) Homey 01:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) It has to go. He's got good edits, but not a good user name. This will be very offensive to some people, e.g. whose relatives were murdered by the Iron Guard, to which we now know this is a reference. We have to be sensitive to its implications. Tyrenius 01:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm still not 100% convinced, although clearly there are good arguments against the username. Would GenghisRussell be an offensive username? If so, what about BertrandKhan? The word Iron is clearly not offensive, is the word Khan? We are surely not objecting to Kierkegaard right, so we must be objecting to the word Iron, I guess. Tyrenius reminds me of tyrant, how do I know that wasn't part of your thought process when choosing it? Homey is an offensive term in Australian, so I hope if you push this through, you'll be changing your signature, Homeontherange? What is Gwernol was an ax murderer from China that I haven't heard of. What it Gwern was? I agree that the Iron Guard were a hateful bunch of murdering fascists. I agree that we shouldn't offend people. I just am not sure that forcing a changename on this user is going to improve Wikipedia. Gwernol 02:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I can put your mind at rest by reassuring you that the word Tyrant was not part of my thought process, when choosing my user namer, nor for that matter were the words Tyre or Rant, ahem, nor has anybody commented to this effect previously. I think if the Australian offensiveness of Homey had been pointed out at an early stage, then it probably would have been changed. However, there have been cases where something established (which has not been objected to) has been allowed to continue, even though a new use of it would not be allowed. Tyrenius 13:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For one thing "Irongaard" sounds exactly like "Iron Guard" so a more accurage analogy would be say GenghisCahn for the Mongolian leader and American actor Edward Cahn. As for the offensiveness of Genghis Khan, for it to be an accurate analogy we'll have to wait about 1000 years - AFAIK none of Genghis victims or their children are still alive. The same isn't the case for the victims of the Iron Guard. Homey 02:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's pretty clear cut. Its not the terms iron or Kierkegaard that's offensive, it's the combination of those names with clear intent to invoke the term Iron Guard. The fact that the words standing alone don't have offensive meanings is not relevant, just as writing out the alphabet doesn't imply all the offensive things I could use those letters to make. We can surmise about whether the motivation for Tyrenius' username comes from tyrant (not that tyrant is clearly objectionable in the same way); and we can note that many word may have offensive meaning in another language, but here we know specifically that the name is a play on Iron Guard from the horses mouth. The mens rea behind the name is everything.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Would we accept a user with a username such as some variant or pun on Schutzstaffel? As a general principle, I don't think naming oneself after a Second World War fascist organisation would be appropriate in any circumstances. -- ChrisO 07:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if mens rea is everything, then that would imply: a) users should only be offended if they read Irongaard's userpage and find out he meant to invoke Iron Guard, and: b) given that his intention appears to be historical rather than supportive we have to be careful what we read into it. However, I do agree with Homeontherange's latest point about recency. I think we should ask Irongaard to voluntarily change his username. This seems like a situation where politely pointing out the issues and asking him to change will yield better results than imposing a decision. Gwernol 11:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I misspoke then. The letter of the naming policy doesn't require intent. Names can be offensive to users regardless of intent. But only in the case of a user who can claim that the name is coincidental does there seem to be any argument that the policy should be excepted. A person whose name was actually aid-off-hittiteler (cruel, insane parents) probably still should not be able to use that username, but would have no excuse if he indicated that his name was based on a fascination with the hittites and nazi Germany (even if he wasn't a nazi sympathizer) and the name was meant as a play on Adolph Hitler. The name alone brings him within the letter of the naming policy prohibition; the admission that it's intentional destroys any excuse that "it has nothing to do with the offensive thing it sounds like" argument.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that offensive user names are not allowed, and this name has already been found offensive, or this discussion wouldn't have started. Tyrenius 13:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So if I'm an Italian-American who is offended by your stereotypical username, I can get you to change yours involuntarily as well? I think we need a *little* bit of perspective here; if a user has a questionable username but no questionable edits, then they should be given the benefit of the doubt. -- nae'blis (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no line in the sand but I hope we can agree that comparing a name which someone out there might theoretically find offensive and a name which could offend a few million people are wholly apples and oranges.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    MascotGuy alert

    He seems to be at it heavy today. I've added 3 to the long term alerts page we have on him. So be on the lookout. And if you block any of his socks, be sure to list them on the long term alert page. --Woohookitty(meow) 01:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Anon 64

    User:Anon 64 is pasting large quantities of text off the Internet regarding Mormonism into Talk:Exmormonism that aren't part of any discussion. Nobody is responding to it - it is just topic after topic of paste from this user with no responses. I'd remove it myself, but I don't want to risk the potential debate that would come along with casting judgment upon another editor given that both he and I have edited there and differ in POV. I don't even know of a specific policy against it, except that pasting text into talk pages just doesn't seem like common sense if no one's biting. Help anyone? Reswobslc 03:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding future tags

    Hello, hope this is the right place to post this. There is a user adding future tags to just about everything that may have something ever happen again with the subject. I don't know what to tell him or if it is appropriated. I reverted him twice before I saw he did/is doing it a lot. What should be done? Here are the user's contributions. The user is User:Aafm. Thanks, Newnam(talk) 04:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The template he's adding is {{Future spaceflight}} and the selection of articles he's adding it to looks just fine to me. All it shows is this:
    Current event marker This article or section contains information regarding current or future spaceflight.
    Due to the nature of the content, details may change dramatically as the launch date approaches and more information becomes available. Delays are also common as launches are sometimes cancelled.

    Can you be more specific about what aspect of this you object to? Reswobslc 04:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, thanks for the response. I was concerned with the addition of the tag to all of the space shuttles and space agencies. It can be a little misleading to have the tag on a shuttle that is not currently on or will soon be on a mission. With the space agencies, if the tag is needed now, then it will always be needed (until the agency goes defunct), and therefore, IMO, isn't appropriate because the "future" aspect of the subject is integral enough to the subject to not have an alert at the top of the page. Each space shuttle will have a time when it speculates on a future flight, but for most of them, that time is not yet, and for that reason the tag is miseading on those pages. If I am way off-base, let me know...it just seems that the tag (as most on WP) is being overused. Sorry for the rambling, and thanks for the imput, Newnam(talk) 05:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you tried discussing it with him? Perhaps he might agree with you. It is not as though he is vandalizing those pages or trying to disrupt. Reswobslc 05:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    AOL soft blocks

    With soft blocks now implemented, I am wondering whether it is now acceptable to block AOL addresses for long durations with soft blocks. Thoughts? --Nlu (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • well, people are doing it anyway, but for the most part people seem to not quite know how to use them, or don't care to, many people are applying very long IP blocks without using anon-only blocks, and a few others are even selecting prevent account creation. Even worse, forcing all the vandals to register names seems to have caused the amount of autoblocks to sky rocket--AOL user 11:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not to say there isn't a silver lining, if an AOL range stays blocked, and account creation stays disabled for the duration (hours, days, weeks) it does prevent people from creating accounts, and of course, prevents them from triggering autoblocks, but that's pretty much only a good solution for people who had accounts prior to the existance of anon-only-blocks--AOL user 11:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any AOL user that finds themselves permanently blocked from creating an account at home still only has to go to a library, a cybercaf� or a friend's house once to create an account, then they can use that wherever they like. Of course, even having to go to another IP once is an inconvenience, but personally I don't lie awake at night worrying about AOL users being deterred from using Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Blanning (talk • contribs)
    • yes, well, I realize that most people would simply block all AOL users regardless of whether they're registered or not, no one left at the end of the day to actually complain about it--AOL user 12:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I had thought, when this innovation came along, that it wouldn't be a substantial benefit to AOL users, because most of the vandals (probably "most") are using named accounts. However, our IP editors of virtue from AOL (recognize them? they're the ones you don't see because they're helping us along) are going to get blasted anyway. If they tire of being IP's and want to sign up to get the benefits of this innovation, they're going to find that they can't. As for Sam Blanning's recommendation, let's stop with tarring an ISP this large because some of the users are dufuses. We don't do that with other ISP's, and we shouldn't do it here. Saying, "Well, they can just move to another town and buy new equipment and change ISP's" (not what Sam said exactly) is to say, essentially, "We are for the elites." I'm no longer an AOL ISP-owned dialup, but the fact is that the turds vandalizing us are getting their way by getting us to block the helpful with them. Geogre 14:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Reconfirmation of adminship

    Every now and again, Zeq tells me that I'm doing something wrong by blocking me, and that he'll try to get me de-adminned. A few other people I block also say I should be deadminned. I would like to see what the community as a whole think of my adminship, and whether it should be reconfirmed. (If this is the wrong place, move it. Hey, this is an admins' noticeboard) Will (message me!) 14:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy deletion backlog

    Would a few admins take a bit to look at the backlog at CAT:SPEEDY? It was tagged as an admin backlog about 20 hours ago and hasn't been fully addressed yet. Right now there's about 68 articles, 2 categories, and 25 images to be examined. Thanks, Metros232 14:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Help with nomination for adminship needed!

    Would someone with experience mind helping me nominate someone for adminship? I'd like to nominate User: Catamorphism, but I can't seem to get it right. I've left my nomination at the bottom of my talk page under the message "Consider it done." When some kind soul has done this, would he or she notify me that it has been done so that I may give my heart-felt thanks? Erik the Rude 15:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=64478064"