Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not minimum age to edit, but minimum age to create an account. He could have given his real name, as well as email address during the signup process. A few FTC links about COPPA: [8] [9]. I just wanted to make sure that Wikipedia is has its bases covered. --Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 01:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A minimum age of 21?! NWIH. There are many <21 editors here (like me) who are constructive and non-vandals. Also see User:Sango123, a very active vandalism reverter who is only 14. I can only hope that this is a joke proposal. ~Chris {t|c|e|@} 23:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

If only Willy were 29... Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a sad thing (an age limitation on wikipedia)...as some of our best administrators are not exactly "old" perse. I really respect the diversity that we represent. Kukini 23:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Ilyanep is 14 and he is a great 'crat. Also I myself may get banned then.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KISS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually "A good talk comment supported by several (2-3) admins [10] [11]...and then blocks may be handed out if a day goes by and no change [12]" is precisely what happened here. --Tony Sidaway 07:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only on Wikipedia can an argument over a signature spawn a block, 41KB of comments, and an RFC... Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T|N>K If there was a "best of wikipedia" page, this comment should go on it ;-) Kim Bruning 14:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is funny how reactionary everyone has become. Totally unconstructive, but funny. I mean seriously why does a colorized signature harm anyone's ability to write an encyclopedia (which is supposedly the reason we're all here). Obviously the answer is, it doesn't. JohnnyBGood t c 00:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. But it does look annoying when you edit a talk page and see User:JohnnyBGood|<font color="Green">'''JohnnyBGood'''</font>]] [[Image:Flag of Mexico.svg|15px]] [[User talk:JohnnyBGood|<font color="Red">'''t'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/JohnnyBGood|<font color="Red">'''c'''</font>]] 00:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC) . And your signature is not even that big compared to some. Garion96 ^(talk) 13:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle's summary (TM):

• The signature is long enough to be tiresome when editing.
• Asking people to change signature in this case is a good thing.
• Blocking was premature.
• This isn't the first time that Tony Sidaway has been involved in a contentious block.

In summary, I would strongly recommend that in future, Tony (and indeed other admins) should consult with other admins here before issuing a block that is liable to be contentious. The second-best thing, which is what happened, is to discuss after the fact. Stifle (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, let's just remove the option completely. It would remove a lot of crappy XHTML and stop people inserting random junk into our pages. Rob Church (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Napster has an ad on its site recommending people place Napster Links on Wikipedia. These are links to songs that only play after (free) user registration. Napster imposes a limit of 5 plays and requires a paid subscription for further plays, or to download the song. The purpose of the links is obviously advertising. Thus, they seem to clearly violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I've sent them an email asking that they take the ad down. Either way, I think people should remove these links on sight. Anyone disagree? Superm401 - Talk 02:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is an option to include an affiliate ID in the link so people can get 5% of resulting sign-ups purchases and a commission on sign-ups (corrected Superm401 - Talk 17:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)). This provides motivation for deliberate spammers. Superm401 - Talk 02:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets bad we should add them to the blacklist. BrokenSegue 02:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking. I had forgotten about that. We should only use it if necessary, though. Superm401 - Talk 02:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preemptive blacklisting sounds good to me. --Carnildo 03:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay with me, but people can always work around technical rules (proxies etc.) so social solutions are better. I'll let everyone know if/when Napster responds to my email; their removing the ad would definitely help the most. Superm401 - Talk 17:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...they have an ad up asking people to spam us for them? Sheesh. Shimgray | talk | 18:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but not just us. They also recommend people spam Myspace, other blogs, and through email and chat. You can see the ad for yourself. It's still running as of now. Superm401 - Talk 22:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's nuts - it goes to show how a company can degenerate. They were purchased by a larger corporation, no? It might be useful to focus communications on the larger entity. This is just plain bad media relations. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 21:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they're a public company. I still haven't received a response, despite them saying they would probably send one within 48 hours. I sent a followup email to another (less appropriate) address. Superm401 - Talk 04:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They have an advertisement asking people to spam Wikipedia? ASKING people? To SPAM WIKIPEDIA? Well, I'm certainly not using their site. I encourage you to do the same. Meh, somebody do an indefinite IP block on Napster staff – Gurch 17:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I condone Napster for this ridculousness, I also see it as flattery of possibly the highest kind for Wikipedia. --Osbus 00:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "condemn".  ;) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I did however, mean because instead of although. --Osbus 21:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just requested that this part of Napster's site be added to the spam blacklist. --bainer (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to actually see it, here's the link: [13] (click on "Ways to use napsterlinks.") The say "wiki" not "wikipedia", but this may have been recently changed. Mangojuice^talk 03:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw it this afternoon it was "Wikipedia." There response to our complaint is to make it more general and only refer to us indirectly? To be blunt, the vast majority of people think of Wikipedia when they think of a Wiki anyways. *snort*JoshuaZ 04:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ad someone mentioned earlier is still out there ([14]) and there probably are other ads. I don't know if Superm401 has had a response back yet. --bainer (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It still says "Wikipedia". And even if they aren't explicitly talking about Wikipedia, encouraing wiki spamming is still wrong. Placing them on the blacklist sounds like a great idea. --Cyde Weys 04:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They don't refer to Wikipedia on the site above- that banner that's been linked to has been taken down. It now says "wiki-based websites." I still support a spam blacklist addition- not only for Wikipedia, but for all other wikis that use the SpamBlacklist addition, and don't deserve the spamming. Ral315 (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was just about to do it myself when I noticed Raul654 beat me to it. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been taken down. The text always said wiki, not Wikipedia. However, the ad (with Wikipedia), is still showing occasionally. I haven't seen the banner version recently, but playing a track results in an ad as well; I saw it yesterday there. Superm401 - Talk 13:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone get a response by email? -- Kjkolb 06:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently yes, discussion is still ongoin on Wikipedia:Village pump (news). JoshuaZ 02:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone seen the Wikipedia Rouge Admin game? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.200 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Jimbo Wales - mostly just wanders around :)" My God, it's exactly like real life. Excellent! No highscore chart though? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There ought to be a MMORPG version of this. Oh wait... -- grm_wnr Esc 19:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've always wondered about this: if we have "rouge" admins, do we also have foundation admins? Eyeliner admins? Eye shadow admins? Mascara admins? *ducks under barrage of rotten tomatoes* ;) RadioKirk talk to me 21:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation admins are sysops at http://wikimediafoundation.org. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 13:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew someone was going to mention that... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 14:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should use this to train new admins. Sasquatch t|c 21:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, no stewards in the game. :] Kimchi.sg 13:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I underwent my rouge training in Nethack, having Ascended ... five or six different classes, I kind of lost track. --Cyde↔Weys 14:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, bringing back the old times, I had v 1. something of nethack as a game on my first computer--an 8086 with a 20mb hard drive. The later versions never seemed to carry the same luster. A simple hex editor and you had all the hit points, etc you wanted! Still not enough to win the game, but I'm not sure if that makes me more or less of a loser. :) I'll have to try the rouge game. - Taxman ^Talk 22:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to give people a heads up that there is a brewing edit war (again) at Kosovo over national issues that could escalate unless headed off and unfortunately I have to get going soon or I'd do it myself. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the parties involved have been in previous edit wars and unfortunately have something of a record of inflammatory POV-pushing. I've warned a number of users and given out a couple of short blocks for tag-team edit-warring. Hopefully it'll encourage them to be more cautious about making deliberately contentious edits. Having said that, since I've received a message in response saying "ChrisO IS ABUSING HIS POWERS, HE'S THE HITLER OF WIKIPEDIA !!!!!! HE'S WORSE THAN HITLER, HE'S GOT GOEBBELS PROPANGADA SCHEMING ABILITIES!!!!" I have my doubts... (Does this mean I can claim my Rouge Admin title?). -- ChrisO 23:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*cough*"rouge"?*cough* ;) RadioKirk talk to me 23:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now tell him that his Amulet of Yendor is in the post. :-P --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Anyway, either there's a running joke of which I'm not aware, or no one knows any more how to spell "rogue". :) RadioKirk talk to me 23:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Wikipedia:Rouge admin. Wear the badge with pride! :D -- ChrisO 23:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Thank you. Is there a similar page for "tounge"? ;) RadioKirk talk to me 23:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm absolutely not going to speculate on what actions would qualify one as a "tounge admin"... But returning ever-so-briefly to the matter in hand, this seems to have progressed to outright sockpuppetry, though I can't immediately shorten the list of suspects to fewer than two. I've filed a RCU, someone might want to check there's no recurrence in the meantime. Alai 00:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly some sock- and/or meatpuppetry is likely, given the users and their edits. Beyond keeping out that which is not WP:RS, and your RCU request, I'm short of suggestions at the moment. RadioKirk talk to me 00:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming tag-teaming, perhaps rising to meat-puppetry between the two long-standing accounts, and sockery by one of them: it's just not at all clear which. I suppose a block of the anon and the one-edit account might not be amiss in any case. Alai 00:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Per this checkuser request, I've blocked User:Bormalagurski and User:C-c-c-c for 48 hours each, User:24.87.36.246 for three hours, and User:SerbianMafia indefinitely. If anyone is able to untangle these antics better than I, please review. Note that tag-teaming at the article seems to be escalating in the meantime. Alai 02:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately it's not just that article: it's a whole range of articles, e.g. Kosovo Liberation Army, List of Albanians, Priština, Croatian War of Independence, Minefields in Croatia etc. We seem to have a systematic problem of edit warring and POV-pushing by a clique of editors who plainly don't want to follow the rules (see comments at [15]). -- ChrisO 08:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An efficient way to stop rever warring I would encourage you to observe the time C-c-c-c, Bormalagurski and Krytan are active, and the documents they are active in (i.e. revert). Furthermore they are from the same country, and a recent investigation by an admin revealed significant similarities between the first two. This could be another indication that these alleged users could be actually one user. The abovementioned users are being involved in rever wars, and are disrespectful of Wikipedia rules, something they proved in the near past. Additionally, they have been blocked several times, sometimes even offending administrators that carried out that action. Furthermore, some of the "users" are recruiting meatpuppets to wage their revert war. Taking any action would be appreciated, for the sake of stopping revert-warriors and users that are sworn to work against Wikipedia. Best regards, ilir_pz 23:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if someone (or several someones) could help me clear out the backlog at Category:Images with no copyright tag and Category:Images with unknown copyright status. (It would also be great if someone could explain to me why we have two separate categories for this.) Thanks! Angr (t • c) 09:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are two seperate cat's because one is for images with no tag, and the other is for editors who are unsure of the copyright status. Will try and help out a bit. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 14:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But adding {{subst:nld}} to an image adds a tag saying "This image does not have information on its copyright status" but puts it into Category:Images with unknown copyright status, so that category is also for images with no tag. Angr (t • c) 14:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing a few now. Proto||type 14:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Angr (t • c) 14:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two are slightly different: Category:Images with no copyright tag is for images that simply don't have a tag: they may have license information in some other form, such as a statement of "I release this under the GFDL". Category:Images with unknown copyright status is for images where someone has actively determined that there is not enough information to apply a license tag to the image. Most, but not all, of the images in the first category belong in the second. --Carnildo 02:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His only work is the article Angel Rada. Self-promotion, but well, I don't care for now. He also contributes under a number of IP's, check the article's history for those. As long as the self-promotion would be limited to this single article: no problem, however, from time to time he inserts his name into other articles, mostly unnoticed; causing real factual errors, like listing himself als BBC World Music Awards nominee on World music etc.... I don't really know how to handle this , I've put some user warning templates on his talk page (or those of his ip's) as I came across restoring his POV spamming, but he has removed warnings before, and I suppose he'll just continue his personal vanity article and small unnoticed additions in some other articles... --LimoWreck 18:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put one of those notices on the talk page notifying readers that he is engaging in autobiography.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Netscott (talk · contribs) (24 hours) for disruption, trolling and WP:POINT violating in creating Template:User Userbox deletionist with the edit summary 'another one to delete'. --Doc ^ask? 19:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked him per his own request. I've warned him not to violate WP:POINT again. One reason I've unblocked him is so his request for mediation can move forward. jaco♫plane 22:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you discuss this with Doc first? Mackensen (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there is any sort of a standard policy on whether a blocking admin watches a blocked user's talk page but after my blocking I responded to the block and did not recieve a single response. This is is one of the reasons why I requested an {{unblock}} some hours later. Netscott 07:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was watching the page. But I was not on-line. The reason I posted here was so that other admins could take the matter up. If Netscott has learned his leason, then I'm content with the unblock. --Doc ^ask? 20:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde tried to join CAUBXD, and as most of us know, he is a userbox deletionist. When Master of Puppets tried to remove his name from the list, he came up with the following threat in the edit summary:

You have no right to deny me membership. If you do I will block you, and delete this page and all of your userboxes. (Proof)

Freddie^{Against Userbox Deletion?} 20:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I originally thought Cyde was trying to be disruptive, so I removed his name. However, he explained to me later that he just meant it in light-hearted humor. So, in good faith, I accepted that explanation; I don't think he was really trying to block us all, at least. The statement was a bit too aggressive though, in my humble opinion. Master of Puppets ^{That's hot.} 20:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What part of me saying "Goddamn that Cyde he's gone waaaay too far. We need to organize, mobilize, and stop him." doesn't indicate joke to you? --Cyde↔Weys 20:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any organisation the limits or accepts people for "personal reasons" can't be good... Sasquatch t|c 20:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely occurs to be humor to me. In fact I'm certain about it. The attacks on Cyde, on the other hand ("list of enemies"?!?). Come on people...let's get back to building an encyclopedia, not myspace. Bastique▼^parler _voir 20:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is this CAUBXD? Combative, inflammatory attitudes - not to mention votestacking - are not welcome at Wikipedia. I strongly recommend reconsidering the group's mission. FreplySpang 20:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else seen User:Fredil Yupigo/AHH CYDE IS INVADING particularly this edit [16] "Please delete the messages from your talk pages once this page is deleted. Thank you (for covering everything up)." --pgk^(talk) 20:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, just wow. So now it's a covert vote-stacking campaign? I guess they don't realize how page histories work ... --Cyde↔Weys 20:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or Special:Contributions, or apparently the whole Wiki idea, either - [17] FreplySpang 20:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the page for deletion. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a collective RfC (or even an RfAr) would not be out of line at this point. I mean, this is high school crap. Mackensen (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a damn good thing I'm not God Emperor around here, or else I'd be inclined to CheckUser the organizers of this; why do I think some of our banished Userboxen Activists are back??? -- nae'blis _(talk) 00:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you think that my good intentions were in fact a conspiracy by the underground --mboverload@ 00:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does good intentions square with requests to cover this up and act in secret? --pgk^(talk) 07:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you were God Emperor you wouldn't need to use checkuser...JoshuaZ 02:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he were God Emperor he would have instigated the whole thing to force wikipedia to evolve. Thatcher131 20:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan articles being Balkan articles, we're predictably enough in the midst of another round of charming edit-warring using broken English and unsourced statements. One side wants us to believe that Serbia and Montenegro is consigned to history instantly, while another is fixated on claiming electoral fraud. A neutral eye and willingness to keep things on the level would be appreciated, particularly because this is a high-profile article at present. I've worked on the article too much contentwise to serve as a 100% above-board referee, so I'm reluctant to push 3RR myself. The Tom 23:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it has any relevence on Wikipedia, but Avillia was blocked indefinantly as an page move vandal on another wiki. I know he's not vandalizing this Wiki or anything, but Avillia doesn't have the cleanest record here (4-5 blocks in the last month). Does things that happen in other wiki's apply at Wikipedia? DGX 00:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you confirm that it is indeed the same person on both languages/wiki? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is his user page on the other wiki. The indef blocked template isn't exactly the nicest thing I ever read, but he is blocked for being a page move vandal none the less. Here are his contributions from that wiki also. Nothing 100% there to link the two together but thier names. DGX 00:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like they are the same users; the only blocks are about 3rr, disruption, nothing about vandalism. (well in fact, just read the user page, the contributions also show vandal-fighting) AndyZ _t 01:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it says that on his userpage, that doesn't mean that automatically disqualifies him from being the vandal on the other wiki. I know I should WP:AGF here, but it's getting pretty hard. DGX 01:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can take action for here for something that happened at another wiki (particularly one that's not a Wikimedia project). If he straightens himself out here, we should respect that. On the other hand, two admins have already tried to indef block him and been overturned, and if he continues in the direction he's been going sooner or later one will stick. Chick Bowen 01:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked him and he SAYS it's not him, FWIW. Kim Bruning 01:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Their talk styles are similar but not so similar as to make them clearly the same editor. For now, we shouldn't take any action because even if they are the same editor, this is very off-wiki. JoshuaZ 02:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not me. Also, note the word overturned. Also, what direction am I going in? Also, fancy italic words. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 02:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah? Well, I'll see your fancy italic words and raise you boldface words. How do you like them apples? --Calton | Talk 02:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boldface italic. I'm raking 'em in here. Kim Bruning 02:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it ironic that as soon as I mentioned the Avillia vandal on the other wiki here, that a new string of Avillia's appear on the other wiki even after the Avillia's have been missing on that wiki since April. Oh well, I guess it's just a coincidence. I will assume good faith with this Wiki's Avillia. DGX 03:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fancy list form.

• YTMNDWiki's structure (ANI, CSD, STUBS) and it's similarity to Wikipedia easily suggest that those who got the Wiki created have a fair grasp of Wikipedia's WP:NOT bureaucracy.
• My userpage comes up first in a Google search for Avillia, a search query which mostly contains references which are mine, by the way.
• I'm at least somewhat known on the YTMND forums, for my direct involvement there once apon a time and my involvement in a break-off forum.
• And, just for the sake of Tinfoil Hattery, do you really think I would go on YTMNDWiki with the name Avillia and blatantly vandalise again knowing that YTMNDWiki was under watch by Wikipedia? Compare to the IRC exploitation just before the second attempt to indefinite block me.

Food for thought. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 05:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: just because someone on another wiki has the same username as someone here doesn't mean that they're the same person. Anyone can register an account name on that wiki; it's a known vandal technique, especially on other Wikimedia projects. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, thats why I already said I would assume good faith with this Avillia as long as I don't find conclusive evidence he's the same person as this Avillia. DGX 17:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted an update to #Napster Links (copied from village pump news section) at Village pump news. In short, they said they've stopped but they haven't; I reminded them. Please post only at VP. Superm401 - Talk 02:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To make a long story short, I think I forgot to include "noinclude" when nominating Template:User Golfer woods for speedy deletion. It's been deleted, so I would have guessed that the user pages would no longer be listed as candidates for speedy deletion and that the problem would now be moot. There are still 4 user pages up for deletion, though (oddly enough, User:Maphi, who has the said template transcluded, is not up for deletion). I've tried a variety of refreshes and purges, but nothing has worked. Ardric47 05:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but null edits (via the popup tool) seemed to work. --AySz88^-^ 06:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought the need for null edits went away when they fixed some problem or problems recently, but I guess not. Ardric47 06:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to depend on exactly what kind of null edit is needed. A change to the category on a template that is transcluded will repopulate the category very quickly. I've noticed however that if something is deleted with the category still intact, the article will continue to show up in the category for a while (forever? I haven't gone back to look) and may need a null edit if its a concern. Syrthiss 11:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would explain a few other, unrelated, things that I've been wondering about. Thanks! Ardric47 23:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know null edits should never be necessary, however the time required for such problems to fix themselves varies depending on the length of the job queue, see Special:Statistics. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a job queue issue; the job queue had been empty for a long time. Ardric47 05:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the vagueness, but I don't want to be making unfounded accusations. If I were to come across a list (on someone's user page) of people who have shown up together in several situations, including to comment on deletion discussions, should I mention it here (or somewhere else)? Ardric47 09:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm trying to move burial alive-->[being buried alive]], albeit talk page, yet because of the existence of the target page I can't. please help. thank you.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 13:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to go to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Cheers! Dr Zak 13:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i am an anonymous role account of another wikipedian, my password is swordfish. please inspect my account to confirm that i am a benign role account and am not hiding anything malicious--J.Smith 13:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the account permanently, as you've just compromised it. Proto||type 13:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent page move that was put into effect from Sidhoji Rao Shitole to the above page. The result was that the edit history of the above page was wiped out - which was a mistake. The page move should have been a simple redirect, but the admin who put it in didn't read the discussion page carefully. As a result, 4 months worth of edit histories were wiped out, and a previously protected page (Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath) was replaced with a mock-up that was thrown together on the redirect page Sidhoji Rao Shitole. I'm requesting that the edit history of the Yogiraj page be restored so that the full record of 4 months worth of edit history not be lost. Hamsacharya dan 14:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamsacharya dan is being a bit misleading here. The consensus (4-1) was specifically for a page move, with only himself calling for a redirect, as can be seen at Talk:Sidhoji Rao Shitole. There are, I believe, no objections to merging the page histories, provided that the intent is not to resurrect old disputed content. However, a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hamsacharya dan might be in order before determining whether restoration of the old edit history would be a wise idea. Most of the complaints in this RfC involve Hamsacharya dan's attempts to subvert consensus and moderation through edit warring involving this specific article. —Hanuman Das 18:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that we agree that merging histories is in order. Hanuman Das - I have a copy on my harddrive of the old Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath page. If I wanted to, I could have restored it any time I want to. I'm asking for the edit history to be restored for record, not so I can start messing with the content. This is not about you or me or edit warring. And it was 3:2 not 4:1 on the simple redirect. And the 3 was you and the other "2" usernames that you used to sockpuppet around with. To all admins: By all means - please take a look at the requests for comment page - that way everybody on wikipedia will see how much of an idiotic rivalry this is. Hamsacharya dan 07:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All but one edit by 195.153.172.226 from April 20 onwards has been to add review links to the same site to various game articles. The only exception is the English cricket clubs edit.--Drat (Talk) 15:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted and warned. RadioKirk talk to me 15:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Jesus On Wheels (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). A look at his user page, talk page, and contributions shows that he's just someone who's gone by this name before, and is unfortunately associated with Willy on Wheels.

Looks like he's been indef banned by an admin who isn't currently online (Pgk). I'd like to unblock him, but I'm not sure if this constitutes wheel warring, and as I have yet to unblock a user blocked by someone els, I thought I'd run it by here first. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently online. The block isn't based directly on the willy on wheels connection but as per Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate_usernames, "Names of religious figures such as "God" or "Allah", which may offend other people's beliefs". "Mohammed on wheels", "Allah on wheels" etc. would be similarly offensive. The fact that he is known under that name elsewhere makes it no less offsensive, if we got someone here saying they had always been known as "fuck you" (to choose an extreme example) we'd still block as an inappropriate username. --pgk^(talk) 17:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. I'm assuming you're not going to reconsider even after the comments in your talk page by other people? --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno if that's so cut-and-dried—millions of people are named Jesus. The user certainly should, however, pick another username merely for the "*oW" connection, intended or not. RadioKirk talk to me 17:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He should certainly change his username. Any of us who sees 'Jesus on Wheels' in their watchlist will be automatically reaching for the banhammer. It's unfortunate that he's had it for so long, but this is because he hasn't made many edits and few of them have been in articlespace. Now that he's been noticed, the name needs to be changed. Although it's an old account, WoW is a year older than him. I don't believe WP:U has a statute of limitations. (after edit conflict: plus what Pgk pointed out about religious names). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me or does User:Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)'s signature read Myrtone@Jesus On Wheels.com.au? DGX 17:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After some discussion, I've decided to unblock as I've seen his edits and they seem fine. If someone can convince him that he should change his name, that'll be even better, but judging by his comments on his user page and talk page, that seems unlikely (but I tried anyway). --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He will probably get blocked over and over again, that's just the way things are, because of our experiences with WoW. He can either accept that and change his username, or not accept that and accept getting blocked everytime an admin sees his name come by. It might be his username in other places, but on Wikipedia, it just won't work. --JoanneB 17:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I would very much appreciate it if someone went over my closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian views of Hanukkah. This has gone to something of an argumentative Deletion Review and I would welcome some experienced eyes having a look. I am fairly sure that I made the right decision but, rather unsurprisingly, some people are very upset with the result and are highjacking the review to this end. I do not wish to appear to be vote chasing, but the existence of the process implies that I have made a pretty major error of judgement, something I take very seriously, and I would like some neutral eyes to evaluate it. Thanks for reading. Rje 20:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like you called it right to me. The article lacked sources and looked mainly like original research. It was not clear that there was a viable topic. The AfD itself had a consensus to delete. Metamagician3000 05:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone take a look at this article? Is this "license" Wikipedia-compatible? If it is, should it? —Ruud 02:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, images should either (A) be under a free license, or (B) meet the fair use rules. These images are probably neither, since the permission in question (if it indeed has been given at all) sounds suspiciously like a "for Wikipedia only" or "for educational use only" type of permission. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the actual permission here it is definitely not broad enough for these to be considered free images. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The man told me we could use them if we included a disclaimer of sorts. We did that so what's the problem then? Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 12:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

68.4.58.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 1028 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

diff, diff, diff. I don't know what to call this, vandalism? crap? Reverted all three times, user is up to test4 (one warning was made for three vandalisms on my talk) but I figured I'd leave it here to see if an admin wants to do more. User was already blocked for vandalism, now he's doing the same thing again (some people just don't have the capacity to learn from one's mistakes).

Thanks, — Nathan ^(talk) 06:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think an indef block for 1028. I see endless vandalism warnings. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 07:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody gets back to me, I think I'll just do it. Agreed? --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally. This user has been harassing Academic Challenger for a long time, too. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll get rid of the user merely by blocking this particular account, but at least it's a gesture. Bishonen | talk 21:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I think the IP might get hit in an autoblock if I block the account since I suspect they are the same person... I'd like someone else to support this before I go and do it. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After this edit I have no problem with an indef block of 1028 and a healthy block for the IP. JoshuaZ 01:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I make one more vandalistic edit, then block me indefinitely, but if I don't make one ever again, don't block me. 1028 03:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following discussion on the mailing list - someone mentioned that community bans are going to become more common as the number of editors increases, and the arbitration committee is less able to deal with a volume of cases. The current situation is that any admin can community-ban a user, and the user's only comeback is to appeal to the arbitration committee. There's currently a bit of minor wheel-warring going on over one user who I'm satisfied ought to be banned, but others obviously disagree (I'm not the banning admin, but I have a low tolerance for people who are only here to push a particularly strong point of view). Might it be useful to have a formal process for community banning along the lines of general probation? A page for admins to list users they wish to community-ban, the agreement of another two admins required before the ban, and possibly a lightweight review process along the lines of deletion review rather than having to go straight to the arbitration committee? There clearly are users here whose presence is intolerable, and who need to be got rid of quickly, but there needs to be slightly more transparency and fair process than there is at the moment. --ajn (talk) 08:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that makes sense. Currently seems to be no clear definition of what IS a community ban, how does it happen, how does it get labelled as such. See Wikipedia talk:List of banned users#Community and my as of yet unanswered question there. --woggly 08:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be better than the present system, in which admins ban the editor themselves or ask people on this page what they think before or after banning. We may need a screening process to prevent abusive nominations for banishment, though. -- Kjkolb 10:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, heck yes. I'm getting very wary of the community bans. N.b. what's going on is community ban, not community block, and the distinction between the two is eroding faster than the world's beaches. I remember the Lir and Michael days, when it took the most monumental, tectonic motion to impose an actual ban. Now, it seems like we're getting free with the "indefinite block" button. It's not that I can point to one or another, although I think Secret London is right that an IP must never be blocked indefinitely, since no one knows who's going to own the IP in 3 months. I'm not sure this is the place to draft and work out the procedure, however, as its readership is already pre-selected to the grumpy and the injured. More light is needed, I think. Geogre 13:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of having only admins able to add nominations - if the page was permanently protected, that would do it. Other users wanting to nominate someone would only have to persuade an admin of their case. An appeals process ought to be open to all (apart from the community-banned user, of course - but if the grounds for banning are that the community's lost patience with a disruptive user, an absence of any third party support would just show the community ban was justified). --ajn (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Increasing the size of ArbCom did not solve the workload issue, and community bans will work only in the cases were there is agreement. Perhaps the solution is to create more than one ArbCom committee, to spread the workload. Rather than turn ArbCom into a court of last appeal and have ad hoc community bannings to take over the workload, I'd rather have several committees that are capable of handling the caseload (see NoSept/Arbcom restructuring). We have plenty of people willing to do the work, and we don't need 12 ArbCom members ruling on every single case. NoSeptember ^talk 10:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem at the moment is that from the perspective of the banned user, one admin is able to ban them, and they have no comeback beyond a lengthy and bureaucratic ArbCom case. The admin may be someone they have had long-term involvement with - if someone's doing a lot of edit-warring, there may be dozens of admins reverting, warning and protecting pages. What I'm proposing is that effectively an ad-hoc committee of three admins bans them, and there is some form of lightweight appeals process so if they have anyone willing to speak up for them, the ban can be reviewed and altered if that's necessary. Most of these bans ought to be uncontroversial - three admins to ban, a week for review, and I really think that in most cases people will get the message and ArbCom won't be involved. --ajn (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having some sort of way for the community to test whether a community ban has consensus is a good idea. Right now we just have the comments of those who choose to chat on the notice boards, those comments are limited in number and may not really reflect what the (admin) community as a whole thinks. That is one reason why having even one admin who thinks a ban was incorrect should be taken seriously as proof that consensus does not exist. If that one admin is in the wrong, the onus must be on the community to prove that consensus is really there, despite his objection. NoSeptember ^talk 20:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the past there have apparently been some mass community motions to ban someone, but nowadays some admin usually does so long before that could happen. Currently 'community bans' are when there is no admin willing to unblock someone. If admins disagree then only the ArbCom can make such an action permanent. Personally I think that's a reasonable structure. --CBDunkerson 10:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CBD is correct. We only have a community ban if no admin is willing to reverse someone else's block. With 900 admins, a dedicated troll can get hs ban overturned by someone. The problem with this structure is that it promotes the accusation of wheel warring. The admin that removes the ban will be jumped on by those who imposed the ban, and the third admin who puts the ban back again will also be accused of wheel warring. Perhaps we should say that reducing a ban (from indefinite to something less) is acceptable as long as enough time remains on the ban for the community to discuss it before the ban expires. But in the end, I would prefer a system that does not lead inevitably to the accusations of wheel warring, which the current system has the potential to do. NoSeptember ^talk 11:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that if admin A thinks a community ban is in order, and admin B doesn't and unblocks, that's wheel-warring. And there's something like that going on right now with a user who is making a lot of noise on the mailing list. If we have a firm agreement that if admin B unblocks, that's OK and it's the end of the community ban, fair enough - but that's not the procedure at the moment, and that's not what's happening. Also, even if admin B unblocks, admin C will be along in a while to decide that another community ban is in order, because these users are not generally ones who change their behaviour. I think we need a firm and fair process to decide that the ban genuinely has community support, and that it should stick. --ajn (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The general idea of "community bans" is that they are outside process. One problem is that we are mixing up several different processes. Some poeple such a WoW have a genunine community ban. In other cases none of the ~100 admins who actualy deal with this kind of blocking really want to do the unblock. In yet more cases it is simply a missnamed IAR block.Geni 20:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removed trolling

Historically, wrongfully banned users have appealed to the WikiEN-L listserv over indefinite blocks hoping to get a consensus of admins in favor of reducing or lifting their ban. It's not a "one admin bans you, you have to appeal to Arbcom" type of issue. — Philwelch t 17:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I don't get. My understanding is that you don't need a consensus to remove a community ban; you need consensus to make one. The banning policy says:

• "The Wikipedia community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself. Some editors are so odious that not one of the 915 administrators on Wikipedia would ever want to unblock them."

This gives me the impression that community bans occur when not a single administrator objects to an indefinite block. Apparently, that is more controversial in practice than the policy page indicates. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's messy. Just like any other consensus-based decision on Wikipedia, it's less a matter of no one objecting and more a matter of no one wanting to stick their neck out to actually unblock, hence the "not one of the 915 administrators would ever want to unblock them". — Philwelch t 18:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of at least one example where an administrator did stick his neck out and unblock the "community banned" user, only to find himself accused of wheel warring and the block re-applied. I wonder how many community bans would be enacted not because the editing user is that odious, but because admins don't want to involve themselves in a block war. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely my view. As I've just said on the mailing list, I actually think community bans should be used more frequently than they currently are, but I'm not keen on controversial community bans leading to wars between admins. As I say above, if we're going to have clear agreement that unblocking a community-banned user is OK, and that the original banning admin should accept that decision without reapplying the ban, that would be another way to deal with it. --ajn (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Delaney says, "apparently, this is more controversial in practice than the policy page indicates." I don't think that's true. We indefinitely block dozens of users a day (sometimes hundreds) because of extreme vandalism, legal threats, persistent copyright violations, etc., without objection from anyone. The percentage of these blocks that are controversial is miniscule, and any change in policy should reflect that. I'll concede we may need to change the way we deal with users who have some good edits but are very difficult, but that shouldn't make us unnecessarily change the way we deal with pure trolls. Chick Bowen 18:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with community ban proposals is that currently even a single administrator can dig his heels in and repeatedly unblock. This has happened a few times. In instances where there is a very strong consensus to ban a problem user, I propose that the dissenting administrator, or any other party, must use a lightweight procedure to overturn the ban. A proposal to overturn should be made on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, and if four arbitrators agree to the proposal then the community ban is overturned. Unblocking against general consensus of administrators on the wiki is of course an abuse of administrator powers, so there would be a strong incentive to administrators to follow this route.

The procedure still favors unbanning by only requiring four arbitrators to agree with the motion to overturn. If the ban is overturned, the case may still optionally be taken to arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 19:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a bit misleading to say that your procedure is "lightweight" and favors unbanning because it only takes 4 arbitrators to overturn. Arbitrators are not morons, not a single one is going to overturn a case against a legitimate troll (which is as it should be). It amuses me that you would require 4 arbitrators to undo a blocking action that was endorsed by 4 to 8 admins on WP:ANI (many announced community bans only get limited discussion). We must not presume that consensus for a community ban has been reached just because there was not a lot of discussion.
• Your plan also seems to call for Arbitrators to routinely make final decisions without ever conducting a case. That would essentially change the whole Arbitration process. Instead of imposing sanctions as they do now, you would have ArbCom merely be the reviewers of sanctions imposed by others.
• Community decisions should be decided by the community, and ArbCom decisions should be decided by ArbCom. Trying to mix the two as you have is not a good idea. If there must be a review of a community decision because there are admins with opposing views, then have some sort of admin consensus proving procedure, to make clear whether consensus exists. Or else, go to ArbCom through the proper procedure, with a properly formed case. NoSeptember ^talk 19:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any individual admin can claim that a user is banned by the community. To make it so easy for the user to be blocked, then so difficult for the block to be reversed, is a Bad Idea(tm). I would rather see the bureaucratic resistance flowing in the other direction. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that User:Mostly Rainy is closing AfDs without being an Admin. Contribs: [18] --mtz206 (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where the outcome is uncontroversial, and does not involve deletion, non-admins are welcome (encouraged!) to close AfDs. Flicking through the constibutions this seems to be what Mostly Rainy is doing. If there are specific closures that go against this principle please provide examples. The Land 12:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I didn't know that was allowed. No prob. thanks. --mtz206 (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try it yourself sometime ;-) The Land 18:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He/she does not appear, though, to have placed the AfD result notices on the talk pages of the respective articles; I'll try to get them all but someone should check to ensure I've not missed any. Joe 21:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More details on this procedure can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-Administrators_closing_discussions. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too closed a fair number of Afd discussions before I became admin. It certainly helped reduce all of the things I needed to learn once I got the new shiny buttons. --Cyde↔Weys 01:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, I closed AfDs as a non-admin when they were still called VfD, and before they said that non-admins can only close unambiguous votes. Back then, the only limit non-admins had was that we couldn't close Delete votes (for obvious reasons). I closed a lot of "No consensus" votes, but I'm sure if non-admins did those now, they'd get a bit of a talking-to. Ah, the good ol' days!. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

69.250.94.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) If you look at these contributions you can see a pattern of vandalism, and trollish taunting. I would like to see a short block to alert this user that leaving stupid statements about an AfD is not tolerated. Dominick ^(TALK) 01:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User was not warned, I've pointed the user to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, if the user continues then a block might be warranted. JoshuaZ 01:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that I hate to type this message, but it looks like the discussion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Sturm is rapidly spinning out of control. I sent a message to one of the more flame-happy participants and reminded his of WP:NPA, but I have a feeling that will have only limited impact. One of the participants also reported that the subject of the article in question (a radio host) reported on the condition of the AFD on his radio show and encouraged listeners to join in the "vote". Needless to say, I see this AFD becoming a large vandalism target very soon. I'm going to keep my eye on it, but there's really only so much one person can do, (especially a non-admin), so if others (especially you admins) wanted to keep an eye on things too, it would be helpful. TIA --Bachrach44 01:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just blocked User:216.164.203.90 indefinitely for creating User:Rappy30V2 (also blocked indefinitely) to continue violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. See here and both users' contribs for evidence, and feel free to review. RadioKirk talk to me 01:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather unusal to block an IP indefinitely. Is there an urgency to do so? I'm not familiar with the history of that account, but it mentions something about vandalism experiments or whatnot from a known user? Anyway, I am a bit uncomfortable with the block, but I don't see any urgency to unblock it at the moment...we can say, wait 24-48 hours and do the unblocking, and temporarily let the indefinite block stand while some discussion takes place. Does this sound good? --HappyCamper 01:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IP was just blocked for a week, so I think a month is in order as the person just continued where he left of. But I agree, the IP could move to another user in the future, so indef block seems not right. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that when making the block; however, I've mentioned to others that "indefinite" and "permanent" are not synonymous, and I'll act the fool for the moment and remind those who already know this fact (sorry...). :) RadioKirk talk to me 01:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and based on his behaviour, I do not mind the indef block, I was more thinking ahead towards others in the future that could get that IP-number. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no worries :-) I did a reblocking for a month. Actually, I am contemplating the unusal step of protecting the talk page as well. It seems that the IP has an inclination for attracting attention for the purposes of disruption. What do others think? --HappyCamper 02:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, please. RadioKirk talk to me 02:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, we'll leave things at that then. Oh! I missed the note that the account was aslo blocked indefinitely. That's a good call I think. --HappyCamper 02:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks primarily to this lovely series of attacks on Wikipedia, User:Rappy30V3 also has been indef-blocked as yet another sock, and all user talk pages have been vprotected per WP:NPA and WP:POINT. This editor is right about one thing: we can't stop him forever, nor do we need to—only until he grows up. :) RadioKirk talk to me 22:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A.K.A. ChrisO

• He reverted Boris' cited edits to Borovo Selo killings
• He blocked him for reverting only twice on the same article

• He expressed double standards for Boris, a Serb editor, and Dr. Gonzo, a Croat editor, who never cites sources

ChrisO is obviously wikistalking Boris. Whenever Boris makes an edit, ChrisO is always there to revert it, no matter what he writes. He has blocked him once for reverting the KLA article twice and Prishtina once, which Boris tolerated, but this has gone too far. ChrisO is abusing his admin power: He blocked for 2 reverts, not implementing the 3RR, and breaking the rules of Wikipedia himself. All in all, Boris really deserves to be unblocked.

- Krytan

According to the block log, Bormalagurski was blocked for making personal attacks, not for what he was editing in or out. ChrisO did not cite 1RR for the block. About the wikistalking, Boris' style of editing is quite, err, flamboyant, judging by the volume of exchanges left on his pages and also on that of many Croatian users, as well as the high influx of new nationalist Serbian editors who seem to have amazing technical skill, have lead him to garner attention in a Gastrichesque manner which would lead to all of his edits being scrutinized to a much higher degree than other users, due to his previous history. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boris has not personally attacked ChrisO, he was mad at him, wrote in capital letters, and expressed his opinion that ChrisO doesn't like Serbs, which is probably true, considering the double standards he has for Serbs and Croats. (That's not a personal attack). Even though he wrote "personal attacks" there was no personal attack made, and the block is absolutely unfair. So Chris' main reason for blocking Boris is because of his claim hating Serbs. This was just his opinion. And if he is blocked for expressing his opinion, then the claims must be true. - Krytan

Well the WP:NPA is pretty strict, and I'm not sure, but this [19] may be seen as somewhat threatening ("You'll get yours").Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sure it's strict, but please read the entire sentence: I know you hate me because I'm a Serb, but one day, you'll get yours, and will be blocked for extremist nationalism on Wikipedia. Boris was simply saying that because of the "extremist nationalism", ChrisO will get punished by Wikipedia law, not by Boris himself. That's what you'll get yours" means. - Krytan

I agree with Krytan, Boris did not make personal attacks, rather ChrisO actions and comments towards him and other Serb Wikipedians provoked to ask whether he truly hated Serbs. Afterwards, ChrisO blocked Boris for incivilty and personal attacks. Boris made no such statements, but asked a question that has been on the minds of many Serb users, (ie. Do you hate us for being Serb?). ChrisO was provoked by this, and then blocked Boris. Boris is not guilty of anything. ChrisO should put his admin priviledges to better use then to block people who prove him to be a Serbophobe, especially if he wishes to remain an admin. C-c-c-c 21:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was worth a block. The behaviour in general is poor. Actions like this look like an account that has an agenda beyond building a free, reusable encyclopedia and may be interfering with others' attempts to do so. No real basis for complaint about ChrisO here. Jkelly 21:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not.. I mean, an ordinary user going against an administrator... How could I have a chance... This is not about rules, this is about opinion... I said "making you cry", if thats a personal insult, then you guys get insulted very easily. Aldo, Francis really knows nothing about Montenegrin language and he even admitted it on the article talk page... Well, enjoy your benevalent dictatorship, my dear sweet administrators (don't take this as an insult) -- serbiana - talk 04:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay in replying - I've only just learned of this discussion, as the original poster apparently didn't feel any obligation to notify me about it. Bormalagurski has been an active participant in a series of edit wars on articles relating to the former Yugoslavia, which have seen just about every example of editorial abuse - edit warring, 3RR violations, sockpuppets, the use of open proxies, impersonation of other users etc. I stepped in to intervene in Battle of Vukovar and Borovo Selo killings, two particularly badly affected articles. At the time that I blocked him for 24 hours, Bormalagurski had:

• continued to make personal attacks after being told not to;
• had been caught red-handed impersonating another user
• had repeatedly restored an abusive userbox which accused another user of "decapitation, extermination, torture" and had been removed by User:Inshanee as a gross personal attack;
• in response to my instruction that he needed to follow WP:V and WP:CITE, had dumped entire pages from a copyrighted book into an article, which was a copyvio, blatant plagiarism and an example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

And that's not counting many other instances of ignoring basic editing policies, pushing POVs and edit-warring and move-warring. In other words, he was lucky just to have received a 24 hour block. I strongly encourage other admins to keep an eye on this user's contributions, as he is a fairly extreme POV-pusher (sample edit summary: "for my beloved country Srbija ;-)" [20]). Needless to say, this isn't about being anti-Serb, it's about being anti-bad editing; unfortunately Bormalagurski has lately been a poster child for bad editing.

It's also unfortunate that his misconduct has been excused and abetted by other users, apparently in the mistaken belief that his bad editing is excusable if he's on the "right side." Bad editing is bad editing whoever does it. I'll continue to tackle it wherever it arises, regardless of the nationality of the editor(s) concerned - just like any other administrator would. -- ChrisO 19:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And no, he does not stop there. For more please refer to the report I prepared today. It is now clear why User:Krytan was trying to play the advocate in this discussion page. ilir_pz 00:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous user is a sockpuppet of User:Хаха (see evidence, [21], [22]). The user should currently be blocked for 24 hours for 3RR on List of cities in Bulgaria. However 85.91.128.141 is evading the block, please block the IP address.  /FunkyFly.talk_   02:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this one's already being dealt with, for the moment. RadioKirk talk to me 15:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can an administrator please protect the American Idol page from IPs and inexperienced users? I am having difficulty controlling continued vandalism without disobeying the 3RR. Thank you. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 02:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need not worry about the 3RR if you are removing vandalism :-) Keep up the good work! --HappyCamper 02:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the various flamewars on Talk:Tsushima Island, SlimVirgin oversaw a binding formal vote for that devisive renaming controversy. Currently, whether Wikipedia articles are 'ebook, eBook, or e-book', while not as devisive, are fundamentally costing producivity pending an outcome. Guidelines1, Policy2, are singularly unhelpful. We've been progressing slowly and steadily, but it would be good to have this made into a binding vote as it is clear our world itself (See 2.) is unsettled on this issue. But we have an encyclopedia to write. I've pumped for increased traffic. All we need is meet guidlines under YOUR(?) guidance. Can you lend a hand? Best regards, // FrankB 03:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No binding decisions might be helpful. -M^ask 04:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please block the user Middle East Editor. This user's only contribution is to repeatedly revert the content of the Alireza Jafarzadeh article from a well referenced version to a poor quality version with little detail. I have posted several escalating vandalism warnings on the user's talk page, however Middle East Editor has not bothered to edit a user page so the warnings are unlikely to be noticed. There have been several attempts to improve and expand the Alireza Jafarzadeh article in the past, each thwarted by revisions from Middle East Editor. The article is protected against anonymous editors, but still vulnerable to this serial pest. The line has to be drawn somewhere. --Dave 11:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute, edits are extremely sporadic (he edited on the 22nd and 24th, and that 1 edit per two days was the most frequently he's ever edited), no reason to take administrative action. Just revert him. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things that I've lamented since I got to Wikipedia is that "Requested Articles" and "Requests for expansion" are off in a corner and not altogether well maintained. I got an idea the other day, though: Given that categories are really easy to see, really easy to search, and really well indexed, and amazingly easy to depopulate and populate, why not use those? Furthermore, there is no project page needed. Therefore I have created Category:Red list. A lot of us keep lists of articles we want to write or articles that we mean to get around to researching. Sometimes we want those to be private and don't want people to sneak in and "steal" our topics. Most of the time, though, we don't care who writes the article: we just want someone with an interest to do it. In the latter case, all you need to do is apply the category tag to the redlink list that you've put in your user talk space, and then folks'll be able to see what they can do to help. I'm not a programmer, and I stink at category manipulation, but if we can subcat this appropriately (Red list:Literature: Poetry: 17th century), it would be even more useful. This will work, if we use it. Geogre 12:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it was recently deleted with move done by copy-and-pasting. Please restore the history. --Malyctenar 13:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be restored because pages can't be moved within Category namespace. I'll copy and paste the page history onto the talk page at the new location: this is the best we can do, and it's the same as for the transwiki process. -- Francs2000 13:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported this user (24.12.158.51) multiple times under all his sock puppets (see User:Atticus765 and Sock puppets of Atticus765). After showing no reaction to warnings on his talk pages, he was finally blocked for a week on May 16 and continued to vandalise the exact same pages as before the day his block expired. I for my part am sick and tired of reverting his changes every other day, and I think admins would do me, the other editors and this website a favor by blocking him permanently. --HarryCane 14:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It looks like some comments I left on User talk:Davins111 may have been edited by another user in an attempt to change their intended meaning. Is there a warning template I can leave that would be appropriate for this? If this is not the right venue for this question, please do point me in the right direction and I would be happy to go elsewhere (or nowhere). --Takeel 14:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Davins111 altered them. I have now restored them and warned them against changing warnings left on their page. Syrthiss 14:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see now. Thank you. --Takeel 14:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Began harrassment with insults and foul language in Persian on May 23 at 20:44 UTC IP number 38.100.80.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This was on the Kurdish People Discussion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.160.15 (talk • contribs)

Could an admin please take a look at this article and the abuse going on by several new accounts. I have reverted and warned with no affect. Also, one of the accounts User:Otheruses has now turned to vandalizing my talk page with vandalim. Thanks. --Hetar 15:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On my way (I am not an admin however), but I have a look. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. Along with sockpuppets. See block log. — FireFox (U T C) 16:07, 25 May '06

This is part of the stately set of User:Duck-billed platypus socks that also attacked Echidna and User:UtherSRG. Femto 21:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone look into the names at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage and approve those who qualify? I've been waiting patiently. (I have at least 3128 edits, if numbers are a big deal.) Thanks. --Elkman 16:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All listed have been added. Naconkantari 17:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I owed 50 euro to another Wiki user, but he refused to take the money; instead he asked me to donate them to Wiki. This I did, but I received no receipt of my donation. I need a receipt to show the user in question that I donated the money. The only notification I have is when I log onto my PayPal account, but he can't verify that info. I could take a screenshot, but that's not a good method. Is there a way to verify this info? The "Thank You" page said the following: "An email receipt will be sent to you shortly. Please print this out for your records." I received no such email; not on my Wiki account email and not on my Paypal account email. I also emailed donation@wikipedia.org, but I got no reply from them. Grr, what is this? It looks so amateurish! --Candide, or Optimism 16:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contact the Foundation for any financial concerns. English Wikipedia doesn't do money. --Tony Sidaway 06:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your description is of a problem is with Paypal who has claimed to transfer funds to a third party who does not acknowledge receipt of the funds. WAS 4.250 12:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An anon is claiming on my talkpage that the image Image:Fredandjack.jpg "had source info and qualified as public domain", and is hinting that "OrphanBot's deletion of it" constitutes vandalism. OrphanBot's logs indicate that the image was tagged as "no license", so could someone check to see if the image description page had a plausable claim that the image was in the public domain? Thanks. --Carnildo 19:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image from atlantasundaypaper.com {{no license|month=May|day=3|year=2006}} Removed from the following pages: #[[Fred Toucher]] --[[User:OrphanBot|OrphanBot]] 07:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Jkelly 19:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, there was never any other information in the image description page history. Jkelly 19:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Carnildo 20:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Along the same lines, could someone temporarily undelete the image description page for Image:USSCobia.jpg? It appears that OrphanBot made a mistake when tagging it, and the history will let me figure out what the bug is. (The deletion was not a mistake: the image was licensed under a no-commercial-use Creative Commons license). --Carnildo 22:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two revisions restored. Jkelly 22:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found and fixed two bugs related to this. One would cause OrphanBot to tag something as "no info" if a Creative Commons license was selected in the license dropdown, and a license tag was entered at the end of the upload summary. The other would cause OrphanBot to not tag an image if it only had a license tag that takes one or more parameters (such as {{fairusein}}). --Carnildo 22:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redeleted. Jkelly 22:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently 85 talk pages in this category. I blocked a user earlier today, he appealed using {{unblock}} but given this backlog it's likely that his block will expire on its own before someone looks at it. I've unblocked a token few but I'm going to bed now. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with clearing the backlog is that I dealt with two (denied a stupid request, listed an open proxy who claimed to have been closed on WP:OP), and then the next two I looked at were shared IPs that had been blocked for long periods of time and claimed collateral damage... while my instinct is to unblock, I don't like to do it without discussing with the blocking admin, and I don't have the time to do that right now. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out that someone edited {{sharedip}} to included the unblock template. I rolled that back so you should see a lot less in the category now. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 23:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are real-time reports of each use of the {{unblock}} template in the #vandalism-en-wp IRC channel, as well as #vcn-unblock, if any admins who use IRC would like to keep track. The main problem is, vandals tend to continue using the template, even when multiple admins have refused to unblock, and it grows to a point that you begin ignoring the reports. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The other problems is that people don't remove the template once reviewed. So users remain in the cateogry. --pgk^(talk) 06:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll try to have a look at them when I'm free (i.e. about 30 mins)... NSLE _(T+C) at 06:35 UTC (2006-05-26)
  • Cleared up to P, not including IP addresses. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:26 UTC (2006-05-26)

Accounts are cleared, apart from a couple where I'm waiting on input from the blocking admin (Tormender and Wellstone, so don't bother with those). Just the 24 IP addresses to go now. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog cleared, thanks everyone. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone move Apt Pupil (movie) to Apt Pupil (film) (which is currently a redirect). Thanks Arniep 02:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :) RadioKirk talk to me 03:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFPM springs to mind --pgk^(talk) 12:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to me it doesn't. If it's an uncontroversial move over a redirect - and the admin checks the page and talk first - why make the user go through that bureaucracy? Of course we have the right to say "it's controversial, go over there" or indeed not answer at all, but this kind of boring stuff is actually what we're here for. --kingboyk 13:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; that's why I went ahead and did it, because it was uncontroversial and followed the convention anyway. :) RadioKirk talk to me 13:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Arniep 14:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any particular reason for deleting the resulting redirect? Normally these are left alone, in case somebody wants to link to them again. — sjorford++ 16:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there was, I can't recall... I've restored it, thanks for catching that. :) RadioKirk talk to me 16:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would happen if the communism vandal decided to create a new account, and started using vandal proof to revert vandalism for several months without exerting efffort, then used this history of vandalism fighting to run for adminship, then finally revealed his true wicked nature after it was too late, and went on a vandalism spree deleting every single image on wikipedia and replacing them with the hammer and sickle? could anything be done to stop this?--152.163.100.200 02:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*cough*WP:BEANS*cough* RadioKirk talk to me 14:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He would be blocked and desysopped within minutes, and the vandalism quickly repaired. The usefull work he had done in the prior months to become an admin would by far outweigh the work we'd have to do to undo the vandalism. Shanes 02:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troll alert. This user previously posted the following suggestion to Village Pump:

"I've noticed that approximatly 99.9999% of wikipedia vandalism, by ip users seems to come from the same ip range,

NetRange: 1.0.0.0 - 255.255.255.255

I suggest that if it were blocked, nearly all vandalism could be ceased indefintly."

Arniep 14:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a "troll" with a sense of humor... RadioKirk talk to me 14:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to have a history of vandalizing this page [23], [24]. [25]. Arniep 14:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the entire edit history seems to be suspicious [26], [27], [28]. Arniep 14:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My IP is 127.0.0.1. I dare all the hackers out there to run a DoS attack on me. Come on, I double dare ya! --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Okay, old threat, I know.[reply]

Anyone know what is up with the new "oversight log"? Prodego ^talk 02:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has to do with the new Special:Hiderevisions page, which is currently being developed. (more info) Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are song lyrics copyrighted? I ask because a user added the lyrics to No More Tears (song). (I haven't recently checked his other contribs yet). I do know of how many sites that have song lyric listings out there (which caused me to question if it is so), but I also know that just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's legal, therefore I thought I would ask before reverting. Thanks a bunch! Charlie^{( @CIRL | talk | email )} 02:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of song lyrics cannot be posted on Wikipedia, because they are not compatible with the GFDL. Even those that are compatible, which for the most part means in the public domain, would belong at our sister project Wikisource. And if you are unsure if something is in the public domain, please do not assume it is, because it most likely isn't.--Sean Black 02:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info! I'll remember that in the future --Charlie^{( @CIRL | talk | email )} 03:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can quote any copyrighted text as long as you do it sparingly, that falls under "fair use". Haukur 12:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For harassment involving citation of an external website dedicated to the harassment of Wikipedians [29], Terryeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked by me for the maximum of one week permitted under his personal attack parole [30]. I think that in this case a considerable extension of the blocking period is merited.

Thoughts? --Tony Sidaway 03:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support...block all time wasting trolls.--MONGO 04:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a sufficient pattern of editing the talk pages disruptively too, suggest asking Arbcom to modify the article ban to include talk pages. Thatcher131 11:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth noting that all that Terryeo is now doing is arguing with other editors on the talk pages of Scientology-related articles, having been banned from editing the actual articles. He has shown no interest in editing anywhere else in Wikipedia. I'm not advocating any particular course of action here, but I have to ask the question: what are we gaining from his continued participation in this project? -- ChrisO 18:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get as many admins as possible to add this to their WL? We have a situation where a bunch of IP users are trying to add a "Finale Rundown", which is not on any of the other Idol articles. Plus it's very ripe to vandalism right now anyway. Thank you. --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to have more participation in the ongoing discussion at Template:Sprotected. The template has been rewritten a few times in the last few days but there isn't a strong consensus on a particular version. Some editors want to make it primarily or exclusively a talk page template. Haukur 12:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A troll (REDROCKET) keeps changing "blink-182 was" to "blink-182 is" on the blink-182 article. "blink-182 was" is correct because the band has been "indefinite hiatus" since early 2005 and months later on a news article, the singer (Tom DeLonge) said that he hasn't spoken to the rest of the members since then. I've tried discussing this on the article's talk page, but no one replied yet. After I keep changing back "blink-182 is" to "blink-182 was", the troll later keeps changing it back "blink-182 was" to "blink-182 is" back as well. So, please ban the troll as soon as possible and thanks for anything you could provide. 64.142.89.105 13:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on the user's talk page. Meantime, I need to remind you of tho things: calling someone a "troll" over a content dispute violates Wikipolicy against personal attacks; and, Merriam-Webster defines hiatus as "an interruption in time or continuity", suggesting a temporary state. I personally would be inclined to use "is" until band members announce they're done. RadioKirk talk to me 14:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit war continues and I'd like some input. The reporting user above (64.142.89.105) and a second user (65.222.216.15) appear to be tag-teaming in an effort to push the POV (see this edit summary). Each user has reverted an attempt to find a compromise that removes the "was/is" argument from the equation. I highly suspect these users know each other (at the very least)—one IP resolves to the South San Francisco Bay Area, the other to a North Bay company that serves the South Bay, and they revert nearly in turn, likely to avoid WP:3RR. Their contribs, if nothing else, show nearly identical interests. See also my attempt to find a compromise. RadioKirk talk to me 19:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second compromise attempt. RadioKirk talk to me 01:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get some admins to weigh in on speedy deleted article Mike ponting by Satancheese (talk · contribs) describing a school shooting today. Possible personal attack article, possible threat. In particular, do we inform the school? - BanyanTree 14:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's different in the US, but the chance of an English schoolkid getting his hands on "an SMG, 2 AK-47s and a Spaz Shotgun" is between none and bugger-all. I'll give the kid a warning but personally, I wouldn't inform the school. Kids are always writing nonsense like this, it's more sad than just when someone rats on them and gets them suspended or expelled. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've blocked the creator, User:Satancheese per WP:U: "Names of religious figures such as "God," "Jehovah," "Buddha," or "Allah", which may offend other people's beliefs". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for your input. There was an actual plot recently by schoolkids in the town next to the one in which I grew up and I take this and responsibility to rat quite seriously (as a person, if not as an admin), but the English school bit had given me pause. I am leaving it be. - BanyanTree 15:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope I don't feel like a fool tomorrow, but if someone was planning a shooting, they wouldn't post it on wikipedia. Most likely someone who doesn't like the supposed perpetrator put it up to stir up trouble. This is nothing more than the high-tech equivalent of writing on the bathroom wall. I think Sam's actions were appropriate and proportionate. --Bachrach44 16:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely blocked Great Young Jake Remington (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Raging Lavas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Ligas Teacher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who all added the {{delete}} tag to Elitism, and have no other edits. Great Young Jake Remington left an edit summary of "Still here, and I won" [31]. Vandal may return with more socks. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the North Carolina Vandal, bragging that he has a new IP range (63.19.128.0/17 no longer blocks him). If anyone has ideas on how to deal with this pest, I'm all ears. Antandrus (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to help, but this one is a bit much. I think one of y'all is going to have to figure out how to shut it down. Kukini 15:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* The page is protected... again... RadioKirk talk to me 15:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question...is there a way of protecting it from new users? Perhaps leaving it open to editing from users with a longer history might work. If you just did that, my apologies. Kukini 15:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just put in a request for checkuser ([32]) since range blocks are the best way to stop him. Thanks everyone. Antandrus (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And remember: any username containing "Jake Remington" or something resembling that should be blocked without prejudice. 19:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The contents of this user's userpage concern me. The misattributed quotes, composed of attacks on politicians, Jews, etc. - it's inappropriate contents for an encyclopedia. Perhaps it should be deleted? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleared out the trolling and deleted one edit with a threat as a summary.Voice-of-All^Talk 18:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please make sure the right thing happens at Talk:Friedrich List#Restored the section about List's view of Jews? WAS 4.250 19:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like cite.php and the references tags are not working. Here is an example from Bangladesh:

1. ^ ([[#CITEREFBharadwaj2003|Bharadwaj 2003]])
2. ^ ([[#CITEREFXinhua2006|Xinhua 2006]])
3. ^ a b ([[#CITEREFEaton1996|Eaton 1996]])
4. ([[#CITEREFBaxter1997|Baxter 1997]], pp. 23-28)

Note that, this is a common problem to all of the pages that use the cite.php style references.

--Ragib 20:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a null edit on The KLF which has ~80 cite.php refs and it's fine. Bangladesh does indeed look to be broken though... ?? --kingboyk 20:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Rabindranath Tagore as well. I should elaborate that references pointing to {{Harv}} style notations are not showing up. --Ragib 21:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not all articles using cite.php; History of Earth's references are working fine. I agree; perhaps it is somehow related to {{Harv}}. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is something wrong with {{Harv}}; in fact, it looks like there is an error with the {{wikilink}}. AndyZ _t 22:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it has nothing at all to do with cite.php, take a look at the WP:LEAD of Mormonism, which also shows the same thing. Not sure what's wrong though.. the last time this template was edited was a lot earlier this May, Template:wikilink was last editing in April; there are no recent changes to explain why it isn't working. AndyZ _t 22:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That leaves me perplexed. I'm more than 100% sure that the articles which use {{Harv}} style listing for references worked fine with cite.php, right until a day or two ago. The articles I mentioned are all FA's, and the Tagore article was on the main page on May 7. I think something broke with Harv style notations/references because only articles with that style seem to be affected. See also, Kolkata. That too had Harv style references and showing the same garvled refs. --Ragib 23:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think: |<nowiki>#</nowiki>CITEREF{{{1|}}}{{{2|}}}{{{3|}}}{{{4|}}}{{{5|}}} is generating the problems, for example: Bangladesh#History works, but [[Bangladesh#History]] doesn't. But I have no clue why, since it was working before. AndyZ _t 01:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be related to this. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that would explain it. The <nowiki> tag has to be removed from {{Harv}} then. AndyZ _t 01:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was a lot easier than I thought it would be- (I hope) it now works. AndyZ _t 02:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major collateral damage... Special:Ipblocklist. Could someone in the know about this case please handle this? NSLE _(T+C) at 02:14 UTC (2006-05-27)

I think we got 'em all now. Thanks! Antandrus (talk) 02:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If blanking User:Funnybunny's page isn't a problem, then the username is. The Gerg 03:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 02:13, 27 May 2006 Kungfuadam blocked "Blatant Funny Bunny Sockpuppet (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (vandalism)

--Ryan Delaney ^talk 07:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know excatly what is happening here, but if you look on the history of todays featured article which has been protcted, 5 or 6 users with very few contributions, most likely sockpupuets, have made the exact same vandalizing edit, with the exact same edit summary. They blank the page, and then put a vandalzing pic on. This is just like the squidward bot. I'm not sure if this is another vandalism progarm staring up, but whatever it is, admins need to take a look. Tobyk777 03:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a well known vandal, and it's coming from the semi-static 172 AOL range. All we can do is watch, revert, and block, and we've been doing just that for the last several hours. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And when the heck will we finally only allow AOL users to edit when logged in? Wondering and waiting for years, Infrogmation 06:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case not sure it would help, some of the users I looked at had been created a couple of weeks ago. --pgk^(talk) 10:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, they're playing with the block system to make things work better, but I don't know that it would solve this problem. However, the AOL vandals have been out tonight in force; I've had to unblock collateral damage on WBardwin 5 times so far. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a poll running at Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll (or at least, it's about to start). May I be so bold as to suggest to admins that we monitor the poll, then start enforcing what is decided? We all have better things to do than worry about things like the naming conventions of U.S. State routes. The amount of effort wasted on this topic should have been expended on the article content itself. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is making some rather strange allegations. On their talk page they claim that User:Cumberbunds IP resolves to User:Gwernol [33].

On Talk:Stephanie Adams they claim that they are in a "in a circle with Jimbo" and can't be blocked [34]. Later on the same page they make some wild claims in the first paragragh. I assume the user they are referring to is Gwernol [35].

The on User talk:TigerShark they say that he will be removed as admin [36]. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've noticed this user making some unlikely claims - of being an admin who can't be bothered to log in, of knowing the IP addresses of people who have logged in, and so forth. FreplySpang 19:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to my (1+ edits) marking tool for the new user log, for users around May 3rd and below, 90% have absolutely no edits. I wonder if this is some sort of sleeper attack. I am considering blocking inactive sleepers. Maybe I'll make a bot that dumps them into a list on a subpage of mine.Voice-of-All^Talk 09:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly. However, a lot of legitimate people register long before they start editing, and I don't know how you'd be able to tell them apart... Petros471 09:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They could always request an unblock. Hmmm....perhaps I'll focus on even older accounts, and maybe the names might also gives some clues to be sure.Voice-of-All^Talk 09:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I noticed that the very recent newbiews and the ones who could easily edit semiprotect pages have about the same percent (73-78) chance of having edited anything. It seems like either they may an account and get started or just sit there, by and large.Voice-of-All^Talk 09:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the tool count deleted edits? On new pages, very little of the obvious nonsense comes from established users, so... --Calton | Talk 09:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that most (the vast majority, really) of registered usernames go unused. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused for editing =/= unused. There's a lot that are created just to log in and avoid IP messages... Shimgray | talk | 10:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we even encourage them to do so. I'm sure many accounts also exist so the user can select their own preferences (like a choice of skin, for example). --bainer (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will it really matter if they are blocked yet never edit, they can always request to reactivate it. I don't know.Voice-of-All^Talk 19:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the related discussion at Wikipedia:Usurpation. Thatcher131 11:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added one (Db-nn-webcomic) for non-notable webcomics (because there are way too many nn wecomicds on AfD). Please add it to the CSD page. Thank you. Raichu 16:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no CSD criterion for webcomics. The template should therefore be deleted. Ral315 (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you come up with the criterion and propose it, then make the template to make it easier once articles are regularly being deleted under it.--Sean Black 17:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and given this, I've deleted the templat. Anyone who wishes to comment and/or criticise this action is welcome to do so here, on my talk page, via email, IRC, smoke signals, or whatever form of communication they prefer.--Sean Black 17:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, do we need a speedy deletion template to place on inappropriate speedy deletion templates? Joe 17:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because that would just lead to edit warring over if it should be used on CSD T1 and T2. --Carnildo 20:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikitchenko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken to attacking other editors, in some cases using the Hivemind site, which is expressly designed for harassment of Wikipedia editors. After a brief block by MarkGallagher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) he has come back and started editing abusively, including three quotations of the hivemind site, which he describes as a site that "works towards exposing abusive WIkipedians, specifically admins and arbitrators" [37].

I've blocked him for forty-eight hours for this repeated harassment. In view of his appalling behavior, I recommend that we block him indefinitely. --Tony Sidaway 19:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest we move this conversation to WP:ANI#User:Nikitchenko linking to Wikipedia Review? Purely because I got there first :-). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do so. I'll make any further comments on that page. --Tony Sidaway

Good evening! I´m sorry - really! I won´t do this again - can you delete my domain from this intervention against vandalism please - contact me! If it´s possible: cybermasterxxl@uboot.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.146.236.98 (talk • contribs)

Would another administrator with the technical capabilities to save a .svg image upload Image:Flag of Indonesia.svg and then protect it? The flag is on the main page right now and should once uploaded and protected, should be tagged with {{c-uploaded}}. Right now, only the image page has been protected, but because it the image is from Commons and has not been uploaded onto Wikipedia, any changes in Commons would be reflected here, leaving the image up for vandalism. Because my computer can't support saving .svg files, I've temporarily uploaded the flag in a .png file format, protected it, and changed it for the time being. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flag of Pakistan.svg needs the same thing; I've changed the image to a .png version until this can be done. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, all: I've written up Wikipedia:Quasi-protection policy, a proposal similar to semi-protection that would effectively limit sleeper accounts used to vandalize articles linked from the Main Page. I know that I've written a lot, and at first glance, the proposal may seem daunting. However, I truly believe that this would immensely improve Wikipedia and implore you to read it through and offer your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has an inappropriate username (as Brian Peppers was personally deleted by Jimbo), but that's not why I'm here. For the most part, the user has only added content to Janet Klatt, then removed all content claiming "IT VIOLATES SCHOOL POLICY".[38] Dunno what I should do about it, so I brought it up here. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 23:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked per WP:USERNAME Will (^E_@) T 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

also a reincarnation of a known communism sock--152.163.100.200 23:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently a lot of requests for unblocking (both from people hit as collateral damage form other blocks and people blocked for cause) come in to info-en, the regular mailing list, and to random admins' email addresses. This is not really an ideal situation. The mailing list just isn't the place anymore; posts from users who aren't subscribed get stuck in moderation, and admins who are happy to do blocking and unblocking but don't care about hundred-post licensing debates don't subscribe to it. The info-en address has limited staff, and isn't meant for this sort of request, and a random admin may or may not be around to answer.

Is there any support for an admin "hotline" list, publicly accessible, to be linked from the block message, where blocked users can go to complain and get a pool of interested admins to answer?

Note that this is not meant for users to be able to "shop around" for an admin to unblock! Just that a lot of users are pretty clueless when they find themselves blocked, especially if they're on a shared or dynamic IP; anyone blocked for cause should have the blocking admin consulted as usual. Is there support for this? Anything you'd change about the idea before implementing? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love it! FreplySpang 00:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! --Tony Sidaway 00:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, non admin here but reader of a now and then very busy wikien-1. Garion96 ^(talk) 00:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent idea. --bainer (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This will be helpful. I've recently been watching the Category:Requests for unblock, which had grown very long until cleared out. It isn't a very effective way of notifying disinterested admins that a user requests an unblock. A dedicated mailing list is much better. -Will Beback 00:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem with Category:Requests for unblock is it gets loaded down with old requests. Is there a way separate out fresh requests (maybe do a subcategory by date)? NoSeptember ^talk 02:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if more admins looked at it and dealt with them in a timely fashion it wouldn't be a problem. I'm not sure I like the idea that we look at te new ones and assume all the old ones are done and dusted so Ignore them. --pgk^(talk) 08:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice idea. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 01:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, please. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:28 UTC (2006-05-28)

Mentioned before, but worth mentioning again; there is an IRC bot that reports these as they happen, and if watched, it can result in a near instantaneous action. I caught at least 5 autoblocks for WBardwin via it last night. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to add it to one of the other channels, such as #wikipedia-en-admins? Essjay (Talk • Connect) 09:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't subscribe to that cess pool called a maling list, so I only rarely know of these unblock requests after I've braved the archive. I have had people I've blocked contact me via email, and have attempted to communicate with all of them, even having unblocked some after discussion. Another method for blocked users to appeal would be very useful. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been getting non-stop e-mail from Wikipedia/media telling me that an IP address is requesting that my e-mail address get changed. Could the IP just get blocked so I don't have to get these e-mails anymore, or does that matter? In the e-mail, it says I could just ignore it if it wasn't me and continue using my password, but it's just getting ridiculous now. DGX 01:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest that you temporarily disable Wikipedia email. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:49 UTC (2006-05-28)

Ugh.. might as well. DGX 01:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This happened to me a little while back. A Bugzilla entry was filed and apparently there is now support for throttling of password requests implemented in mediawiki (although not yet live on Wikipedia). See [39]. —Stormie 11:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing to apply at least semi-protection to this article when it is the day's featured article in a few days time.

It is being subjected not just to childish vandalism but to this sort of thing. As this is an attempt by someone (someone who purports to be the transhumanist writer Simon Young) to quite deliberately sabotage the article, I don't feel too much compunction about imposing blocks if I see it happen again, without going through the routine of multiple warnings, or being too concerned that I am in a position of content dispute. Anyone have a problem with any of this? If so (or even if not), would anyone else like to watch the article and take an interest in the vandalism problem? Metamagician3000 02:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metamagician, no, please don't protect the article on Main Page day. Don't worry about somebody watching it, the Main Page article always is widely watched. It's especially valuable to have it editable by anons, not so much perhaps for article improvement (childish vandalism is indeed likely to outweigh good contributions) as because it's something that can draw in new editors to Wikipedia. ("Yes, you can edit even this article!") Obvious vandalism is easy to revert. Your known saboteur, 86.133.14.127 can and should be blocked at the first sign of sabotage on that day, if they have a reasonably stable IP. Feel free to warn or appeal to him/her about it right now.

If you and the other Transhumanism editors feel strongly about protecting it, please take the issue to the FA Director. Or, since Raul is apparently at the beach right now, I have a notion he recently wrote a page in his userspace laying out why the FA of the day is not to be protected. I can't find any link to it, though. Anybody know where it is? Bishonen | talk 09:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

User:Raul654/protection. Kotepho 10:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Bishonen | talk 11:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, thanks for your wisdom. Metamagician3000 00:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to have some more eyes at the Drawball article. It's full of useless unencyclopedic unsourced subtrivia, and any attempts to remove it are reverted by anons, who come to "dick-wag" their online group's latest escapade. Please see:

• My post at the VP
• Talk:Drawball

Contributions to the article as well as on the talk page would be welcomed. The list of logos and tags absolutely reminds me of the worst of the rubbish that was on the List of YTMND fads. If this constant rubbishness continues, I'd really like some semi-protection on it, but that's for later. I really cannot be bothered to police this article myself. - Hahnchen 02:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need a few admins to double check a recent addition I've made to the AfD listings at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elder Scrolls-related articles. It was a list of several articles, so it seemed better to condense them down into one page for voting — atypical, I know, but probably wiser. I'm still working on adding AfD notices to all of the pages listed, but in the meantime, would someone look this over and see that it's checking out all right (or advise a better way to do this)? Thanks. Tijuana Brass^E@ 05:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked SuperDeng for extreme disruption and for continuing his WikiStalking of User:Kurt Leyman. I blocked Kurt for continuing to put misinformation into articles and for refusing to come to an agreement with Deng. This has been going on for 2 months now. We've tried every method possible to stop this. Both users have been blocked. A RfC was opened earlier this month. That didn't do it. If you look at Deng's last 40 or so edits, almost all are reverts of Kurt. This is less than 2 weeks after he was blocked for 8 (yes 8) reverts in 2 hours on the Josef Stalin page. Has Kurt acted poorly as well? Yes. But we cannot and should not let users do what Deng is doing. It pretty much defines disruption. But I myself am tired of watching this farce continue. And as I said, this didn't just start. If you look through SuperDeng's contribs, I believe that over 80 of them (and probably more) are reverts of Kurt. I don't care what someone has done on here. That's uncalled for. We need to somehow get these 2 to talk this out in email or some other method. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another imposter of User:Funnybunny made by User:Frank Schouten.The Gerg 15:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can report these sorts of things on WP:AIV, but check the blocklog first; that particular one was blocked more than 24 hours before you reported it. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 23:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised this before, and the situation is, if anything, getting worse. Another editor has now approached me for advice on what to do about Eiorgiomugini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). His English is pretty bad, but he insists that this shouldn't stop him from removing {{copyedit}} tags from articles without doing the work, and that sums up his general attitude. he's come from another Wikipedia (probably the Chinese one), and has started editing a range of articles with no concern for other editors, rarely deigning to explain his edits. He's used misleading edit summaries (such as when he tried insisting on removing three external links on the basis that they were dead; none of them was, and he later admitted that he'd been unable to access just one of them), and is currently insisting on removing information from Erya without any explanation.

Could another admin try to talk to him? He seemed to be paying a little more attention to my explanations, but perhaps that was just illusory. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A user has redirected Talk: On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther) to Talk:Martin Luther/Copyright of Luther's Works. Would someone undo this, so that discussion on the article can take place? --CTSWyneken 23:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... my watchlist shows someone else editing the talk page. The redirect seems to be only happening to me. --CTSWyneken 23:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issue seems resolved this AM. Thanks! --CTSWyneken 11:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username is likely a violation of Wikipedia's policy on appropriate usernames.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 01:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had to stop laughing at the name long enough to indef-block the account as vandalism-only (hates someone named Josh Cooper, apparently). Frankly, I thought the name was hilarious... RadioKirk talk to me 01:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that's a good one! Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just moving Current events in Malaysia and Singapore to Current events in Southeast Asia. However, for some reason, on the page move success page, when I clicked on the original page link, I am directed to the article for $1. Does anyone know what happened? joturner 03:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It happened again with another move, so it seems as though this will be happening with all moves. joturner 03:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's something wrong with the template being used to display those links. A recent change in MediaWiki behaviour concerning variables in URIs (or some other techie mumbo-jumbo) means that poorly-hacked-together templates using $1 and such will now literally point to $1, instead of the variable value they were supposed to. Or something. Alternatively, you could listen to someone who knows what they're talking about here. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 03:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brion fixed this bug, so that it pointed to the correct place, but had to de-fix it because it caused more problems elsewhere. Somewhere in the recent history of Mediawiki:Pagemovetext is a version that works, I'll see if I can find it. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've set it back to a version that works, with the singular problem that you will be redirected to the new page, and have to click the little "redirected from" line. That's the way it was until we fixed it ages ago, and will have to be that way until they find a fix to the bug. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright; thanks. It seems like the problem no longer exists. joturner 03:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a while the link back to the page would be in non-formatted wiki markup with a : after the "[" mark for some reason (like cat links).Voice-of-All^Talk 04:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like User:Neconkanteri has been created as a sockpuppet to vote in RFAs, or something like that. In any case, the name bears a striking resemblance to User:Naconkantari, and should probably be blocked as inappropriate. --Elkman 04:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has been blocked indefinately by User:DakotaKahn. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 05:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been reverting my good edits to golf tournament pages for no good reason whatsoever. Someone made a bunch of cookie-cutter pages on PGA Tournaments and pasted info about how many golfers play, cuts and what the winner shall recieve. I feel that this is info better suited for a para (that I wrote) on the main PGA Tour page. I removed the info (if you look at my edits, you'll see the redundancies) from pages, but DGX keeps reverting it. I tried to revert it back on a few pages, but DGX is stubborn and reverts it back. I don't want to fall victim to 3RR, but I feel that DGX should be forced to revert the good edits that i made back on to each page. I have done good, yet this thing is stubborn and wants to ruin the quality of wikipedia. Booshakla 06:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to ruin the quality of Wikipedia? [40]. DGX 06:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. [41] Booshakla 06:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even notice what you did in that edit? You removed it from categories. Thats the reason I keep reverting that article. And your removing the merging template at the top. DGX 06:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you quit stalking me and revert all your edits (which can be considered vandalism) to the versions that I have done? Booshakla 06:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not stalking you. If you didn't want any trouble with me, you shouldn't have vandalized my userpage. As to the reverts, I don't think I'll be doing that. I said it before, it doesn't hurt to have that information on the page, so theres no reason to remove it. Claiming that it "takes up space" is no reason to remove it. DGX 06:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Booshakla, I don't see DGX's edits as "stalking" by any means, and this isn't going to help your credibility any. This is a content dispute which should be discussed on the article's talk page at Talk:84 Lumber Classic — I don't see a single post there relating to the proposed merge, and this discussion belongs there. Keep cool on the reverts, getting a 3RR block isn't going to help either of you. Tijuana Brass^E@ 06:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know anything about golf? Probably not. It hurts the quality of wikipedia to have repeated info on pages. I would like to have someone else consensus on this issue. I put a paragraph on the PGA Tour's page that explains the structure and eliminates the need for this copied info on the tournament's pages. I demand that you revert my good edits back. You are a vandal, and you are a drain on wikipedia's resources. If you don't know anything about golf, you have no right to revert those edits. I will stop my editing as it is not worth my valuable time and resources to be editing. I hope that an administrator will bring proper action against the vandalism of DGX. And I did not vandalize his user page, please look at my edits and understand my purpose, and please get an expert on golf to clarify my rightful actions. Booshakla 06:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Booshakla, please use an article talk page to discuss this content dispute. The Admin noticeboard is not a place for content disputes, it is mainly for user conduct/controversy.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors have been vandalizing Apartheid (disambiguation) by removing two articles that include the term "apartheid" in their title from the diamgiguation list. Israeli apartheid and Apartheid wall. They are doing this for POV reasons since they do not like either term, not because disambiguation is unnecessary. Could an admin please restore these terms to the article (I've used up my 3RR) and possibly consider tempbanning one or both of the culprits for POV vandalism?Homey 06:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homey, you are attempting to hijack WP and enlist other editors for your one-dimensional political agenda. I thought of giving you some slack, but maybe I should reconsider and indeed report you - for your own good. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think editors can look at Apartheid (disambiguation) and decide for themselves whether you and your partner's edits are justified or wildly out of control POV vandalism. Homey 06:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shhh, don't tell anyone, we (with partners) are running a secret Zionist conspiracy ring in here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damnit Humus, how many times do I have to tell you not to let the secret out!- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homey is trying to introduce pov into a disambiguation page, and even worse he is being really pushy about it. He is also trying to invent false criteria for included tags to an article where the tag clearly belongs.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What follows are the allegedly POV sentences which Moshe and Humus keep removing:

• "Israeli apartheid is a term used by some critics of Israel's policies towards the Palestinians."
• "The apartheid wall is a term used by the same critics to describe the Israeli West Bank barrier being built to seperate Israel from the West Bank."

My two interlocutors have been unable to put forward a coherent explanation of how the above two sentences are POV as they are simply statements of fact. The fact is they don't like the terms "Israeli apartheid" and "apartheid wall" - they actually have no issue with the sentences in which they are used above. Homey 06:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just the sentences in of themselves, it is the fact that you are trying to add those sentences to a disambiguation page. Your only arguments for their inclusions is :"Hey guys, I'm just disambiguating", or "None of your arguments make any sense". It is obvious that to you our arguments are irrelevant.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Its not just the sentences in of themselves"

So what is it about the sentences then? Which of the statements is incorrect?

"it is the fact that you are trying to add those sentences to a disambiguation page."

I'm trying to list articles that mention the word apartheid in their title to a page disambiguating the term apartheid. What, exactly, is your objection?

"It is obvious that to you our arguments are irrelevant"

That much, at least, is true. Have you considered that perhaps you've failed to make any relevant arguments?Homey 06:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considerd perhaps our arguments are relavent? Did you consider this before we made them?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. I considered them and found them wanting and have asked you followup questions which you've been unable to answer except with abuse. Homey 07:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homey, your question were answered at talk. There is no reason (other than to disseminate propaganda) to cross-post them all over WP. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some simple questions:

• Israeli apartheid
• Apartheid wall

1) Is Apartheid (disambiguation) a disambiguation page, intended to differentiate articles associated with the same title/word, in this case "apartheid? Yes or no?

2) Do the two articles in question have "apartheid" as part of their official titles (that is, they're not redirects)? Yes or no?

3) Are the two articles legitimate articles? Yes or no?

So if the answer to the above questions are all "yes", what POSSIBLE justification is there for excluding the two articles from the diambig page? Try to answer without resorting to the coy "we're part of the Zionist conspiracy ha ha" nonsense: it's an intellectually dishonest cop-out intended to make your opponents look like conspiracy nuts. --Calton | Talk 07:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mixing slanderous allegations and encyclopedic terms is wrong. There is no reason to duplicate the discussion, the proper place is Talk:Apartheid (disambiguation). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple questions, simple answers, so enough handwaving: so? --Calton | Talk 08:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe your condescending attitude contributes to the resolution of this dispute. Adequate reasons have been provided both here and on the talk page for its removal.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe your empty handwaving, irrelevancies, and inability to answer simple questions demonstrates the slightest bit of intellectual honesty. And you have some strange new meaning of the word "adequate" I wasn't previously aware of. --Calton | Talk 23:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen them - no one else has either (except for your partner). They must be invisible. Homey 17:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow funny stuff, and very mature I might add.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could an Admin please review the Requested move at Talk:Paisley, Renfrewshire and close if deemed appropriate. --Mais oui! 09:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done (though not by me)... too lazy to check the log... Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FROM anon :) Dlohcierekim 10:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked a week as I'm unsure if it's static or dynamic. If it's dynamic please reduce the block. NSLE _(T+C) at 10:46 UTC (2006-05-29)

It's belongs to NTL Nottingham Will (^E_@) T 16:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The people at NTL do respond to abuse concerns, although they are extremely slow about it. ~~

Hi, I'm here to report a confirmed sockpuppet, (sorry if this isn't the right place) with evidence and denial from the puppeteer. Anyway, User:Iloveminun has been trying to remove all connections in Pokémon articles to a informative website on the subject, named Serebii.net, and replace it with his own website, Pokémon Galaxy.

First he tried to remove the template that links to Serebii manually, then from the template that produces references in all the Pokémon articles and replace it with his own website, Pokémon Galaxy.[42] Pokémon Galaxy is not at present even finished, but it seems to be pushing it.

User:Iloveminun nominated Template:Serebiidex for deletion here, voting twice for delete, despite nominating the template himself. [43][44] As well as trying to make new rules about speedying.[45]

PokemonFan was then used vote in the TfD[46] after Iloveminun got told to stop voting delete.[47] PokemonFan also vandalised the user page of the admin taking part in the vote who wouldn't delete it for him.[48]

Iloveminun then tried to assert his innocence,[49][50] and [51] and was advised to get a check user between himself and the three potential sockpuppets,[52] something which he didn't do.

Iloveminun also tried to remove all the references to the sock puppetry. Examples of this are here andhere.

I did get a Check User (you can find it [Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser#User:Iloveminun|here]]). I had originally thought that Iloveminun had another two sockpuppets, User:Po132 and User:Minun132, which turned out to be sockpuppets of each other. Po132 isn't active so I see no point of bringing it up until anything occurs which requires it. Anyway, I requested a check user and User:Essjay came to the result as follows -

 Confirmed as follows:

• Po132 (talk · contribs) and Minun132 (talk · contribs) are the same person.
• PokemonFan (talk · contribs) appears uninvolved in the above, but is the same person as Iloveminun (talk · contribs). Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iloveminun made a last hope of trying to allowing the closure of the TfD to stop the accusations, here.

Iloveminun has lied, tried to push the removal of Serebii, for his own site, broke TfD regulations and used sockpuppetry to try and delete the template. Regards, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 14:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be lying if I said SPP wasn't one of the best resources for Pokémon. Reading this, it sounds like a bad faith nomination. I'll read it more. Will (^E_@) T 14:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence at User:HighwayCello/Minun. It has some stuff about Po132 and Minun132 being connected Iloveminun, so just ignore that. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 14:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I have any say in it, (since I partially helped HighwayCello through this), I think Iloveminun shouldn't be blocked, just his sockpuppet, PokemonFan. Iloveminun's outright lie is strickly against WP:SOCK. DGX 15:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've looked through the evidence. PokemonFan has been blocked indefinitely. Iloveminun's second vote and PokemonFan's vote have been stricken. I've also warned Ilm. Thanks, Will (^E_@) T 16:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow Wikipedia:Tutorial got vandalised, and then protected. Could someone have a look at it? OwenS | T | C | 15:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

most likely because of the vandalism: [53]. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert, don't protect. That page is intended to be editable. You know, the whole "YOU can edit THIS page RIGHT NOW" thing? robchurch | talk 23:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I never protected it. It was protected at December 22, 2005. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 11:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia. After my first edit last night, I got a message on my talk page that said, "Im gonna bite your balls off and eat them" it was from someone named RadioKirk. I left a message for him asking hime to stop and he responded, "I'm gonna eat your poop." Now he is threating to block me (can he do this?). What should I do? 61.102.220.70 15:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

coughtroll alertcough. Perhaps you should stop vandalizing pages and attacking other users. Also you'll note that RadioKirk has never once edited your talk page, so please don't implicate him in something he didn't do. From the looks of it, the other wikipedians in question acted apropriately in response to your vandalism. --Bachrach44 15:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP for 24 hours. He already had a {{test4}} today. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, man, here I was thinking I'd picked up my own personal troll, and it turns out the person also had problems with KimvdLinde, Mhking and Jimbo Wales. Well, shit, I guess I have to try harder... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 16:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing happenned to me on my other account. I think he has some way of covering it up. Contact me on my talk page so we can discuss getting this guy reported. 59.5.127.197 21:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, cool, now I have two; of course, the whole thing is blown apart when any admin (who can see every edit deleted by any other admin) looks and sees nothing. Then again, maybe I'm the self-deprecating (defecating?) rouge admin... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 00:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am an admin here and am in a situation where I need to remove personal information from a user talk page's history, at the request of the original editor. This is a legitimate request and I can go into more detail if you wish to know. How can I remove this personal information (in this case, an email address) from the edit history? Simply changing the address to "blanked email address" or similar would be fine. Just removing it from the current revision of the page is not sufficient in this case. --Yamla 19:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the page, then restore the versions without the personal information. Will (^E_@) T 20:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contact a user with oversight permissions, who can remove the revision direct. robchurch | talk 23:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it - i want to test the new oversight permission thing. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has just nominated many talk pages for speedy deletion. However, I don't believe that some of them qualify. CSD G8 says, "Talk pages of pages that do not exist, unless they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere." Plenty of the pages seemed to have such discussion, but are gone now. Would it be possible to review the most recent deletions to see if this has happened? Ardric47 22:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give examples? There has in the last 20 minutes been a bout of pagemove vandalism and associated repairs, which resulted in many deletions. The Land 22:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I had put Template:Hangon on Talk:David M. Wright. Ardric47 22:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone seems to be going through the list of talk pages and, if there is no associated article, nominating it for deletion without considering the text of G8. Ardric47 22:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That usually just refers to the ancient method of VfD, when the votes were carried out on talk pages rather than Wikipedia:Votes for deletion subpages. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 22:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, not what I assumed! The deleted text was: 'I'm writing to say why you shouldn't delete this page. David Wright IS a notable person from Wagga Wagga and should be added to the list on the Wagga Wagga page. Whilst David hasn't achieved the fame of michael slater, or the notoriety of Wayne Carey as people from wagga in your list, David was a great member of the Wagga wagga community and did a number of things worthy of earning a page in your great website. I understand that David wasn't a celebrity but he was a great guy who's story deserved to be told. please don't delete it. Peter Dale, former lord mayor of wagga wagga and W.W.H.S. Alumni member'.

While this might technically be deletion discussion it could also be couneted as nonsense, trolling, and other things. The Land 22:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so that sort of deletion discussion is out, but what about intelligent discussion from after the talk page voting era? Ardric47 22:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IF it basically duplicates an AfD, then I'd say delete. If the discussion was intelligent but there was no AfD, then I'd tend to keeping. If it was clear CSD then it's unlikely IMV that the talk page discussion would add much. If there are specific instances you're worried about then feel free to list them at WP:DRV for more detailed review. The Land 22:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way to tell, since they've been deleted! I guess (assuming good faith) they were all justified. Ardric47 22:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins can still view the content of deleted pages ;-). I've just checked about a dozen. It seems that a user had been on a talk-page clearing spree and legitimately added a lot of {{db-talk}} flags, which someone clearing out CSD then deleted. The Land 22:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to hear. I just came across Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chen Palmer & Partners, which redirects to Talk:Chen Palmer & Partners from Special:BrokenRedirects. Is that an example of one that should be kept? Ardric47 22:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in that case, the talk page should be kept. I restored it and moved over the VfD redirect, since it's where it was before and it's easier to find there. --cesarb 00:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience that's the standard defense when an article is flagged as nn-bio and the originator doesn't want it to get deleted. There's no reason to waste space on those sorts of "please don't delete this - he really is notable" defenses. --Bachrach44 23:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to run for admin, however ny nomination keeps being removed by Naconkantari. I discussed with him on his talk page but he wont budge. He theatens I will be blocked if I replace it. What should I do? 03Rotpar 23:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try stopping your trolling --Doc ^ask? 23:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go through and read all of my contribuations, i've "never" trolled. Have you read the discussion I had with him on his talk page? 193.111.10.29 23:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well what do you know, you happen to be the lingerie vandal. (For those who don't know: the Lingerie vandal has been adding paragraphs like the one linked to above to hundreds of articles from dozens of IPs for the last few weeks). I must admit, although I did WP:AGF at first, a history of vandalism and spam makes it a little harder to do so. --Bachrach44 23:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry Bachrach, thats not me. They must have tunnled through my computer as this is my first night editing wikipedia 03Rotpar 00:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the decision of whether or not you should run for admin (or can run for admin), is not an issue I can get involved in, allow me to give you a word of advice. First of all, anyone can edit. The only things admins can do is delete articles and isue blocks, and if there's any of those you need done, there are ways or reporting to admins who can do the janitorial work for you. The second thing is that although there are varying standards for adminship, they generally range from 3-9 months of experience on wikipedia, and at least 1000 edits. You have less than a day's experience and less than 50 edits. Your Ralph Nader analogy isn't apt because at least one person voted for Nader - I doubt you would get any. There's really very little point in your running at this point in time, as I doubt you've even been here long enough to know what admins do. Stick around, make this a better encyclopedia, and try running for admin in 4-6 months. --Bachrach44 23:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith. I left a note on the user's talk page. Prodego ^talk 23:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would really just like to run. Bachrach44, I feel i'll be able to prove you wrong if you allow me to run. I bet "at least" ten people will vote for me. You guys dont have to accept me, i just want to run. Also, the above commen was by me, I logged off and forgot to log back on. 03Rotpar 23:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you need at least 75-80% of the voters support to gain adminship. Trying to prove someone wrong is a clear-cut case of WP:POINT. DGX 00:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ok, I wont run. Now for the funny part. Spell my name backwards, what does it say, I told you all I was gonna run for admin. Ask Radiokirk or KinvdLinde about it. And go ahead block me I be back tomorrow and you little wikinerds will just assume good faith 193.111.10.29 00:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You must be kidding... you, Rappy30V2, Rappy30V3 and Rappy30V4 are lecturing us on Wikipolicy when WP:VAND and WP:POINT utterly escape you? Please... RadioKirk talk to me 00:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore him. He's clearly out to get reactions from us, to annoy us, and generally waste our time. The best we can do is ignore him. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 00:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, guess what? This person is also the http://nasty-sexy-lingerie.stvincent.od.ua vandal... oh, what a shock... RadioKirk talk to me 00:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i'm not the lingerie vandal. We probally just use the same proxy. I just wanted to keep my word about runnung for admin. Sorry about the delay, its a real pain trying to find a good proxy these days 217.119.127.65 00:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC) or is it Rappy30?[reply]

Thanks :) RadioKirk talk to me 00:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sware RadioKirk sometimes really makes me feel like reforming and becoming a useful contribuator(thats for the future though) He's a really good admin. Oh,and the thing about RadioKirk abusing a new user posted above was by me also. (sorry radio). 203.115.1.135 00:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC) or is it Rappy 30?[reply]

Keep going... :) RadioKirk talk to me 01:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol, I saw the name backwards and noticed it was Rappy30 spelt backwards, but I thought it was a concidence. Guess not.. Good job RadioKirk. DGX 01:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, though it was actually Raptor30 and, to be honest, I was only reasonably sure until he tipped his hand. Thanks :) RadioKirk talk to me 01:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please delete Image:IAF.jpg? It blatently violates Wikipedia's fair-use policy, particularly the bit about "fair use images can only be used if it's not possible to make a free-license replacement". I've tried deleting it through process, but El_C has reverted my attempts, and has refused to discuss it. --Carnildo 02:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shot down as an orphan. RadioKirk talk to me 02:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can shoot images now? Wow! The powers we have! ;-) --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This keeps being deleted as "patent nonsense", which is it not (it is neither random strings of characters, nor particularly confusing - merely incomplete). It has been deleted out from under me twice as I enter information (including information on the cultural relevancy of the text and the authors), VERY shortly after creation. I'd saved it so that I could work on sections individually, but I suppose it's a bit much to ask that someone let an article live for 10 minutes before outright deleting it....

Anyway, could someone please move some version of it (I don't really care which) into my user space so that I can finish the stupid thing without it being deleted? Alternately (preferably, but I don't have high hopes of this), could it just be undeleted? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquez (talk • contribs)

Giving you the benefit of the doubt. :) RadioKirk talk to me 04:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind a friendly piece of advice, it does look a lot like nonsense at the moment. Perhas you should put the article in its proper context - what is the GBC? --Bachrach44 13:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If any of you are at a loose end, might I suggest taking a look at Category:Wikipedia articles that need their importance to be explained? Some articles there have been tagged for months. I've made a start by speedying/prodding/detagging a few but it's a job for more than one person. --kingboyk 07:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of them seem quite notable, but not conclusively so - many are university professors. If I knew anything about how pop musicians I would have probably caused an uproar about deleting thousands of bandcruft by know, but I don't.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In those borderline cases, if they've been tagged for months and hardly touched (i.e., nobody cares), prod is the way to go. If it might be slightly controversial, AFD. If you're satisified of notability, detag. Any of these are better than leaving the article tagged for months I would contend. --kingboyk 07:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{prod}} seems to be a good way to go with these articles.--Peta 07:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that people might be hoping that the articles will be improved, but it seems like this tag is used to avoid having to speedy, prod or AfD the article yourself. It's great when people put on a wikify tag at the same time, because I love making articles that are likely to be deleted look good. ;-) -- Kjkolb 07:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

has the general aroma of a User:Merecat/User:Rex071404 sock, and a misleading user ID. Phr (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posted this attack with the subject's address :) Dlohcierekim 11:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for someone with oversight? Prodego ^talk 12:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just go ahead remove it manually. Prodego ^talk 12:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, which makes the twenty first time I have done this. Prodego ^talk 12:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am being stalked and harassed by the above user who apparently has something against Iranians. Please tell him to stop bothering me and stop leaving threats on my talk. Thank you very much. Khorshid 11:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User_talk:Khorshid - this LukasPietsch keeps harassing me and threatens me with a block for my own talk. I was about to revert his constant harassment but I do not wish to be blocked. Please remove his false accusations and warn him. I am sick of this racism. Thank you. Khorshid 12:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that another German editor has supported LukasPietsch on my talk. This is wrong. This is harassment. Khorshid 12:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitism is not tolerated here, and neither should anti-Persian or anti-Iranian racism. Please tell these two to stop. Khorshid 12:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, what have we got now? This new user made personal attacks against myself and another editor ([54], [55]), got a friendly warning from a friend ([56]), another by myself ([57], [58]) and later polite explanations of the relevant policy ([59], [60]). Has reacted first by threatening me ([61], [62]) and by blanking the warnings three times ([63], [64], [65]). On being warned of the 3RR, he went on to ask several friends to blank the warnings for him ([66], [67], [68], [69]). Then attacks admin Dbachmann for again explaining policy to him. Plus calls us anti-Iranian racists, yet another attack. Then asks for a speedy delete of his talk page(!) [70] to get rid of the warnings. Probably he's a sockpuppet anyway, for an editor who's been around for just a day he knows the switches remarkably well. (Sorry, I retract this one) Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you, a German editor, continue to harass me. I am from the Persian WP, but that is none of your business so I am well acquainted with wiki. Leave me alone. Khorshid 13:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that rather that sitting down and calmly considering what other people are saying, you're having a knee-jerk reaction. You made a few comments which other editors found to be offensive, so they sent you messages via your talk page. This is not considered harassment or "stalking". You should consider what they are saying rather than simply accusing them of racism. Frankly I see no racism here, I see a simple misunderstanding which is rapidly snowballing out of control. --Bachrach44 13:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leads me to question if a block is in order, though. NSLE _(T+C) at 13:38 UTC (2006-05-30)

Others have been offended by this individuals behaviour and conduct. He constantly brings up the issue of "Iranian" and "Persian" behaviour. I bring up the issue of his "German" behaviour and am threatened with a block. That is racism. I am sorry I ever came to English WP because it is clear that such racism is tolerated and even encouraged. Do whatever you want. So far I have been sickened and revolted at this level of antagonism and hostility towards my ethnic group. Khorshid 13:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]