Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive32

User:John1838 (and User:Trollwatcher and others)

This seems to be little more than an attack page, and it now mentions me. What are my options...what can be done? Thanks for any advice/help...KHM03 00:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see something done, and strongly urge other admins to do so; the userpage definately is an attack page, and honestly, seems like trolling itself. Since Keith (KHM03) is a friend, I don't feel neutral enough to take action, but someone uninvolved with the parties should take a look and do something. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 06:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the page and warned the user. Sasquatch t|c 08:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. AnnH ^(talk) 11:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't intervene, as I'm involved with this. In fact, I've no doubt that I'll soon be mentioned by name as one of the "trolls" (he still has these attacks on his talk page). We have two new (very similar) users, John1838 (talk · contribs) and Trollwatcher (talk · contribs), who both appeared around the time that the Checkuser showed that Giovanni33 (talk · contribs) was also BelindaGong (talk · contribs). There is some reason to suspect that they are the same user as each other, and may even be part of the Giovanni/Belinda sockpuppet/meatpuppet group. They use similar language (both referring to some editors as "DEWCs"...shorthand for devout, ecumenical, western Christians), and before either of them registered, IP 82.22.236.111 posted very similar stuff (about the established editors being "trolls" and part of a "clique" to the Christianity talk page, signing himself "Trollspotter".[1] He later posted to John1838's talk page, obviously as John himself.[2] We also had Freethinker99 (talk · contribs) appearing on the Christianity talk page while Giovanni and Belinda were blocked, saying that he was new and had read the talk page and agreed with Giovanni, reverting to Giovanni's version, and then accidentally signing one of Giovanni's talk page posts (denying association with any of the new users) while still logged on as Freethinker[3] and immediately changing it to Giovanni.[4] Various explanations were given — Freethinker and Giovanni knew each other and Giovanni happened to be at Freethinker's house, and Freethinker let him use his computer, and Giovanni denied association with Freethinker because he hadn't seen Freethinker's name in the people being referred to. In one place, Freethinker said he wrote the post for Giovanni; in another place, he said that he allowed Giovanni to write it.

An unfortunate result of the checkuser was that SOPHIA left in anger after the checkuser showed that she was editing from the same IP address as TheShriek. (Unlike Giovanni/Belinda, SOPHIA and her husband had no history of casting double votes or taking six reverts between them.) We all regreat that, and we posted some very nice messages to her, telling her that we did not in any way associate her with Giovanni, but she was unable to accept that there was no cloud over her name. I can't blame admins if they haven't fully read my request for help here and here. It's complicated, and probably not particularly interesting for those who aren't involved. Basically, a new user, Giovanni33, turned up, and began to insist on inserting very controversial stuff into Christianity-related articles. He met with resistence from "older" editors. He went way beyond three reverts per day, despite pleadings and warnings. The other editors, who were trying to stay within 344, were reluctant to report a newcomer, so he was not reported for nearly three weeks. Four new, redlinked, editors appeared on the talk page and supported him. Some of them began to revert to his version, and followed him to other pages, where they did the same thing. That was why I (in consultation with the others) requested a checkuser, which did not include SOPHIA, but did include her husband.

Please, we need help. What's to be done about John1838 and Trollwatcher (if they're two people), who seem to be here just to stir up trouble on the Christianity talk page? What's to be done about Giovanni and Belinda (if they're two people), who actively went through a pretence of not knowing each other, while taking at least six reverts per day, plus voting twice on some issues? Giovanni seems to be claiming that since she is is wife, her reverts and votes are legitimate. We also sometimes get reverts (to Giovanni's version) from IP addresses when the new, registered users have run out of reverts. Doesn't anyone have time to read "Advice requested from experienced admins" and "Advice requested Part Two" above? It will probably be archived soon. :-( AnnH ^(talk) 11:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't even follow all that. It would help if you could provide sumaries of the situation that are much shorter including links to specific diffs and other evidence of what you are talking about. It all looks fishy and some of what you refer to looks blockworthy. Repeatedly counting up 3 reverts and returning the next day to do the same is blockable as disruption anyway, and I'm not swayed by the wife argument anyway. If they can't provide reliable references for their position, they shouldn't be allowed to revert back to their version. Consider creating and RFC to organize all the information and come to a consensus about how to stop the disruption. If they have valid points they don't need the sockpuppetry to improve the articles. - Taxman ^Talk 11:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

These are the high points:

• Trollwatcher (talk · contribs) seems to have been created specifically to keep an eye on what he calls the troll confederation, a sad bunch in his estimation.

• Although his earlier attack page has been deleted, John1838 (talk · contribs)'s talk page is devoted to attacking what he sees as "a federation of devout, ecumenical, western Christians (DEWCs)" who he says "have a lot of free time, they are mostly lonely people." He posted this "Troll warning" to the Christianity talk page.

• Giovanni33 (talk · contribs) and BelindaGong (talk · contribs) are the same person based on this CheckUser [5]. I think Freethinker99 (talk · contribs) is the same as Giovanni33 based on this edit: [6]. The above description of editing patterns above is accurate, as can be seen in the Christianity page history. Anyone who wants to can look at the IP addresses.

• Giovanni33 wants to add what I think is a rather fringe minority view of the historical development of Christianity. It is too detailed and too far from the mainstream for the general survey article, but it could easily go in History of Christianity, Early Christianity, or any of half a dozen others. The problem is not the content, but the behavior, which has brought progress on the article to a standstill. When he was unable to get a concensus to support his changes, he edit-warred to force them. When he was blocked for 3RR, and used puppets to avoid the block. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that both of the users in question have made it their primary mission to engage in personal attacks and violate the civility rule. I have been concerned about both, but brought the issue here when John1838 mentioned my name on his userpage. I don't know if there's any connection to User:Giovanni33, nor if these are sockpuppets, but the coincidences are striking. All I'm really asking for is that an uninvolved administrator or two monitor these users and check things out to see if there are WP violations...especially look at John1838's talk page. Thanks...KHM03 18:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I also see that John1838 has restored his userpage, attacks and all. KHM03 19:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

John1838's user page was deleted by Sasquatch. John1838 simply recreated it. It was then deleted again by CesarB and protected. To get round that, he has now registered a new account as J1838 (talk · contribs). He seems to have little purpose here other than to make accusations against other editors. I'm helpless in this matter because I'm involved, so I don't want to jump in and start blocking and deleting and protecting. AnnH ♫ 21:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

He has now switched to a new identity, User:J1838. KHM03 21:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I've asked him [7] to remove the page; no response yet. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

He's now saying (on User talk:J1838) that the latest versions of his userpages (the ones I deleted) didn't have any personal attacks. I disagree; but even then, I want for other people to take a look. --cesarb 22:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the username may be an echo of John 1107, who got permablocked for complete lunacy. Phil Sandifer 22:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, this doesn't even get near that. I'd guess both names are simply references to random Bible verses; it might be interesting to look up the corresponding verses. --cesarb 22:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

FWIT, Pilate asks Jesus 'What is truth?' --Doc ^ask? 22:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

John 3:3 is, "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Webcomics

As if we didn't have enough on our plate, webcomics are heating up again. I havent looked at the exact timeline, but for my part I placed a comment on WikiProject Webcomics and nominated nominated one comic for deletion and weighed in on a few more... but there are I think five on AfD right now and Snowspinner is calling WP:WEB an essay and previous experiance shows this gets ugly fast. Can we have a few more eyeballs on this over all and the AfD's in particular? - brenneman^{T}{L} 01:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, at a glance, none of the AfDs look unreasonable to me. Then again, I think my average in webcomic AfDs is about a 75% rate of voting delete. Phil Sandifer 02:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make WP:WEB internaly contradictory. Yes I know most of our guidelines conflict with each other (it's one of their more endearing points in fact) but generaly they are internaly consistant.Geni 02:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't see what the problem is here. There's no indication that the current content can be called a guideline, it certainly isn't policy but for some reason the "notpolicy" template is no longer with us. Historical doesn't fit. Proposed policy? Perhaps, but as notability is a very controversial deletion criterion in itself, this seems a bit far-fetched. Essay isn't quite right. Whatever, this semes like a storm in a teacup to me. --Tony Sidaway 03:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

{{nicetry}}? It sure as hell isn't policy or anything like policy. It could be rephrased as guidelines - David Gerard 15:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm back

Hi everyone, I'm just letting you know that I'm back from a much-needed break. If someone can bring me up to speed either here or on my user talk page on what has been going on for the last month, I'd appreciate it. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

One word. Userboxes (sorry, I couldn't resist). --Deathphoenix 17:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

With huge casualties. - Mailer Diablo 18:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure userboxes explains every major event that has gone on, I'm going to blame it on your wikibreak =). Mike _{(T C)} 19:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Probably the biggest conflict was the wheel war over a particular userbox that led Jimbo to basically de-sysop a bunch of admins and "fast track" an RFAR. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  Well, I saw that one (even added my $0.02 in the workshop). But apparently userboxes seem to be a major theme... Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, they only other thing I see that kind of upset some users is the new WP:OFFICE that Danny and Jimbo set up, in which they unilaterally speedy or protect an article based on valid complaints sent to the Foundation office. One such article that has been protected under this policy has been Harry Reid. But as you can see on Talk:Harry Reid, many users are complaining that Danny has not really given a full explanation on why he protected it, only that he claimed it under WP:OFFICE. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• I suggest the best way to catch up is to read the last few issues of The Wikipedia Signpost.-gadfium 20:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• There is also the Brian Peppers issue going on. Beyond that there is the normal background level of vandalism, we've introduced a new deletion system that appears to be working (as long as you define working as "no one appears to be complaining") and we've stoped useing the helpdeak mailing list.Geni 20:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, the Brian Peppers article. Another issue that some are upset about because of Jimbo's unilateral decree to speedy delete it and have it {{deletedPage}} for a year.Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Several people have departed. Some fairly notable, like Radiant!! -- Samuel Wantman 00:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Radiant! was just one of the many casualties of the userbox wars. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Radiant! is now speaking through User:Xoloz, at least in some capacity - see the RFAr on Tony Sidaway, where Xoloz presents evidence apparently for him - David Gerard 15:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Who said that? Anyway, now nobody is speaking through Xoloz, because Xoloz is on a necessary, hopefully very long, vacation (not over userboxes, mind you). -- Xoloz

Wow. I leave for a month and the place blows up. Now that I think about it, this has happened every time that I've gone on a break... back to work, then. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 05:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because it happens all the time, but when you come back after some time the difference between "before" and "after" is bigger? --cesarb 15:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Jack Thompson

Is it just me, or is this article and sub-articles a completely muddled and unencyclopedic mess? He's a lawyer who doesn't like violent video games, and apparently every single thing he's ever said about them, and every single thing he's ever done with regards to them, is now documented to the minutest detail on Wikipedia. The article itself is about 48 kilobytes, with almost a dozen subarticles split off - Flowers for Jack, Jack Thompson and the Jacob Robida murders, Jack Thompson and Video Gamers, Jack Thompson/Video Game Activism, etc. I really think this is overkill. FCYTravis 07:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

So noted. Why exactly does this require administrator attention? :) --Golbez 08:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I edited out a lot of the dafter puff - but it keeps being reintroduced - I don't want to fall foul of 3R so someonelse might like to watch it. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper?) 11:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD deletion hiccup, Jed Baker et al

A week ago a user created half a dozen hoax articles. After a jolly mess of AfD discussion, blanking by author, and speedy deletion, three articles accidentally survived deletion. Someone want to do the honours and delete the remaining? See the AfD discussion. Weregerbil 11:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorted Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper?) 14:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Dancingmonkey07 keeps posting nonsense

Dancingmonkey07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --BNutzer 16:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like this user's been warned with a test1. --Deathphoenix 16:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Ariele Blocked by User:Fred Bauder

There is a problem here with Wikipedia's arbitration team. My user account was initially suppose to be blocked for 24 hours for sockpuppet "PussnPurpleboots" when "PussnPurpleBoots" put userboxes on User:Geo Swan's dull user page as a gift. User:Geo Swan has no humor and dragged the poor puss by the tail to the Arbitration committee and got the poor cat blocked. Then the arbitration committee decided it is easier to punish me and the puss than the Geo Swan who has been "trolling" me for well over a year now. Now my account and Puss's account have both been blocked for unfair and no plausible reasons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ariele (talk • contribs) .

If you can post here, you are no longer blocked. Ceasing using sockpuppets to harrass those you don't like would go far towards ensuring that you don't get blocked again. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice I don't need. You really need to restrain User:Geo Swan whenever someone attempts to write the truth about this war in Iraq. This user attacks anyone (including those who have been to Iraq) who disagrees with him.-Ariele 14:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked all of this user's sockpuppets, as detailed at User_talk:Ariele#Go_Ahead:__Vandalize_to_Your_Heart.27s_Content. If the password of that account is not changed (or the new one is publicized), I will block it indefinitely as well. Superm401 - Talk 14:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Further to that I have been asked by User:24.148.180.76 to delete some accounts related to this - diffs giving request/replies. --Alf ^melmac 10:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Account are not deleted. However, all those accounts have been indefinitely blocked (all but User:Ariele by me) for having public passwords; as always, that serves fine. Superm401 - Talk 15:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

User 198.246.32.99's Vandalism

The user at 198.246.32.99 has been vandalizing the Nick GaS page and the pages of some of the shows that air on the channel. He has been warned to test4 and I've reported him on both the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and the Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. He keeps editing and it doesn't seem like anything's being done. I'm tired of reverting the article everyday, so can somebody do something to stop this?

I've looked at this contributions and they strike me as being those not of a vandal but rather someone who doesn't quite understand how articles should look.Mackensen (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't seem to figure out how wikilinks work either. A child, perhaps (given the chosen subject matter). Chick Bowen 04:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that it is probably a child given the times of editing and the subject matter of the articles being edited. I looked up the IP and found a contact for the person in charge of that IP address (it's coming from a government building). Should I contact that administrator directly and see if he can notify the user of what's happening or should something be done on Wikipedia's end?--Kilby 08:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Username Block

Is this the right place to request a username block? I just found a User:Goddess of War which is very close to my name.--God of War 20:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well at the very least all the usernames here should be blocked indef as "public" accounts (one of which is Goddess of War). --Syrthiss 20:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked this user for violation of Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#"Public" accounts. I'm beginning to think that an indef block of Ariele (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is in order as well. --Deathphoenix 20:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll second that - in fact, I'm blocking for a month for 'gross incitement to vandalism'. If anyone want to up that to indef, I'll not complain. --Doc ^ask? 20:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (evidence [8])

I'll check to see if her account is still public (she's already been warned to change her password). If it is, I'll up your block to indefinite for being a public account. --Deathphoenix 20:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's still a public account. I'm indefinitely blocking. --Deathphoenix 20:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed the passwords on all of these accounts except for Puss'nPurpleBoots and Goddess of War, which were not set up with the passwords listed. android79 22:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

All listed accounts have also been indefinitely blocked. android79 22:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That was me. I blocked them primarly as public accounts. Superm401 - Talk 15:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

All those accounts should definitely stay blocked, I'm confused as to why this user's main account was unblocked though even though they were telling everyone to vandalize and gave out account names to do so. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like The Cunctator blocked her for a week without realising that she was already indef blocked. He unblocked with the reason as "I'm confused by what's going on", so I'm going to restore the indef block, but I'm also going to sent Cunctator a nice message just in case that wasn't his intention. --Deathphoenix 06:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have had a request to delete those accounts - see my post above in above section 5.60 - User:Ariele Blocked by User:Fred Bauder - Alf ^melmac 10:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. Carry on! --The Cunctator 21:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Dharmapada / Dhammapada Confusion

The article Dhamapada was redirected to Dharmapada (person). This is wrong, Dhamapada is a misspelling of Dhammapada. I changed the redirect, but now the talk pages seem screwed up. I don't think I can (or don't know how to) fix this. Also: Dharmapada is a person, and Dhammapada is a book. I'd like to see this straightened out, but don't know how to proceed. And if the spelling and redirects are fixed, then the "(person)" label can be removed from Dharmapada. Can anyone help?
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 24, 2006, 03:52 (UTC)

Ok, so:

Dhamapada → Dhammapada (as you left it, no need to worry about the talk page, it might be needed where it is in future)

Dharmapada (person) has now been moved to Dharmapada and is thus a redirect.

Is that right? -Splash^talk 04:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup! — Looks good. Thanks! — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 24, 2006, 05:01 (UTC)

Undoing page move madness on Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging

Recently, Ezeu (talk · contribs) incorrectly moved Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (which is correct) to Afrikanerweerstandsbeweging (incorrect); since then a number of edits have occurred, and a few days ago Zaian (talk · contribs) moved the page to an even more incorrect Afrikanerweerstands Beweging. It seems like a copy&paste move has now been tried to get everything sorted out again, so could an admin please take a look at this and move the page with history back to Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging? Thanks! dewet|™ 07:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll do it. --cesarb 09:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. --cesarb 09:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. I was trying to undo Ezeu's error when I accidentally introduced a worse one of my own. The best I could then do was attempt to tidy up the mess using a copy and paste move. Sadly these things are very hard to undo once done. I appreciate the assistance. Zaian 23:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, not really, if you know the trick: if you have a "chained move" A->B->C, simply undo the moves in reverse order (C->B->A). The rules which the software uses to decide when to allow overwriting a redirect allow that. Of course, once any of the other pages on the chain have been edited, you need an admin to delete the target pages. --cesarb 00:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Neonxzero

I have blocked this user indefintitely for adding a speedy deletion tag to the Jesus article. I believe the account was solely created to vandalise Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• There's one other legit edit he has made [9], I thought it'd been better if you have issued him with a template warning first. Then again, I have no idea if this may be some sock. - Mailer Diablo 13:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• With a what? I don't think there's an appropriate template for something like this. It's time ... to get creative ... ahem. What I'm trying to say is, it's the warning that's important, not the shiny templates used. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• What are you doing? We don't indef block after one bad edit, do we? Why do you believe the account was created solely to vandalize? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• I shortened the block to end 24 hours from now; if there's some more compelling logic, we can re-block. I'm also not convinced any block at all is merited here, without a warning first. For now, though, I think a much clearer patter of abuse needs to be established before an indefinite block is even considered. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Good luck with making sure they stop editing. That account was obviously around for quite a while unused, I know this because they edited a semi-protected page. I feel sure that either the editor will stop using the account or will start vandalising the site quite a lot more. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

IP's posting legal threats

Various IP's have been posting legal threats similar to found at this link [10] on various pages basically containing a legal threat against myself, User:Shanel and a few other users, mostly admins. The consensus in IRC is to block for 6 months on all IP's who does this, if you notice it, please remove and strongly strongly consider a block, no sense in warning as it's a BV -- Tawker 21:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If they're going to keep changing IP (and you did say they were various IPs) then there is little point in blocking an IP for six months when we know he/she(/it?) has moved on to another IP. That would just cause "collateral damage". --Latinus 21:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe they are static IP's assigned to the customer from tracerts and Bell's allocation table. Tawker 21:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Merging Contribs

Hello, i would like it if a sysop merged my contribs from my old ip [11] into my NightDragon Account attribs please :)

Thanks! --NightDragon 21:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that is posible. Only buracrats can do that and merging IP edits causes problems with the GFDL.Geni 21:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's less than 50 edits anyways, I wouldn't worry about it too much. We won't judge you based on your edit count :-) Alhutch 21:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Buotte

This user is continuing to vandalize articles after repeated warnings. I reverted his edit to fog a few minutes ago, but he has since vandalized two other pages, User:Micahmn and dog. -- Kjkolb 00:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

More Images from nonsense conttributors

User:Njfreen1 whose only text contribution seems to be the now-deleted nonsense article Andrew David Wong uploaded an image. Can someone make sure that it should be deleted? Should I keep reporting these here, delete them myself even though I can't see them, or report them somewhere else? Academic Challenger 05:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

For an image with no source, like that one, you can just put {{subst:nsd}} and an admin will delete it. I've already done this. If he keeps adding nonsense, warn him and, if he continues after being warned, report him at WP:AIV. Chick Bowen 05:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I probably should have mentioned that I am an admin. I do almost all admin activities daily, including article deletions and blocks, but feel uncomfortable with image deletions because I cannot see well enough to see images, and images cannot be restored. Academic Challenger 06:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I'm sorry, I misunderstood. In any case, what I said holds; it's best to tag an image rather than deleting it straight off, since as you say, image deletions can't be undone. Chick Bowen 06:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

220.245.179.130

I unblocked 220.245.179.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) after a request on IRC. It was blocked indef as a possible proxy, but the chap claims that he just got this IP from his ISP, and this is not the first time the IP has been unblocked for collateral damage. However, since it was a suspected proxy, I bring it here. --Golbez 05:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Whois says it's an Australian ISP, so it's probably bona fide; but don't take my word for it, I'm just a hapless contributor rapidly giving myself a crash education about all kinds of blocking technicalities out of sheer self-defense (see Collateral damage below) Vremya 11:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the block logs, one of the blocks was for being the output side of an open proxy (with a different IP address). This probably means that 220.245.179.130 is a transparent proxy; any user (or open proxy) in the range of IP addresses it services will be forced to use it to contact Wikipedia. --cesarb 14:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

203.144.160.243

I reverted the edit on the Angela (Inheritance) page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Angela_(Inheritance)&diff=41128254&oldid=41113834

Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 05:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't need to be discussed on AN. You were right to revert. -Greg Asche (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan

This arbitration case has closed. Jguk is banned from editing with respect to era notation. This will be enforced by block, as per Jguk's prior arbitration case. Sortan is also warned regarding stalking Jguk. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 09:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ran into this...

What is referred to by "Offensive User Names" ? I've ran into this while examining block logs from a Wiki-link I have just placed in my Wiki-listings. Martial Law 09:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Hi, Martial Law! Like it says at the top of this page, it's a message board for coordinating and discussing administrative tasks on Wikipedia. The right place for the kind of question you ask there is Wikipedia:Helpdesk. Best wishes, Bishonen | ノート 10:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Username explains the policy. Secretlondon 15:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Collateral damage from AOL autoblocking

At the suggestion of Titoxd, I am here noting my personal experience as an AOL user and good-faith Wikipedia contributor in a wider forum. In my personal experience, the disruptive effect of collateral damage from the autoblocking of the dynamic IPs that AOL imposes on its members has become easily as disruptive as the vandalism it was supposed to combat in the first place. In the course of further reading about this matter, I encountered this proposal, which looks as if it may offer a solution to this problem. My apologies if I'm just being the naive newbie reminding everyone of what they already know, but it took me a while to find the proposal myself (it doesn't seem to be linked directly from most of the help pages I read) so even if it's old hat to seasoned administrators, I figured it might at least be useful to some people in the same predicament as myself Vremya 11:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a very known issue, but we always appreciate input from new users. And elderly users. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest as someone concerned with the issue as an AOL user you may actually be in a better position to convince AOL to cooperate and come up with a tehcnical work around which would allow much better selective blocking (allowing not just registerd users but those who wish not to register), by raising a query with AOL themselves as to the issue and to what they propose to do about it (i.e. providing some unique although not "identifying" header within AOL proxy requests such that selective blocking is practical for any site like wikipedia wishes to do so.) --pgk^(talk) 01:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Image reversion unsuccessful

The image at Image:Hannah.jpg has been overwritten with another image, and I don't seem to be able to revert to the previous version. Can someone assist, and explain how I can make the correction in the future, please. Noisy | Talk 11:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverting did not work for me either, but uploading the old version again did. Eugene van der Pijll 11:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Usually, what you need to do is once you revert an image, refresh the cache of your browser and you should see the new image comping up. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 16:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, both. Noisy | Talk 23:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

A slightly odd example since I had deleted the image that was used to do the overwriting.Geni 05:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

CAT:CSD

Am I the only one dealing with this? There's a bit of a backlog, and I'd like some more experienced admin(s) to look at some of them; I'm not sure what, if any, CSD criterion some of them come under. Thanks, Hermione1980 01:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on it now. --M@thwiz2020 01:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I left the images along, but went through the articles and categories. Someone with more experience with images please go through those. --M@thwiz2020 01:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Good work with that! Hermione1980 01:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I zapped a few that were obviously appropriate to delete. I'll try to help out more often with maintaining this category in the future. --Improv 01:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is for obvious cases. If you're not sure it's under the CSD, it's not under CSD. If you agree that it should be deleted, list it as an AFD (or maybe prod). Superm401 - Talk 15:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, well, it could be the nominator was sure which CSD it was under but didn't indicate it clearly, so the request for help figuring it out is pretty appropriate. And just to emphasize, for something that clearly needs to go I highly recommend WP:PROD over AfD. -- SCZenz 15:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but if an admin can't tell at a glance, it's not a clear enough case for speedying. Superm401 - Talk 22:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on keeping this clear recently, but have been ignoring tons of userboxes geting dumped in at once for the most part. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 06:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Editing MediaWiki pages

I just wanted to check if there are any special rules or guidelines for editing protected MediaWiki pages, aside from obvious things like using common sense and discretion. For concreteness, I'm interested in adding a link back to the WP:PROD list from the page that comes up after you delete something (for the same reason there's already a link to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion). Is there any reason that's a bad idea, or anywhere it should be discussed? -- SCZenz 02:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• As a rule of thumb, any major edits to the MediaWiki pages should be proposed on their respective talk pages beforehand. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You can also post here or at the Village Pump. Going back to your question, I don't see any problem with adding PROD to the MediaWiki page. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I currently notice that MediaWiki talk:Deletedtext has yet been created yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I can't imagine many people watch the Mediawiki pages—there are a lot where changes would be quite noticable—which is why I figured I had better post somewhere else. Since this seems to be an adequate place, I'll give my specific idea a little longer, and nobody objects I'll put the link in. -- SCZenz 03:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You may as well post at the talk page anyway, just in case. Chick Bowen 03:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• I believe the general rule of thumb is that if it's gonna be a significant visual change or change in meaning it should be proposed on the talk page and/or the Village Pump since people watch the village pump more than the mediawiki talk pages. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• I've always started on it's talk page, then listed a link at VP. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 06:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:PROD is broken

If you check out http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/en_proposed_deletion , the list of proposed deletions, you'll notice that almost every entry was added to the list at 14:59 25th February. This is not the case, the bulk of those were prodded before that date. So you have articles like Ogie which should now be in the red csd zone looking like theres 5 days left to run.

I notified Interiot of this pretty much as it happened. I come back now later, and see that it hasn't been fixed. A possible cause for his script breaking, is that Template:Prod was blanked. It was only reverted half an hour later, at 14:59, which is also when all the proposals have been logged to have taken place. So this post is twofold really:

• If the breakage is due to the blanking of Template:Prod, then maybe it's best to protect it.
• Maybe you should go through the list and look for articles which should now be deleted, like Corinis

Hahnchen 05:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've protected it. In the meantime, this this is the last pre-vandalism version of the on-wiki backup. —Cryptic (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

He's using the cl_timestamp field in the database. That isn't going to be reliable. --Gmaxwell 05:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

In the context of this vandalism, it's not going to be reliable, or are you saying cl_timestamp won't be reliable in other contexts too? Anyway, I'll come up with a fix if I can, but for now Cryptic's pre-log looks like the best route to go for admins deleting things on schedule. --Interiot 06:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, actually I was wrong. I though cl_timestamp got refreshed when purges were performed, but that doesn't appear to be the case... I'd avoided using it in the past because of this. --Gmaxwell 18:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein case. Raul654 13:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Frys104 / User:Ryanlong / User:Pjh1810 (same user, just sockpuppets)

On Febrary 8th, I placed a cleanup tag on the Bashas' article.[[12]]

February 14 User:Frys104 removes the cleanup tag, even though the article is mostly advertisement. The user isn't aware at that time of wikipedia policy. I assume good faith

February 19 User:PaulHanson adds an advert tag to the article. User:Frys104 immediately removes the tag. [13] I replace the advert tag, explaining why on the summary, so User:Frys104 will know why the tag was added.

February 22 User:Frys104 removes the advert tag [[14]], and blanks out the talk page [[15]] User:Frys104 vandalizes User:Bovlb's user page [[16]] User:Frys104 vandalizes my user page [[17]] User:Frys104 blanks out my user page and leaves an ALLCAPS message about how I can't edit "his page". [[18]]

February 23 User:Rebelguys2 reinserts the advert tag, and reverts the page blanking done by Frys104 [[19]]. User:Rebelguys2 reverts User:Fry104's vandalism on User:Bovlb's user page.[[20]] I try to clean up the Bashas article, but it still has POV stuff in it, that I wasn't sure how I was going to edit out. I add a vandalism warning on Fry104's talk page.

February 24 I replace the advert tag on the Bashas article, explaining why on the summary. A 'new user' User:Ryanlong joins Wikipedia. His very FIRST edit is vandalism on my talk page [[21]]. User Ryanlong's other edits look surprisingly identical to User:Fry104 [[22]] User:Ryanlong blanks out the Bashas talk page, and leaves a message about how the previous info was nonsense [[23]] I replace the blanked out text on the Bashas talk page. [[24]] I add a second warning on Fry104's talk page, and a first warning on user Ryanlong's talk page. I report the vandalism of the two users on [[25]] User:Ryanlong removes the advert tag [[26]].

February 25th A 'new user' User:Pjh1810 starts editing similar articles as the first two vandals. [[27]] His first edit on the Fry's food and drug talk page is to try to remove references to Frys104's vandalism. [[28]] User:Pjh1810 removes the advert tag on the Bashas article [[29]] User:Frys104 removes the vandalism warnings on his talk page. [[30]], so he's obviously seen them. User:Prasi90 warns Ryanlong against vandalism. [[31]] Ryanlong removes the vandalism warning on his talk page. A new user User:Worstnightmare vandalizes my page and the pages of other a half dozen contributers to those pages, and reverters of Frys104's, Ryanlong's, and Pj1810's vandalism [[32]] He is quickly blocked.

February 26th User:Weregerbil reverts the vandalism warning blanking on Ryanlong's talk page.[[33]] User:Pjh1810 claims on the Fry's food and drug page that he is not the same person as the other vandals [[34]], but his list of contributions is the same as the other two: [[35]]

It seems clear to me that at least three of the vandals (Fry, Ryan, and Pjh) are the same person: the edit histories and vandisms of all three are nearly identical, occurring on the same pages to the same users. Take a look at Frys104's contributions: [[36]], compare to User:Ryanlong's: [[37]] and user:Pjh1810's: [[38]]. They are the same.

Many of the guy's contributions seem sound, but he vandalizes any user he doesn't like, and it's become a bad situation.

I am less certain about User:Worstnightmare's identity, because he was blocked so early that he didn't have a chance to make other contributions before he was blocked.

Please block this user/users for an extended period. I'm tired of dealing with his vandalism, and I suspect about 20 other people are as well. User active today.--Firsfron 19:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

British Raj to British India cut and past move

There was a WP:RM request to move British Raj to British India on 4 December 2005 (UTC). See Talk:British Raj#Requested move. The decision was "It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. WhiteNight T | @ | C 21:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

On the 23 January 2006 user:81.103.63.238 did a cut and past move from British Raj to British India. As can bee seen by the contributions of 81.103.63.238 this was a sockpupet used to bypass the WP:RM consensus. Since the cut and past move there have been a number of edits to the page British India. Please could an administrator merge the newer history back into the British Raj page and make the British India a redirect page. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Reading the relevant discussions, it seems pretty straightforward. I'll do the move. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I got a problem

The User:SPUI has not only vandalized Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Squidward, but I consider his user page to be extremely obscene. I would like you to look into this and tell me if this user is violating Wikipedia standards or not. Reason being is my standards of obscene are set pretty high and I would like you to make a judgement call. Now User:SPUI just reverted to hus vandalism. If I revert in again then I would be pushing the 3RR Rule or would I? Thank You (Steve 02:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

He's free to have what he wants on his userpage unless an arbcom ruling (I'm not aware of any) explictly states that he cannot. However, it is vandalism, and 3RR doesn't apply to reverting vandalism. Use WP:AIV to report. NSLE _{(T C)} at 02:27 UTC (2006-02-27)

SPUI is an editor with a talent for dichotomy. That said, I fail to see the point of his edit to that page; as the bots only use that image, it's the logical image representing the bots. Reversion despite opposition is inappropriate. On the other hand, I fail to see the point of having an image at all. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 02:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The image is copyrighted and should not be used outside of the article namespace. SPUI is quite right, even if he's not going about it in the right way. Chick Bowen 02:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd advocate what Pathoschild says above, and remove the image totally, there is no point of having an image at all. NSLE _{(T C)} at 02:34 UTC (2006-02-27)

Second Chick Bowen. In his usual disruptive way SPUI has made a good point. What would be useful is linking to the image–it's the common thread in these attacks (which makes it easy to hunt down the open proxies involved and get everything reverted). --Mackensen (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Larger issue, different solution: I've temporarily deleted Image:Squid.jpg, after saving a backup copy. It's not an important image, and its only widespread use has been for vandalism and disruption. Will restore once we have the vandalism situation under control, which doesn't seem to be the case yet. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Please restore the image as soon as possible; it's used in the article Squidward Tentacles, and removing it does nothing to deter vandalism. The vandalbots don't care if they're blanking with red links instead of Squidwards. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 06:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I sort of agree with Pathoschild because this vandal will do something else... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Account Unjustly Blocked

[The following was moved by Chick Bowen from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard]

I have discovered that my account "Happyjoe" is blocked from editing due to some sort of misunderstanding over the Big Spring, TX article. I am uncertain who to contact to have this mistake fixed. Please remove this block so that I may complete necessary editing on other articles. Thank you for your timely assistance in resolving this problem... Happyjoe 69.145.215.206 04:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The block log shows that Essjay (talk · contribs) applied an indef-block to you. The justification of the block is shown in the RFC against you. You may contact the admin in question (Essjay). Thanks. --Ragib 04:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked this IP for 24 hours for block evasion, since he has admitted to being User:Happyjoe. Chick Bowen 04:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Heated edit wars over trivial differences

Can some mediation person talk to the two people involved at Angels and Airwaves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Both 3RR'd. -- Curps 00:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

WTF. WP:LAME? --cesarb 00:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I added it. It is one of the best examples. --cesarb 01:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Tykell and User:Alex 101 are both at it again. I've warned them that 3RR doesn't mean they get three free reverts a day, but somebody needs to keep an eye on them and the article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Both have gotten two blocks in immediately after their return from 24 hour blocks for 3RR warring. I've blocked both for 24 hours more, and the blocks should start increasing if this continues. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Over 40 reverts, edit summaries using death threats, all over a case of "is" or "are"? Boy, I thought some things on WP:LAME were lame, but this takes the cake. It should be mentioned right at the top as the lamest edit war ever. Tykell, Alex 101, do you have lives outside Wikipedia? JIP | Talk 13:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:WP talk:Mooooooooooo~! (edit | [[Talk:Talk:WP talk:Mooooooooooo~!|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

article deletion history

*copied from talk page*

This article is included in the list of featured articles.

Category:Featured articles

1. REDIRECT Cattle

um? delete this

this article is proof of a sytematic bias in wikipedia

against anons.. I mean look at this, an anon creates this nonsense article, it's deleted twice, an RU comes along and recreates it, and it gets labled as a featured article??! what is wrong with you people?--64.12.116.200 15:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

*end copied from talk page*

What? —Cleared as filed. 17:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• That's my point exactly, when an anon creats an article that is patent nonsense, it get's a speedy, when an RU creates the very same nonsense page, it sticks around for about a week, and gets nominated for featured article status--64.12.116.200 18:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

  I cannot see it on the list of featured articles. The bogus category was added by the creator. It was created by 64.12.117.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), not by a registered user. And it didn't stick a whole week, it was only a couple of days. --cesarb 22:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What article are you talking about? User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

He's talking about Talk:WP talk:Mooooooooooo~!. --cesarb 12:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

movie plot summary copyvio by User:Katja9 10

I've come across a whole slew of movie articles recently created by User: Katja9 10. They've all got very brief descriptions ("19xx film directed by ___"), a brief cast list, and a plot synopsis which in every case I've looked at was cut-and-pasted directly from imdb.com or some other site. You can look at the user's contributions list and probably spot lots more.

I tagged several of these with {copyvio} and listed them at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 26, but I'm thinking that's too tedious and the wrong approach. I'm afraid the expedient thing to do will be simply to delete every article this user has created since at least February 9. Checking all the text is timeconsuming, and the trend is clear, and the articles aren't worth keeping once the copied synopses are removed. (They aren't encyclopedic; they don't contain anything the imdb doesn't. I assume we don't want to try to duplicate imdb, that if we're going to have an article on a movie, it ought to have some pretense of being notable and encyclopeic.)

I left a message on the user's talk page a little while ago. They may have seen it, because the synopses they've posted since then (yes, they're still at it) are lightly paraphrased from the imdb ones, although I notice they're now cutting and pasting the "goofs" list, too. Steve Summit (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, you can't go through and delete all of this users contribs because she has copyvios, the right thing to do is go through each and every article and tag it. You have to assume good faith, especially with a new user. Mike _{(T C)} 19:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Or you could tag all of the offending articles with a speedy delete A8 copyvio, but i dont know if the articles will meet all the requirements for it. Mike _{(T C)} 19:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I am A'ing GF here. Another question: when adding {copyvio}, is it proper to blank the whole page, or just the offending text, or what? Steve Summit (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

We can assume good faith–I'm sure that the new editor does mean well–while still cleaning out the copyvios. There's no point in producing scores (hundreds?) of extra edits and clogging up our copyvio process just because new editor doesn't understand our policies. Encourage the new editor to try to write more detailed articles about fewer movies. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Did that, and he appears to be listening to some extent. But there are dozens of copyvios extant, and I fear they will "clog the copyvio process" somewhat. Steve Summit (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Whats the point of the process if we don't follow for fear of creating a backlog? Mike _{(T C)} 22:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of process for the sake of process when we already know what the outcome will be? Save the bandwidth, server space, time, effort, and potential legal exposure. As far as I know, there hasn't been any objection to deleting these cut-and-paste copies; unless there's a serious objection here, then I think it's not unreasonable to assume that there is a consensus to delete them. We're better off saving the 'process' for cases where there is some dispute. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to a mass deletion. If the cases are identical, it makes sense. However, listing them on copyright problems will not clog it, though there is a perennial backlog. -- Kjkolb 03:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades == mega-correct. Process is important only in disputes; anywhere else (where WP:SNOW applies) can have process safely ignored. Anyway, this sounds familiar; I distinctly recall we used to have someone who added almost totally useless articles on TV shows, actors, and movies. I don't think they were copyvios, though. Johnleemk | Talk 03:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tagged 10 or 15 of the worst of them as {copyvio} before I got tired of it. I tend to agree with TenOfAllTrades and Johnleemk, although anything truly expedient would have to be done by an admin. If I proposed them all for speedy deletion it would be about as cumbersome as if I tagged them all with {copyvio}. Steve Summit (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocking function not working?

It seems to me that the block pages are not working for me at the moment. Is this true for anyone else? --HappyCamper 13:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocks issued for 3RR at Anarchism

I've just blocked two users for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR at Anarchism.

User:Infinity0, [39], [40], [41], [42]

User:RJII, [43], [44], [45], [46]

I have also minded them of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, given recent edit summaries and comments on Talk:Anarchism. Hiding talk 13:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Advice requested Part Two

I would very much appreciate more input from admins on this matter, as otherwise this can just turn into a back-and-forth litany of accusations between Giovanni and me. The Christianity article has now been protected. I would like to answer some of the accusations made against me, and then to request advice as to what should happen now.

I seem to be accused of having driven SOPHIA away. I disagreed with SOPHIA about some of her edits (while agreeing with others). I respected her and have never at any stage suspected her of anything dishonourable. At one stage, she said on the Christianity talk page that it had been "scary" to have me and two others "at" her at the same time. Following that statement, Str1977 left her a message saying that he was sorry if we had scared her, that it had not been our intention, and that he appreciated her efforts at calming down tension. I followed that with a post saying that I also regretted if we had scared her off, although I didn't recall having done so, and that I respected her as a genuine editor, here to improve the encyclopaedia. Our posts (Str1977's and mine) are here. She replied here that she had expressed herself badly, and that she had been trying to explain that the process of trying to reply to three simultaneous editors who agree (and can type a lot faster than she!) was scary when she was new. She also said that Str1977 had left her a nice message and that she regarded us both and KHM03 as serious, thoughtful editors, and that she admired the patience that we had shown towards Giovanni33.

Facebook moving

Recently, a vote was held on Talk:Facebook (website) on whether or not to move the page to Facebook. The vote was four in favor of moving and four not. User:Nightstallion closed the vote as "no consensus." A couple of days later, User:Savidan, one of the users who wished for it to be moved, went to Nightstallion himself and convinced him that the page should be moved, so he did. My grievance is that I feel the vote on requested moves was for nothing, especially if the user is going to disregard the opposing voices and get the page moved whether there is a vote or not. Someone please keep an eye out on the situation, because I am absolutely livid that the user has gone behind my back as well as others' just to get what he wants. Mike H. That's hot 08:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

(Move was reverted by FCYTravis. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-20 10:34Z)

I don't understand this; why was a vote needed? There's no article at Facebook, only a disambiguation page in which there's only one link to an actual article: Facebook (website). Isn't a move pretty automatic, given naming conventions? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Since there was disagreement, clearly discussion was/is needed. WP:AN is the place for process discussion, not content discussion, so I suggest this discussion be continued at Talk:Facebook (website). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-20 13:44Z

I would agree with Mel on this. The only other links are to a Wiktionary page and to a Wikipedia: project namespace page, and it's my understanding that interwiki and cross-namespace links are not exactly compatible with mirror sites, even if self-references weren't an issue. — Feb. 20, '06 [20:17] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

It didn't used to be a Wiktionary page, there was actually stuff written there. My point is that there was a vote, there was no consensus, and a person went behind the backs of others and got the page moved anyway, which is wrong. Mike H. That's hot 23:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Since significant changes (transwikification) were made after all votes had been cast in the first vote (and since the original vote was not listed at WP:RM until after all votes had been cast), another vote was held. The result of the debate was move. As far as the earlier actions of savidan, it appears he noticed that there was no longer a namespace conflict and believed that exsisting guidelines allowed for a move; please remember to assume good faith. --L1AM (talk - 'tribs.) 11:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Siflige

I need some assistance from my fellow admins. I placed a prod tag on the article Siflige, as I considered it a non-notable gaming community. The prod tag was contested by User:Erik Navkire, so I attempted to change the prod to an AfD nomination. When I did this however, I discovered that the article had previously been deleted through AfD, so the AfD tag automatically linked to the old Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siflige discussion. How can I renominate this article, without it linking to the old AfD discussion? There are some arguments for the article to be kept on its talk page. Cnwb 03:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siflige 2 or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siflige (second nomination) would work. Then just change the target in the tag. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That's also what {{afd2}} is for. Superm401 - Talk 15:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Never mind. I wasn't thinking at all. Superm401 - Talk 18:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images

I recently told users at Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars that they cannot use fair use images in their templates because it is in violation of WP:FAIR policy. A user removed them. However, he also asked what is the policy on one person's artistic impression of something that is copyrighted (the example he was referring to was someone drawing an image of the Rebel Alliance logo and using that). I replied that I wasn't sure what the policy is. What is the policy on that exactly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deskana (talk • contribs) .

IANAL and all that, but copying is copying, whether you use a photocopier or a scanner or you trace it. If the original is not eligible for fair use, a copy will not be either. --bainer (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The user in question has recently pulled up Image:Small NES controller.png. He's asking that since this is an original work based on the SNES, why can't he create an original work based on the Rebel Alliance logo and give it to Wikipedia for free use in the WikiProject Star Wars? Deskana (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

IANAL, but one difference is that the NES controller is a three-dimensional object, while the Rebel Alliance logo is two-dimensional. Thus, a picture of a NES controller is not a substitute for an actual NES controller, whereas a picture of a Rebel Alliance logo is a Rebel Alliance logo. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

IANAL either, but you can not copyright most three-dimensional objects. The controller may be trademarked, but it is not copyrighted. The image is almost certainly trademark fair use if the controller is a trademark at all. Superm401 - Talk 15:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if a particular nation's laws are preferred here, but in the United States, artistic derivative works, in particular, artistic pieces making use of other works -- whether the original work was copyrighted or not -- do not generally require approval from the original copyright holder -- it's typically considered fair use. See Andy Warhol's Campbell Soup Cans as a reference. If you like, I can dig around WestLaw to find a case or two on the issue to finalize it. Jkatzen 08:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It depends on how the derivative is being used: it's fine to make derivations for artistic purposes (e.g. Warhol) or to satirize; it's not ok to use them just as a means of getting around copyrights. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 15:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

IANAL, but not all artistic derviatives are appropriate, and most satires aren't. It's most likely to be fair use when the derivative is parodying the original. Note the difference between parody and satire. Superm401 - Talk 00:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

the appropriateness of signing posts under another user's name

Recently, SoothingR (talk · contribs) was promosted to an administrator. It seems that it is a Wikipedian custom for newly-created administrators to personally thank each supporters with a fancy message. However, it seems that he forgot to acknowledge MONGO (talk · contribs), and MONGO copied SoothingR's message onto his talk page, as if SoothingR posted it.

I know that registered users who don't feel like logging in will sometimes sign their posts under their registered name. But I'm not sure if posting a message under someone else's name is so appropriate.

Any thoughts on this? --Ixfd64 07:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Copying someone's full message, including signature, is quite common; however, in situations like that, where the context where it's posted is important, a small note to the effect should be added. --cesarb 09:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Ixfd64...thanks for asking me?...SoothingR (talk · contribs) posted his/her thank you to my USERPAGE and all I did was move it to my TALKPAGE...next time, WP:AGF.--MONGO 10:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, no wonder. I didn't think of that. --Ixfd64 10:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ixfd64, if we can assume good faith of suspected sockpuppets of prolific vandals, then surely we can assume good faith of MONGO? — Feb. 24, '06 [10:30] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I think this quite clearly shows why edit summaries are important. --cesarb 10:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. --Ixfd64 10:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries I usually don't do on talk pages or especially in my own usersapce areas...maybe a bad habit...next time you assume I am up to something how about simply asking me? Thanks in advance!--MONGO 10:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, I know they didn't assume the best of you, but I think we could all do without catty comments like "if you think I'm doing something bad, why don't you just ASK me." Mike H. That's hot 10:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Is that a fact...since when is it not appropriate to ask someone up front what the deal is rather than posting incorrect commentary about them in this manner behind their back. I didn't capitalize ask as you did...so don't overemphasize a simple request on my part.--MONGO 10:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to "quote" me make sure the "quote" is what I have written...thanks!--MONGO 10:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd like to think you should have brought this to MONGO's attention before reporting it the noticeboard as if it were disruption, without prior discussion. Please assume good faith, Ixfd64. Don't do that again, it's utterly violating of trust and sneaky. Quite beyond belief. -Zero^Talk 11:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

MONGO's request is quite a reasonable one. I'd expect the same. — Feb. 24, '06 [15:17] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Yes, I also have the same bad habit of not using edit summaries on my own userspace; I've been trying to avoid it. Sorry for not noticing the paired edit to your user page; if you were a vandal or a new user, checking the contributions would quickly spot the other part of the move; however, I remembered seeing your name before, and went the "old user, probably did a small mistake, no need to even look beyond the diff" route. --cesarb 13:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing MONGO of anything - I was just curious about what happened. I apologize for the misunderstanding, though. --Ixfd64 22:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Collateral damage, again

Sigh. I have just been autoblocked again for happening to share an AOL dynamic IP (in this case 152.163.100.204) with a suspected vandal. Although this is usually already extremely frustrating, in this case insult was added to injury, because the autoblock was under the signature of Lucky 6.9, an administrator who, according to their own talk page, no longer wishes to be affiliated with Wikipedia! I try not to lose my temper that easily but I should very much like to know how the clucking bell being autoblocked by an absentee admin who has apparently just packed up and gone is any different from vandalism perpetrated by an anonymous hit-and-run vandal?! As I have noted before, I think the collateral damage issue has gotten to the point where the autoblocking is more disruptive than the vandalism it is supposed to combat Vremya 16:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Related to the famous Bug 550, is there any reported bug to take the autoblocker off AOL or similar massively-shared IPs? - David Gerard 16:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

<devil's advocate> Or we could just ban anon edits from AOL and the like... flood of complaints might just get them to change their IP allocation policy... Ban anon editing from such IPs, but allow people to register if they supply a validated email address... is that a bird? is it a plane? no, it's a pig! </devil's advocate> Rd232 ^talk 21:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That's an amazing idea, and after providing their email addresses, how exactly do they edit from a blocked iP? Oh yes, wonderful plan! Hey, here's an idea, maybe even though AOL 100% ignores its own paying customers, maybe they'll be more responsive to an administrator from an online encylopedia! That will certianly inspire them to radically overhaul a server system that hasn't been updated since the 1990s! Now if only we had some sort of {{template:sarcastic emoticon}}, that I could place at the end of my sentance, maybe AOL will make one for you if you ask nicely!--64.12.116.200 22:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please, can we ban all AOL IP addresses with an explicit request for them to email AOL's support and policy making people for long enough to get a change made? I'd like to think it wouldn't take too long, but can we at least try for a week or two to get some press out of it? - Taxman ^Talk 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL - AOL is part of one of the largest media conglomerates on the face of the earth, they can't get bad press unless they want it and literally choose to write it themselves; AOL/TIMEWARNER/ABC/CABLEVISION/SONY/NEWSCORP/PARAMOUNT, if you can find a press/media outlet that AOL isn't affiliated with, then by all means, take it to them - LOL -152.163.100.200 00:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting that out of all the times people complain about AOL, no one ever mentions that having or not having a unique sharedip is a choice made by a given user, AOL not withstanding, the only time AOL actually applies it's bizaire sharedip system is if you're one of those idiots who thinks that AOL is a perfectly good web browser, the second you exit the AOL shell you are assigned a reasonably unique IP in the 172.128.0.0 - 172.191.255.255 range, yet I don't think I've ever seen a single AOL user on wikipedia actually fess up to this, the only inention I can gather from that is that all the AOL sharedips are either idiots, or harboring some sort of malice against wikipedia, and since 10 minutes on an AOL message board will clarify that it is in fact the former, not the later, there's little than can be done about it--172.149.179.164 00:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• I mean look at me, yes I'm using an AOL sharedip, and yes theoretically someone else could eventually wind up on this very IP, but chances are so small that I can assure you, I will never be faced with a sharedip autoblock, as long as don't use AOL's native browser--172.149.179.164 00:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for calling me an idiot. Now that we know where we stand, could we cut down on the sneering and actually explain how to exit AOL without being unceremoniously signed off? Don't think I haven't tried; I just haven't managed to stay online in the process. Not all of us whose parents weren't smart enough to pay for a PhD in computer science are vandals, you know Vremya 02:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

(Deep breath) Okay, I probably should not have lost my temper. The only excuse I have to offer is that in the last week I have been autoblocked every single time I was trying to contribute, any edits I succeeded in making only being lucky enough to make it in before I got the door slammed in my face (yes, it's that bad). Having said that, I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings. Insert your favorite picture of Vremya munching humble pie here. However, I would still like an answer to my question, so let me try to frame it less abrasively: The statement of User:172.149.179.164 that "no one ever mentions that having or not having a unique shared IP is a choice made by a given user, AOL notwithstanding" may be technically true in the same sense that having or not having a French-Latvian dictionary is a "choice" made by a given user, but just try to buy one at your corner bookstore. Note the operative phrase "no one ever mentions." I assume that 172.149.179.164 has not realized that one likely consequence of the fact that no one ever mentions this is that for the vast majority of AOL users for whom, like myself, computers are not their field of technical expertise but tools to do something else with (like, say, contributing to an encyclopedia), the fact that unique IPs are available to AOL users under certain technical circumstances amounts to a well-kept secret. So: What is the secret? How exactly does one obtain a unique nonshared IP from AOL? As far as I could gather, it involves shutting down the AOL browser. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to do that without effectively losing my connection (and I have tried); as far as I with my lack of technical training can tell, AOL's dial-up program is the browser. Could someone please give a more extensive, less technical, and (pretty please) less sneering explanation? I promise I won't snarl again if it means chewing my own arm off (which I've nearly done in frustration at the constant blocking anyway :-( Vremya 04:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I know this is probably completely unhelpful, but... have you considered switching ISPs? android79 04:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is true, but I've heard that running an application that requires a continuous connection to the Internet (e.g. an IRC client), will force AOL to keep you with that IP for the session. Also, I believe that the AOL IP means that if you run Internet Explorer or Firefox instead of AOL's built-in browser, you're assigned an IP in that 172 semi-dynamic range. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I mean, the second part anyway, more or less, the trick is that of course, you can't actually close the AOL shell because it's what's providing your interent access, but you certianly can open a new window, the part about a continuous internet connection however, is, creative.. but nothing more than a rumor, and I'm sorry if I offened, to be fair my harsher comments were directed at the unregistered users who are always going "oh I'm not a vandal, that other guy who looks like me is", sorry if I offended

The only drawback, is that editing like this, AOL behaves like a true rotating IP address, so you have to contantly explain to people "yes I know how to use wikipedia and only have 2 contributions but I'm not a sockpuppet" which gets tiresome--172.145.206.190 04:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I use AOL, and I have never once been involved in a collateral block. I run an IE window separate from AOL's Internet connection. I used to use Firefox, but there seems to be an incompatability between Firefox and AOL which keeps causing Firefox to freeze up. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah I used to get into autoblocks alot, now I do the same thing Zoe do, it's better off to run a IE window seperate from AOL, I gives the 172 semi-dynamic range instead of the three problem ones. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that the discussion seems to have focused on AOL (naturally enough, as AOL users are among the most common victims of collateral damage), it may be worth recalling that dynamic IPs vulnerable to collateral damage are not confined to AOL users. Solutions for AOL users only, though helpful, do not solve the deeper problem that autoblocking is arguably a loose cannon Vremya 23:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocking summaries

I notice that many users are blocked with cryptic summaries like "User...". Since the summary is shown to the user as the reason for their block, these are totally useless. Please use "Inappropriate username" or another wording that provides a valid reason for the block to the user. Zocky | picture popups 05:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Many of the usernames that get blocked are just throwaway sockpuppets or vandals playing denial of service games or username creation performance art and watching the block log and never even triggering a block (for instance the "block me" accounts... but if we ignore them and don't block, they sometimes go ahead and vandalize anyway, for instance [47]). In other words, much of the time when "user..." is used, the user who actually created the username will never even read or see the block message.

Because of autoblocking, meaningful block summaries very often do more harm than good. In cases of vandalism, I do put "vandalism" in the block summary, but every single day I get e-mail from one or more collaterally damaged AOL users asking "why are you accusing me of vandalism?"

The way that the Mediawiki software handles autoblocking is entirely inadequate and often harmful. At the very least, "established users" (non-throwaway accounts) should be immune from all forms of IP-based blocking, and since autoblocks almost never make sense for AOL addresses, the software should internally detect AOL IP ranges and silently not autoblock them.

Perhaps it's time to get rid of autoblocking altogether. Half the time it doesn't work because the vandal can shift IP addresses, and most of the rest of the time it causes more harm than good because it blocks everyone stuck behind an ISP or school or corporation proxy IP. -- Curps 06:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Every single day I get e-mail from one or more collaterally damaged AOL users asking "why are you accusing me of vandalism?"

Well, at least as to that point, I have been working on a template that might not necessarily diminish the volume of such messages but would at least ensure that they are less confrontational :-) Vremya 07:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zocky. Undescriptive block summaries are not helpful at all. Unless the blocked accounts were created in bad-faith, I will usually reset the blocks and use more descriptive summaries. Even other administrators may be confused by undescriptive block summaries. Sometimes I will check the block list and I would have no idea certain accounts were blocked. I'm pretty sure that we have lost several good contributors this way. --Ixfd64 22:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Curps is assuming bad faith, which is against the ideal of Wikipedia. Robust Physique 01:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Curps's block performs a vital service though I agree about the block summaries, maybe someone should ask him if he can change the summary from username... to innapropriate username or some variation of such. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Special:Statistics

Special:Statistics has a typo in it saying "of which 829(or 0.08%) belong to administrators", when it should say "of which 829(or 0.08%) are administators", could an admin please fix this here.

Prodego ^talk 22:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"belong to" is correct. You don't say the account is the administrator; you say the person using the account is the administrator. --cesarb 22:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Much of the necessity for this page and WP:AN/I is that those one million-and-change accounts are not one per person. Chick Bowen 22:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No, he's right: there is an error in that sentence. I am an administrator, and there are two accounts that belong to me (the other one is for bot edits).I have heard there are over 800 admins; if they collectively own 829 accounts, less than 29 own two accounts. I don't believe that. Eugene van der Pijll 22:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, only the accounts that have admin rights are counted. I assume your bot account doesn't. Maybe it should be "of which 829 have sysop status," but that's less elegant. Chick Bowen 23:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You are right, I didn't notice the word "accounts". Sorry, Prodego ^talk 00:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Not all of the accounts owned by administrators are accounts with administrator rights. It should say "... are administrators" because it is the account not the individual that has the administrator rights, sockpuppets owned by the same user are unlikely to also have admin rights. --Victim of signature fascism | Do people who don't think Jesus existed exist? 00:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Weird event

Could someone smarter than me explain what happened with Miles provance? I came across it through the Random article button and deleted it. As you can see (if you're an admin) it was tagged speedy, but it had been tagged in December and was obviously not in the CSD category. Why is this? Are there likely to be more of these floating around? Chick Bowen 23:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to guess that it was subst'ed and thus the category code was in <noinclude> tags. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was probably that (I think the subst: code was fixed to act the same as transclusion, but only recently). --cesarb 23:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And, if you want to find more of these, they should all be visible on the Special:Whatlinkshere output for the speedy deletion templates, since they have a hidden link back to the template itself. --cesarb 23:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Central parole violation

I blocked Central (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for violation of his personal attack parole. His repsonse was, erm, less than kind [48]. In my opinion it constitutes a further, even more blatant violation of his parole than the initial attack he was blocked for. However, since I was the subject of the attack(s), I'd be more comfortable if someone else could look into this and block if they feel it's necessary. Thanks.--Sean Black ^(talk) 00:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

While that comment is certainly offensive (and unfair), I'm not comfortable blocking based on it. Superm401 - Talk 00:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I am, and have. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Central speaks the truth. Robust Physique 01:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Are you saying that his insulting and demeaning comments towards me are true? If so, I'd appreciate an apology.--Sean Black ^(talk) 21:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there some way to help 66.99.13.253?

User 66.99.13.253 (talk for user 66.99.13.253) has been reverting one of the facts in the article for Niles North High School repeatedly for about a month now. The user apparently disagrees with the filming locations of Sixteen Candles. Twice now he/she has posted somewhat grumpy comments about it in the article itself, which makes me suspect that he/she does not know how to look at the page history or talk page, or even his/her own talk page. I can't send the user an email of explanation because he/she is anonymous. It seems inappropriate to try to debate the factual dispute with this person within the article itself. Is there any way to handle this other than continuing to revert the page (and continue to research the information) until he/she either gets bored and gives up or figures out that there is a more appropriate place to discuss this factual disagreement? Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks. Crypticfirefly 05:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I had a similar problem once, and did "debate within the article" by using HTML comment tags. Jkelly 05:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good idea! Crypticfirefly 05:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

List of sovereign states

A few in-favour-of-Georgian-POV editors are currently discussing with a few Abkhazia-and-South-Ossetia-are-sovereign-the-same-way-that-Transnistria-and-Northern-Cyprus-are editors, and I'm currently a bit stressed out and don't want to participate too much in the debate (since I tend to violate WP:CIVIL when I'm under stress, which I don't usually do). If debate doesn't quickly lead to a solution, would calling a straw poll be acceptable to see whether the majority of interested users considers Abkhazia and South Ossetia to belong on the list? —Nightstallion (?) 07:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe Nightstalion either misunderstood or misinterpreted or misrepresented the position of some of the editors (including myself). They are not in-favour-of-Georgian-POV only. They are, using Nightstalion's terminology, Abkhazia-and-South-Ossetia-and-Transnistria-and-Northern-Cyprus-are-not-sovereign. And I am not sure what he means by "If debate doesn't quickly lead to a solution" since he and User: Jiang appear to be the only ones opposing the reasonable NPOV resolution. Any help would really be appreciated since this is not going anywhere despite kilobytes of valid arguments. (PaC 10:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

The "reasonable NPOV resolution" is simply your version of the article. Abkhazia and South Ossetia have been in the article since 2004. Come on. --Khoikhoi 02:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Content dispute

Right, my first foray into resolving a dispute in an article, as an admin. (I'm surprised it took this long) I'd like for more experienced users to scrutinize my actions with regards to this protection and this advice that I gave to help resolve the dispute. KnowledgeOfSelf 11:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems pretty standard. Be prepared to answer complaints about protecting the "wrong version". See {{wrong version}}. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 11:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You'll do fine, KoS. Mark's right about the wrong version - I myself have never protected anything else. See m:The Wrong Version also. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Aye it just happened too! Thanks for the feedback :) KnowledgeOfSelf 13:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Main page redesign vote

The Main page redesign official voting has started and will continue until March 18th. We put a notice of the vote on Talk:Main page, Wikipedia:Community Portal, and it's been mentioned in the Signpost. While we don't want to blanket Wikipedia with notices (to the point of annoying people), were else do you think we should put a notice to make sure people are aware of it? Thanks. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

On the Village pump. --cesarb 17:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Are there major objections to a notice (such as {{Template:Mainpagevote}} on the village pump pages, beneath the {{Template:Villagepumppages}}. Maybe just on the policy, proposal, and news village pump pages. The main page redesign is somewhat cross-cutting of those topic areas. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if you do it, please post a normal message on the village pump. Wikipedia has so many colorful boxes already that some people will not even notice another one. --cesarb 20:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Administrators acting bad

Administrators are acting really naughty recently. I got warned. I want a link. This poop is not tolerable. I want links! Crowbaaa 16:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you ask the admin who warned you? In any case how about this link, or perhaps this one. Leithp 16:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

A Few Questions

Well I was just wondering how you become an admin and please don't delete this, my last notice was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crowbaaa (talk • contribs)

You were warned by me for this particularly unhelpful set of edits. I fail to see how warning you about this is being "naughty". Before you even think about becoming an administrator, you need to figure out what it means to be an effective editor first. android79 18:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Generally, you need about 3,000 edits and 3-4 months (or preferably more) of good effective edits before you should even consider becoming an admin. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Racist edits on Woodridge, IL

Somebody has made repeated racist edits to the Woodridge, IL article. For a long time all the edits were coming from 24.15.173.210, to the point that I left a comment on the user talk page. Whoever it is now seems to have switched to a different IP address. Can we get the page semi-protected, or something? For more info, see the talk page and history for the Woodridge article. 134.173.65.34 17:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Post this request to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection there are admins there who actively monitor the page and will apply protection if they feel its needed. Mike _{(T C)} 20:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext

I just added information to MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext telling users what to do when the blocked text wasn't added by them (and, mostly important, mentioning that one of the causes can be spyware, since link-adding spyware have their links added to the m:Spam blacklist to prevent false accusations of spamming). However, I'm not 100% happy with my wording (particularly, I'm not sure it's clear enough for J. Random User), and would like for someone else to improve it. --cesarb 17:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have tried rewording the message, though sure it could still be worded better. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice you reworded everything except the very paragraph I had added? ☺ --cesarb 20:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

User:John cruthers and Caucazia

I noticed an odd link that went into the Kwanzaa article, and followed it up. What I found was an attack page for a made-up holiday, Caucazia, and an edit history that indicated that the user had been moving it around for nearly a month, see Special:Undelete/Caucazia. The user also linked a number of pages (his user page, his talk page, the talk pages for several other articles) to that page.

As near as I can tell, this account has been used for nothing but vandalism and disruption. I deleted the attack page, blocked the account for 24 hours while deciding what to do, and cleaned up after the hideous, tangled mess of redirects this user left in her or his wake. I'd like to solicit opinions on what the appropriate block length for this user is. As always, if any admin feels I have overstepped my bounds, feel free to review or reverse my changes.

Thanks, Nandesuka 22:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

User keeping copyrighted image on talk page

A user added Image:Fireworks.jpg to a few user talk pages in celebration of the millionth article. The problem is, this image is fair use and no source. I notified that user (also the uploader), and removed it from all usages. Karmafist accused me of copyright paranoia, added the image, and threatened to revert me if I removed it again. I'm involved in another dispute with Karmafist, and so I'm not going to take any more action by removing it. But if someone could at least tell me if I'm right, or if it is unnecessary copyright paranoia, this would be appreciated. Ral315 (talk) 05:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, you're right.

1. We can't claim fair use without citing a source for the image;
2. We can't claim fair use without citing a rationale supporting the fair use claim;
3. Our policy forbids fair use images outside of article space anyway;
4. Celebrating a million articles in our free encyclopedia by taking someone else's artwork without credit just doesn't seem like a good idea.

Are we likely to get caught or face a lawsuit? Nope. Was the uploader's heart in the right place? Probably. Should we pull the image because it isn't ours, isn't free, and because we have lots of other fireworks images available on Commons? Yep. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the two remaining instances of the fireworks images with (what I think) are attractive fireworks from Commons. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought, and I understand that the uploader shouldn't be caught in the crossfire. Thanks for substituting another image. Ral315 (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

SOPHIA

SOPHIA was extremely hurt and angry when the checkuser result came through, showing her connection to TheShriek. It was I who requested a check, and I did so in consultation with other editors. I did not include SOPHIA in it. When Giovanni arrived, he engaged in massive edit warring. I don't mean an accidental slip into a fourth revert (as I did myself on one occasion) — I mean six and five and eleven, ignoring warnings and pleas from other editors. It was unfair because none of the "older" editors had a history of running to WP:AN/3RR to report an opponent, especially not if he was new, and we were all trying to stay within the rules ourselves. At least four new redlinked users appeared and said on the talk page that they agreed with Giovanni. Most of them began reverting to his version, and also following him to other pages, voting where he voted, claiming that there was consensus, etc. These users were BelindaGong, Kecik, MikaM, and TheShriek. All except TheShriek have been blocked for 3RR, and again they were not reported for a first, accidental slip into a fourth revert. When I requested the check they were all fairly new. The contributions of the first four would probably show that at least 95% of their contributions are agreeing with Giovanni on the talk pages of various articles, voting where he votes, and reverting (or doing partial reverts) to his version. The fact that the checkuser showed Giovanni to be the same as BelindaGong certainly justified requesting it, since Belinda and Giovanni constantly took double votes, took at least six reverts, made claims about the number of editors who agreed with their version, and set up an elaborate pretence of not knowing each other. TheShriek was also shown to be the same as SOPHIA. However, when that result came through, I saw that there was no evidence of gaming the system, taking double votes, or multiple reverts. I sent SOPHIA a polite message here, telling her about the result, and asking if she would like to clarify anything, as there was now a statement (not an image) on TheShriek's page that he was a sockpuppet for SOPHIA. She posted a rather angry reply here, saying the TheShriek was her husband. We all accepted that, and were sympathetic, but she could not be pacified. I posted two more friendly messages on her talk page, and some one the Christianity talk page (e.g. this one), explaining that we respected her, and that nobody thought she had done anything wrong, and that I had personally removed the sockpuppet notice from her husband's page. When she complained that the would be permanently in the edit history, I told her that I had used my admin powers to remove it from the history, and asked her to let me know if there was anything else I could do. KHM03 was also sympathetic to her, and Str1977 posted a very friendly message to her. So much for the accusations made by Giovanni and his supporters that she left because she was persecuted and hounded for her POV by the Christian editors.

With regard to Freethinker99 (talk · contribs), he arrived at the Christianity talk page while Giovanni was blocked, and told us that he was a new user and that he agreed with Giovanni. His writing style and arguments were simlilar to those of Giovanni. His second edit was a revert to a Giovanni version. He reverted three times in a little over two hours (like Giovanni/Belinda).

• At 20:24 on 14 February, KHM03 posted a message to Giovanni33's talk page, asking him to clarify if he had any connection with Trollwatcher, John1838, or Kecik. [49]
• At 23:08 on 14 February, KHM03 added "And User:Freethinker99".[50]
• At 23:59 on 14 February, Giovanni answered "I'll . . . state for the record that these users are not in any way associated with me, present or past." But he signed his post while logged on as Freethinker99.[51]
• At midnight on 15 February, Giovanni logged on as Giovanni33, and replaced Freethinker's signature with his own.[52]
• At 00:04 on 15 February, Freethinker99 posted a comment with little relevance to anything being questioned on Giovanni's talk page. It would give an ostensible reason for Freethinker still to be in the edit history after the telltale signature had been replaced.[53] I'm sure many Wikipedians who have been away from a talk page for several hours just check the difference between the last version they were familiar with and the current one, rather than going through each diff.
• At 00:11 on 15 February, Freethinker posted that he had written that message for Giovanni and had signed it by mistake.[54]
• At 00:19 on 15 February, Freethinker claimed that he had let Giovanni write a post to his own talk page on his (Freethinker's) computer.[55]. (Eight minutes earlier, he had claimed that he had written that post for Giovanni.)
• At 00:23 Giovanni posted to his talk page that he had not seen KHM03's question about Freethinker when he answered that he had no connection to any of those users, and that he did, in fact, know Freethinker.[56]

I did not attack Freethinker. I did not block him. (I don't block people I'm in dispute with.) Nor did I add the sockpuppet template to his userpage (though I support the admin who did). I did say that his story, if true, makes him a meatpuppet.[57] I stand by that remark. If he really is a different person, he arrived at Wikipedia to revert to Giovanni's version, and to argue for it on the talk page.

Giovanni recently followed me to Jdavidb's talk page, and saw a message I had posted there thanking Jdavidb for bringing me to Wikipedia, as I believed it was he who had posted someething on some blog asking people to join Wikipedia if they were prepared to respect NPOV. On discovering that post, Giovanni posted to several talk pages and project pages that I, despite saying that it wasn't allowed to invite friends to join Wikipedia, had joined in exactly the same way. For the record, I have never met Jdavidb, and have never, as far as I know, reverted to his version of any article. We very seldom edit the same articles. That is now being compared to Giovanni's friend and wife (if they're not Giovanni himself) reverting constantly to his version, while pretending to have no connection to him.

I apologize for boring everyone with such a long account, but I really would appreciate some input, as BelindaGong and Freethinker have now both been unblocked, and the Christianity and Adolf Hitler articles will presumably soon be unlocked. I really have no idea whether Giovanni, Belinda, and Freethinker are one person, or two, or three; but their connection to each other (which they tried not just to keep secret but actually to mislead people about) has been shown. What is their position now? WP:SOCK says that "Proven sock puppets may be permanently blocked if used to cast double votes." Well, Giovanni and Belinda have taken double votes, (see [58] [59] [60] [61]) but Giovanni is now insisting that Belinda is his wife, and is therefore not a sockpuppet.

Can someone clarify what the situation is now? I seem to recall that it came up in the case of Hollow Wilerding, but am not sure where to look for information regarding that case. Was there reference to some policy or some ArbCom ruling that a family under one roof is officially one single user for voting purposes, or am I imagining that? I'd like some reassurance that Giovanni and Belinda are not entitled to 6 reverts between them every day. And to anticipate his likely statement that I have reverted to Str1977's version, I'd like to say that I have never met Str1977, and we both have a long history editing articles in which the other user has no interest. We do have some overlap of interest and of POV in Christianity-related articles. Before Giovanni and his sockpuppet(s?) arrived, I would say my average was lower than one revert per day.

We now also have new users John1838 (talk · contribs) and Trollwatcher (talk · contribs). I certainly don't want to imply that every new user who supports Giovanni is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. (I was once a new user with a POV!) But these two users seem to be just criticizing editors, rather than making helpful contributions. In particular I'd like someone to take a look at John1838's user page.

Any help would be appreciated. AnnH ^(talk) 22:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The content and style of John1838's posting matches those of Robsteadman - both the WIKI user and the TES contributor.Crusading composer 00:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Why you so hawny? and User:Waya sahoni

Accusations of ban avoidance and sockpuppetry but I don't know what is going on here. Anyone familiar with this? Rmhermen 02:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about other issues but it looks like the first one you listed is a fairly obvious username policy vi9olation. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If the first is a username violation, so is the other, being a phonetic variation. Joyous | Talk 03:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The second one has been accused of being another account of Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. Looking through the history of his other accounts should quickly tell the rest of the history. --cesarb 03:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser#waya sahoni (talk • contribs) and Gadugi (talk • contribs). --cesarb 03:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And the first one does look like a sockpuppet of someone else, created to be able to chase the second one without fear of retaliation. --cesarb 03:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The two seem to be in the middle of a massive revert war right now on a talk page. *Dan T.* 04:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I {{usernameBlocked}} blocked both for being needlessly offensive? Superm401 - Talk 00:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No objections from me, both appear to be violations. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

As someone familiar with this soap opera, I feel I have to point out that Why you so hawny? was a phonetic variation on the second, and has been banned already for stalking/username violations. waya sahoni is almost certainly a sockpuppet of a blocked user, Gadugi, which happens to be the account of an irritating and disruptive net.kook called Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, and there's some sort of bizarre edit war going on over the article which bears his name.

To be fair, 'waya sahoni' is probably something meaningful in the Cherokee language and (assuming it's not offensive in Cherokee) probably shouldn't be blocked for that particular reason. I recommend finding some sort of excuse to get waya sahoni blocked or banned from Wikipedia though, because Jeff just won't stop being a disruptive influence and making a mess all over the place until he has complete control over his article. Sigh. --Aim Here 07:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This user User:Aim Here is an SCOX role account that comes through an anonymous proxy and is shared by multiple users via a VNC server. I have been quietly editing Cherokee articles. I added Jeff's article to the Indigeneous People project because it appeared on the Cherokee People category page. I have ONLY been placing the {{NorthAmNative]] tag and flagging the article for POV cleanup on the Talk page and a revert war ensued. THESE editors resort to Sock puppet and fantasy banned user allegations when they loose their arguments. They started this by creating multiple sockpuppets and vandalizing my user page. I opened an RFC on moving the LKML content to LKML where it belongs and this is the result. Aim Here is a meat puppet for SCOX and a role account. I listed ALL the SCOX meat puppets on the RFC page. These accounts are duckblinds for POV pushing, stalking, and harassent of Wikiepdia editors. They operate these other accounts for DOS attacks on people they really don't like, I guess we should feel lucky. Waya sahoni 07:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk about your abusive post.

* SCOX role puppet - whatever that is, it doesn't sound nice

* allegations of sockpuppetry without proof

* fantasy banned user, ugly perjorative for 'lie'

* more unproven allegations of sockpuppetry

* unproven allegations of vandalism

* multiple unproven allegations of being a meat puppet, sounds ugly

* unproven allegations of POV pushing, stalking, harassment.

* unproven allegations of Denial of Service attacks. This is a charge of criminal behavior...

Vigilant 08:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Also check the SCOX mailing list on Yahoo. There are several hundreds of posts where Aim Here, MediaMangler (i_s_p), Pgk (Pgk, pgk PG_King), Vyrl, saltydgmn, Kebron, and Neal_r_Hauser (Why you so hawny?) list VNC SPAM access points to these proxys to spam this article as well as others on Wikipedia. One of them is operated out of Washington State, One is in San Jose, and another is in the UK. There are three others that use anonymizer.com and the-cloak.com. They hand out logins and use them with Instant messenger to spam and vandalize Wikipedia, then discuss their forays and Wikipedia's reactions on the SCOX mailing list. Waya sahoni 08:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

These are serious allegations Waya sahoni. Do you have any proof? Otherwise these might seem to violate the WP:NPA rules?? Vigilant 08:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, documents and posts on the SCOX board speaks for themselves. Wikipedia should search through warmcat for the searchable listing. Search on "Wikipedia" in the message bodies. Very interesting. Waya sahoni 08:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Using Warmcat's Yahoeuvre I cannot find any proof for your allegations. Just 'wikipedia' gives lots of hits, and all I see is discussion and speculation about edits occuring here on WP. Granted, many of the posters there do not hold very flattering views of Jeff Merkey, but such opinions outside of WP have no bearing on what happens here, right? I then tried combining 'wikipedia' with various keywords, such as 'msn', 'proxy' or 'anonymizer' and can not find any relevant hits. There are posts discussing how to access Jeff Merkey's website 'merkeylaw.com' through proxies (such as [62]), mostly because Mr. Merkey was in the habit of publicizing IP addresses that accessed that site. --MJ^(☎|@|C) 14:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC).

Well, we don't allow the use of anonymous proxies on Wikipedia. Mostly are already indefinitely blocked. Which makes it a bit more difficult to use an open proxy here (but then, as long as you are logged in, only developers and a few select people can see your IP address, so there's not much need). --cesarb 15:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Why you so hawny? was created to harass Waya sahoni. I blocked that account. Waya sahoni has stated that he has no intention of making legal threats or suing anyone at Wikipedia, so even if he is Jeff, he is not banned for making legal threats. I object to the blocking of Waya sahoni unless he violates policy in the future. —Guanaco 21:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Could another admin look at this?

Could another admin look at Mgarard's contribs. It's a whole slew of book pages. He had created an article called Gravity by Mark Garard Gravity by Marc Garard [-Jeff], which was literally just pictures of the book pages. I have a feeling that all of the images should be deleted, but I'm iffy on image policy. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I came accross Gravity by Marc Garard and started to load each individual book page with intention of nuking them, but it nearly crashed my browser. He claims copyright on the material, though, but they have no useful encyclopedic purpose and should be deleted, I think. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Simple. Either this is original research, in which case we don't want it. Or it's a copy of a primary or secondary source, in which case we don't want it either. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 11:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Besides, he claimed copyright on the material. He would first need to release it under the GFDL to make it admissable at all. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If he had copyright, he automatically licensed the images and text under the GFDL by uploading them. Superm401 - Talk 08:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

GFDL retraction issue

I and others are getting into a reversion battle with User:Thepcnerd over three images contributed by User:Thepcnerd. The images were relicensed to GFDL by him but since he had a pet page of his afd, he now claims he never granted GFDL and wants the images deleted or put under a more restrictive copyright. You can see the main to and fro on my and his talk page. He has been told by more than one admin that his argument is nonsense but he continues to push his case and revert the GFDL flag on the images. I'd say delete images and be done with it but that sends the wrong message. Garglebutt / (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The images are:

• Image:Lakeokeechobee.jpg
• Image:FloridaTrailSign.jpg
• Image:Contents of MRE.jpg

I have indefinitely blocked him for legal threats. Before undoing the block, please explain here. Superm401 - Talk 06:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Also discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Thepcnerd, revocability of the GFDL, legal threats. —Cryptic (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing POV war

As some of you may already know, there's been an ongoing war of POV edits on a number of articles relating to political figures in Vaughan, Ontario, with a number of users asserting that User:pm_shef is inherently biased because of his own family connections. While admittedly there may be some truth to that, these people have not directly addressed any specific examples of what they believe to be biased editing on pm_shef's part; instead, they engage almost entirely in ad hominem attacks and reversion wars. In truth, pm_shef really hasn't broken any conduct rules, while several of his accusers (a handful of newly registered usernames who've never edited anything not directly related to this dispute) have already had to be blocked for 24 hours for page blanking, 3RR, etc. Because I've already been involved to an extent in the discussion, however, I'm asking if somebody neutral can assist in reviewing and resolving the situation. Thanks. The main articles in question so far are Alan Shefman and Susan Kadis. Bearcat 05:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching this too: I just wanted to mention that the main offenders are User:VaughanWatch and User:70.29.239.249, and the dispute also extends to the article Sandra Yeung Racco. pm_shef may have broken the 3RR rule in combating this, but he seemed to have been merely confused about it; see User talk:Mangojuice. Mangojuice 05:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at this. That's User:Hars Aldens one and only edit to Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Toms River, New Jersey

The edit history of this article appears to have changed. If this is an accident of memory, please let me know; if there was partial deletion, who was responsible? Septentrionalis 06:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There have been no deletions on that page. You can check the log yourself. Superm401 - Talk 07:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

history seems to go back pretty far and there haven't been any page moves there. What was the problem Pmanderson?--Alhutch 16:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Shortly before my most recent edit to the article, sometime early 1 March or late 28 February, there was an edit with moved the local embarassment "below the fold" (in the words of the edit summary). I reverted it. It's not in the edit history now. This may have been a glitch, showing a preview of which the editor thought better as a real edit. There may have been a rollback. Or my memory may be failing. I'd like to know which. Septentrionalis

Special:Confirmemail

A message popped up in my watchlist that "Wikipedia email confirmation has been enabled." I hadn't seen any Wikipedia talk pages about this, and it's always best to take a "better safe than sorry" stance on stuff you are potentially clicking on on the internet. Can anyone confirm that this is legitimate? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It is. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

About four threads up is a post about it from Brion, the lead developer. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 06:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. Can never be too careful. :o) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What, you think Wikipedia does illegal stuff????? Crowbaaa 14:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of VeryVerily

This arbitration case has closed. The one-revert per page per day remedy from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily, and its associated enforcement, are vacated with respect to VeryVerily. However, the other still applicable remedy, namely that pertaining to discussion of reverts, and its associated enforcement, remain in force. Ruy Lopez is banned from using sockpuppets, and is placed on probation. VeryVerily may appeal to have the remaining remedy lifted in four months. The remedies will be enforced by block. For further details, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 15:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

ADMIN Alert!

The user Rasterman has created a page entitled Charles Lee (BAPE Master). This page is very obviously a vanity or vandal page. Could an admin take care of this please? (I currently can't find the templates for warnings to put on talk pages, and I have no idea how to delete the page.) Thank you. Filmcom 18:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If you put a speedy delete tag on the article, an admin will see it. Gamaliel 18:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Request to have multiple external links for the good of measuring traffic

In the Ajax (programming) article anon 71.198.121.203 (talk · contribs) from IBM has for the last weeks been repeatedly inserting multiple links to IBM tutorials on the topic. I replaced the links with one common link to all their Ajax tutorials as I believe that should be sufficient. But he now asked me to let all the links be listed as they (interestingly enough) "are trying to determine the traffic and interest of each one, to help determine future commitment by IBM for this type of content." [63]. I told him that I don't think this is a good enough reason to bloat wikipedia articles with extra links, but I also said I would ask for other admins opinions on this which I hereby do. He has previously asked to let the links contain extra strings in the URL, "tracking tags to find wikipedia in server logs easier", which I don't really mind as long as it's clearly not affiliate/profit motivated. And I don't think it is in this case. Shanes 20:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep it at the one link. The tagging isn't really a problem as long as he is not profitting from it (although this case is arguably advertising), but multiple links where one is better is a problem. --maru (talk) contribs 20:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Mark Bourrie

User:Mark Bourrie, an admitted online friend of Rachel Marsden, persistently removes whole swaths of sourced material from the Rachel Marsden article, see this for instance. Homey 21:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

66.210.38.254

He has been vandalizing quite a bit and blocked twice already. He last had activity vandalizing Hedgehog. He defintely needs another block. Raintaster 21:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of. -- Psy guy ^Talk 21:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• And do use Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism in future. Thanks! :) - Mailer Diablo 03:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Robert Steadman Composer

I have been proved right - despite being mocked by some administrators. The article about Robert sTeadman is essentially a vanity article created by the subject in a shameless attempt at self promotion. The subject used sockpuppets to block any attempt to edit the article and to smear anybody who attempted to do so. The subject attempted to get the article protected - and cheekily wished to have access whilst everybody else was blocked. When the article was referred for deletion, the subject privately contacted administrators to discredit those voting against it and to canvass support. The subject then went on to vote for himself. This is a shameful business. I did point all of this out to the administrators at the time and was dismissed as a troublemaking crank. Ironically, the subject of the article has proved himself to be a much more troublesome user.Crusading composer 00:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Request Relist of Amal Mavani AfD

Please relist the AfD discussion for Amal Mavani. There have been several additions which appear to be "goofs". If this request is not appropriate here, please refer me to where I should place it. Thanks. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 00:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't need 'relisting' since it's still an open debate. -Splash^talk 01:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• And AfDs are automatically 'relisted' if there is insufficient consensus to determine the outcome of their debates. - Mailer Diablo 03:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

A message from the Squidward vandal

Today I received this email from User:Projects (the Squidward vandal):

we have all the proxies we need and this statement:

So now we know that his name is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, he lives in Chicago and he was the president of a chess association called WDCA. Mushroom (Talk) 05:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Only first name is correct, we use many IL proxies (legal access)and I was never a member and president of any club, lol. I was an international tournament director for 2 years 97-99, only, however, I never give my exact name exact, anywhere, including on your 'great finds' lol and there are many mistakes there, I want to let you know we contacted phroziac asking for assistance what to do, because many posts were being reverted automatically, even those where they eventually were prooven to be concise/exact and true and to the best of our knowledge. But Phroziac and others gave us trouble. There are three of us. I am a historian, not a vandal, but I am working on a program that will autmoticlly catch on your site and change many pages without any of us being present. By loosing us, you lost huge knowledge of sports and much more, all the things we said e.g. about 1998 1999 nba season, eventually, reverted, and on many other topics. I will not go into the details here. And no,

I do not live in Chicago, but use Chicago proxy, I am from Indiana, I contacted certain lady at wikipedia, then she passed on info to that whore phroziac, did you honestly think i would give my real name and even if u do find, that makes no difference, we will keep on bothering you all, just so you know. But it's inappropriate to post any names, even if they are half correct, because they were written to one party, THE WIKI ADMINISTRATION, Ms. Carter, she forwarded our concern to that whore phroziac, carter said it's best for us not to post here, since many sites will automatically be reverted, you have codes you inserted which automatically notify aholes like curps, i am a computer programmer and I know all the codes in the world, you could have had a top commander and anti vandal guard in your sects, if you just allowed us to talk normally, now you have chosen war, a war, which we intend to continue one way or the other. I demand that you enforce the rules and not user people's names, because I do not want members of any club to be on vandal list, if they are, even better, we can not wait to sue you.

And again, you are all hypocrites, you do not follow your rules...

I think that you may only have his alias, but I won't post his alias or real name here, as per the privacy policy. -- Kjkolb 09:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

One way or the other, you guys have no life, we do.

Mushroom (Talk) 01:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I got this on my talk page. It was reverted by another editor, I probably would have ignored it since I'm less likely to get in trouble that way. I gave the information I had to an editor trying to stop the vandalism, but all of the names I found may have been aliases. If they were, it probably means that he uses aliases offline in day-to-day life. The name above was taken from an email. I also found names that he used for his websites, chess tournaments, newsgroups and a newspaper article. I have not had any contact with him and I have not been involved with the case in any other way, so that's all I can say. -- Kjkolb 03:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

After posting this, I found an email from him. I informed him of my intention to stay out of this from now on. My focus is on writing and improving articles. Thanks, Kjkolb 03:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Triumph of the Will

Requesting that we get as many people as possible watchlisting this today. It's the featured article...and given it's subject, I'm expecting high amounts of vandalism. I just had to sprotect it because of a penis vandal...and it's only been the FA for 2 hours. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Watching, and adding "nasty penis vandal" to my list of inherently funny phrases. android79 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Do not protect or semi-protect. This is today's FA. Please read User:Raul654/protection for more information. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

99.9999% of the time I agree with you. But I protected it for 15 minutes to try to ward off a penis vandal. Of course. It didn't work. :) It's going to be a rough day I'm afraid for us vandal fighters. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey Liu

This appears to be an article about an entirely different subject, the use of the word "gay" specifically, for a long time back in its history. Am I missing something? -Splash^talk 02:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was target of a pagemove vandal. NSLE _{(T C)} at 02:36 UTC (2006-03-03)

Redirects deleted, move reverted. NSLE _{(T C)} at 02:41 UTC (2006-03-03)

User:joshbuddy

Please do NOT block this user for squidward, hes testing an anti-squidward bot. Thanks Tawker 07:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

God of War trolling

Whilst some POV declaring on your userpage might be good for the project, WP:NOT a webhost for politial essays. User:God of War has been hosting User:God of War/Tyranny and Fascism - Past and Present (previously User:God of War/Was REVENGE worth it President Bush?. This is an abuse of userspace. I would have sent it to MfD per process, but the page in question has the bold header Warning! The following contains a Point Of View that will tempt some to censor it by listing it at WP:MFD. clearly trolling for someone to do that and make him a 'free-speech martyr'. This I attempted to reason with him [64] and [65] but was met only with [66]. I am sorely tempted to speedy this as patent trolling and block him for disruption - but I've had enough calls of 'admin abuse' for this week. Perhaps someone else could take this up and try either reason or deletion. --Doc ^ask? 09:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You're not going to believe this, but I will actually try to talk to him. Better if it's a user (especially a pro-free speech one like me) than an admin, which will just upset him and others (quite understandably as I see it). I agree that that essay has no place on wikipedia and crosses the line of allowing political and social info on a user on their userpage. The Ungovernable Force 09:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Userspace exists as a scratchspace, a personal office if you will, to help with building the encyclopaedia. It's not a free patch of land that anyone who registers a free account can regard as their entitlement, and it's not somewhere where one can put inappropriate content and hide behind a kind of "userspace privilege" to protect it. I've spoken to God of War (talk · contribs) — or someone claiming to be him — many times on IRC, and, as near as I can determine, he's intelligent, and fairly cluey on what Wikipedia is and what it's for. He knows better than to write inflammatory personal essays and then bung them in userspace and say "NPOV doesn't apply! I can do what I want!". God of War has the potential to be a good contributor to our encyclopaedia, but at the moment he appears too busy being childish and abusing his userspace privileges. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I have listed it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:God of War/Tyranny and Fascism - Past and Present. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a mistake, if you read my initial post and the offending article's header, you will see that this is exactly what the troll user was hoping for. --Doc ^ask? 14:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Relax with the personal attacks there doc. If I was trolling I would be posting this everywhere. As it is, I was keeping it quartered off in a sub-page until I finish working on it.--God of War 19:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it needs to go, somehow. Which would be worse, trolling at MfD or trolling on ANI when someone speedies it? android79 15:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hey guys, Has anyone here actually tried reading it? It's not a rant and it's not an essay.

It's only a copy/paste of the declaration of independence with a few factual statements with news stories referenced under each line of the declaration. I was going to get to it eventually but until then I moved it out of my main page and into a sub-page.--God of War 18:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

So what does it have to do with Wikipedia's goals? Move that kind of thing to your own homepage/myspace whatever. Heck, I don't care, link to it from your WP user page, just keep junk that doesn't have any useful contribution to WP off WP. Please focus on what we're here for and not spend so much time on what we're not. You're wasting significant resources. - Taxman ^Talk 10:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard all day. The MFD discussion and this section of the noticeboard are taking up just as much minimal hard-drive space as my little sub-page.--God of War 20:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And if you followed what I wrote above we wouldn't have had any of it. To prevent more disruption and waste of resources we have to deal with it when we see it. If you don't want to focus on what Wikipedia is here for then spend time instead at places that are set up for what you're trying to do. - Taxman ^Talk 14:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This takes up a fraction of a cent's worth of hard drive space. I'll donate an extra 25 cents to Wikimedia if you let God of War have his subpages. —Guanaco 02:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Doc, Doc, Doc... a couple points:

1. It's a copy of the Declaration of Independence reached by a vague link at the bottom of a userpage.
2. We'd all be more sympathetic if your statement "I am sorely tempted to speedy this as patent trolling and block him for disruption - but I've had enough calls of 'admin abuse' for this week." instead read more along the lines of "I am sorely tempted to speedy this as patent trolling and block him for disruption - but I all the calls of 'admin abuse' this last week have caused me to reflect and realize that perhaps there is yet room for growth in my understanding."
3. How about this as a compromise: you let the dude keep his little essay, I'll donate the two following userboxes, and the user agrees to display one of them on his userpage. That way balance is achieved. Mmmmkay?Herostratus

This user recognizes that userboxes are the #3 cause of death, right behind cancer and heart disease.

This user believes that Wikipedia administrators are incapable of error when speaking ex cathedra.

Page swapped to hide vandalism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Critique_of_Finno-Ugric_and_Uralic_language_groups&diff=prev&oldid=41311270 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Critique_of_Finno-Ugric_and_Uralic_language_groups&diff=prev&oldid=40315740

show, that User:Dbachmann twice vandalized the page in short time intervals. Today suddenly his vandalisation disappeared from the history, and my impression is, that the page was manipulated, swapped with a page, that was deleted about a year ago. Could please someone check this? Thanks, Adam88 20:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I see no vandalism, and both diffs are visible on the page history. --cesarb 00:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Critique_of_Finno-Ugric_and_Uralic_language_Groups&action=history This is the history page, the both diffs are not visible. Can you please tell me exactly, where are listed the deletions on that page? Also the discussion page belongs to the deleted page and not to the current one. Adam88 19:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for pointing out that duplicate. Both pages should be redirected. And don't go around calling a disagreement over content "vandalism". Lupo 20:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

none of the pages may be redirected. Redirection = vandalismus.

There are two different pages; one has "groups" in the name (lowercase g) and the other one has "Groups" in the name (uppercase G). This is why you are not seeing the changes; you are looking at the history for one page and expecting to see the changes on the other. --cesarb 20:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

this is just User:Antifinnugor back from his ban with a year-old axe to grind. I protected the redirect now. I'm a bit tired of being called vandal by various trolls, consensus was and is clear as day on the issue. dab (ᛏ) 20:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

if you do not vandalize "redirect", you won't be called vandalizer, and won't be tired because of that. Does anybody force you to vandalize? It is that simple.

cesarb, thanks for the clarification. Now I found both pages. Adam88 08:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes has again violated his probation

User:Ted Wilkes has again violated his probation, although he had been blocked for doing so yesterday. He is still calling me a liar. This is certainly a personal attack. He has deleted some passages concerning Nick Adams's supposed homosexuality and an external link from the Nick Adams page, although he is banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality. See [67] and [68]. See also his aggressive behavior on the Talk:Nick Adams page. This is unacceptable. Onefortyone 19:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have two things to say.

• While I agree User:Ted Wilkes has violated his ban, Onefortyone is also violating his probation with all these dubious edits to the sexuality section of the article. I humbly suggest that both be given clear warnings to cease and desist from any sort of editing in the article for now and that neither be blocked unless it becomes necessary as a preventative step to enforce the existing ruling (which I strongly disagree with but respect in terms of process).

• I think the RfAr should be re-opened, there is much to discuss and resolve. The last RfAr has not worked. Wyss 19:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The main problem is Ted Wilkes, who is aggressively continuing edit warring with me. Onefortyone 19:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Wilkes has repeatedly violated the arbcom ruling. I banned him for 24 hours some days ago because of a number of violations, but treated them collectively as one breach. He has now committed two more unambiguous breaches. I have imposed a 1 week ban for the two breaches and am treating them as two clear and deliberate breaches. He is now up to three. If (and given his behaviour it seems a case of when) he hits five as per the arb ruling he will be banned for one year. He seems to treat arbcom rulings as a joke. They aren't. If he doesn't get the message then he will soon have a year to cop himself on. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Wyss (talk · contribs) emailed me to say you had blocked her by mistake. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No mistake. She deleted lines of another article dealing claims about someone's homosexuality. That breached the arbcom ruling which says that she and Wilkes are banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality. The clauses "any edit" and "related to homosexuality or bisexuality" shall be interpreted broadly. This is not the first time she has broken the ruling. The first time I judged given past behaviour to be unintentional. In this case however she unambiguously disobeyed the arbcom ruling at least 3 times. breach 1 breach 2 breach 3 As a result there was no choice but to block her. I have to say that while Wilkes seems a complete nutcase (who is strongly suspected of being a notorious multiple hardbanned user from some years back) Wyss normally acts more responsibly. But in this case the enfringments were clearcut and necessitated a block. Indeed she is very lucky that she only got a 24 hour block having made three clear breaches. She could have been blocked for longer. Some users would have imposed longer for three clear unambiguous breaches like those. To breach the ruling once is wrong. To do it three times in the one article smacks of giving the two fingers to the ruling.

Here is just one of the bits of text she deleted. According to a theory by Professor Machtan, which he explained in his book The Hidden Hitler, August Kubizek had a homosexual relationship with Adolf Hitler. Both Brigitte Hamann and Professor Machtan wrote that after meeting Hitler during the latter part of 1905, the two quickly became close friends and lived together, sharing a small room they rented on the Stumpergasse in Vienna. In Young Hitler, the Story of Our Friendship, Kubizek wrote that during their time together Hitler "always rejected the coquettish advances of girls or women. Women and girls took an interest in him in Linz as well as Vienna, but he always evaded their endeavors." Kubizek also wrote that Hitler had a great love for a girl named "Stefanie" and wrote her countless love poems but never sent them. Instead, Kubizek says Hitler read his poem "Hymn to the Beloved" to him. Professor Machtan stated that while the Stefanie girl definitely existed, some of Kubizek's 1953 writing was a deliberate "heterosexualizing" of Hitler in retrospect (p. 43).

She replaced the above text with William L. Shirer, in his book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich cites a letter dated August 4, 1933, six months after Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, in which he wrote his boyhood friend, "I should be very glad . . . to revive once more with you those memories of the best years of my life."

Deleting that was a clear and unambiguous breach of the prohibition "from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality". FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I can't see any basis for disputing the block. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Warning:

I got warned and I want links, please, I think there is a slight misunderstanding DS. Crowbaaa 14:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

How about this for a link [69]? --Syrthiss 14:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I cannot see what is wrong with that. Federal and the other words do have articles, so why not have links? What do some innocent links do. Rid Wikipedia of members? Noooo. Make people smarter? Yeeees. So what's wrong?Crowbaaa 12:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Drawer full of socks (talk · contribs)

A while back, this user was blocked probably for an inappropriate user name. Drawer full of socks put the unblock template on his talk page but I removed it later and explained about his user name to him. Every day now, a new anon IP addresses keep adding the unblock template back to his talk page giving the edit summary "request for unblock upheld". Can someone look into this? Moe ε 04:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

sprotected, and added a notice about the reason for the block. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 07:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

SQUIDWARD!! bot testing

I'm currently testing a bot to revert SQUIDWARD attacks. Please note this. Thanks. joshbuddy^talk 07:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this bot approved? WP:BOT states: Sysops should block bots, without hesitation, if they are unapproved

It's MY bot and its approved running with a bot flag Tawker 07:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

yes and i belive your flag is for {{subst:}}ing templates, and thats all your bot shoud be used for tawker until you have permison from wp:bots Benon 09:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Earl of Stirling, anon editor and legal threats

68.179.175.185 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is claiming to be (the) Earl of Stirling which is being disputed on both his talk page and the article talk page. In the course of those discussions 68.179.175.185 has made clear legal threats against Hansnesse. I've given a him couple short blocks but he has continued to make them. He has a block ending now and depending on his attitude I'm going to block him for a longer period of time. thanks Rx StrangeLove 16:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Will repeated blocks shall deter him from initiating legal action, if he chooses to do so? As legal threats are not tolerated here a permanent block may be in order. Apart from this, contents may require suitable modifications, about which I do not have any idea. --Bhadani 16:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

We don't block in order to convince someone not to go to court. We block for legal threats because once a legal threat has been made, it removes any possibility of reasonable discussion towards consensus. The block should be indefinite; at least until the issue is settled. Jkelly 17:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it, the best we can do is to keep him from making them here. I was thinking about a month. As he is editing from an IP I won't block indef. A month should cool him off, and if he keeps it up on his talk page I'll protect/semi it. Rx StrangeLove 17:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me make certain I understand this correctly: He's the Earl because he claims to be, not because of any other reason; he lost his only court case about it against the UK according to him (although no-one else has been able to find the case)[70]; and now he's threatening to sue WP? The mind boggles. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

We get these noble impersonators now and then. It's their bad luck that the British peerage is remarkably well-documented, and that a fairly high level of knowledge (to say nothing of pedantry) is required to fool those who know the subject. Earl of Stirling indeed. Next he'll claim he's the Duke of Cleveland! Mackensen (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for a month (before I read the above discussion) as noted on AN/I. I regret only failing to block him after the first (very clear and unambiguous) threat; decent wikipedians shouldn't have to suffer under the veil of threats. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Holy Chickens (from outer space 2, the movie remember?)

Soooooooooo, I think that the Notability test is chicken fried in water. It says that it is not a guideline, why should my article be deleted because of someone else's religion, i think it was a good article that I poured a lot of work into! Crowbaaa 17:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about deletions is conducted at deletion review. Thanks. Chick Bowen 19:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If only I had the faintest idea what Crowbaaa was talking about I'm sure I would be really interested :-) Just zis Guy you know? 19:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

First Council of Nicaea and Council of Jerusalem

There's some disagreements underway about the status of Ecumenical Councils or some such nonsense. There may also be some 3RR violations, but I'm not sure. As I've just nominated FCoN for Featured Article status, I'm loath to step in and start knocking skulls... can anyone poke around and see if there's anything that can be done from a procedural standpoint to quell the chaos? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Mac and Rachel Cory

I'm hoping another admin can give me some fresh insight. I've reverted the page twice and redirected to the show the characters were on, Another World, on the grounds that all the information in the article is already at the AW page, and that having a daughter article solves nothing as it's not telling anything new or in-depth, just stating the exact same things that can be found at the article on the series. The user, MrKing84, is not great at discussion from what I've gathered. I think it should be one way, and he thinks it should be his. Rather pigheaded, both of us, so hopefully someone else can mediate on the Mac and Rachel talk page. Thanks! Mike H. That's hot 21:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not take the info out of the parent article and let him keep it in the daughter article? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Libel

Reporting myself for an out-of-process speedy deletion of a template here. Here's a copy of my explanation (on Wikipedia:Libel):

I've removed the {{libel}} template. It is a serious problem if we find libellous material and don't deal with it. The correct thing to do, is to remove the text until it can be verified, sourced, put into neutral language and replaced (or forgotten never to be seen again if that's more appropriate). Just tagging it is a Bad Thing. I speak as one of those that deals with the angry emails from people reading that they are actually monstrous, murdering child molesters and not an average headmaster. -- sannse (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I fully support this decision, although perhaps a note could be added to the template explaining why it shouldn't be used? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

SVG Request

Could another administrator (who can upload and save SVG files) upload Image:Flag of South Africa.svg, tag it as {{c-uploaded}}, and protect it? I've gone ahead and changed the In the news image to Image:Flag of South Africa.svg.png, a more appropriate image, after a request on the talk page. Once the SVG is uploaded and protected, then the template's image can be changed and the .svg.png can be deleted. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind; the news item has been removed and the previous image replaced. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Woer$ and templates

Relatively new Woer$ (talk · contribs) is creating some kind of main-page-like templates. His talk page history shows some prior warnings for vandalism (categories and possibly templates). I'm not sure what the purpose of those templates is, he's not really answering questions in any detail. Possibly just paranoid, but maybe someone else can take a look. -- Curps 02:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of them appear copied from Wikinews. I'm not sure what purpose those templates would serve here; I would say if he doesn't respond, go ahead and delete them unless they prove to be serving a useful purpose. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The templates actually seem to be verbatim copies of the Wikinews main page templates, with some minor changes and after having lost their various CSS styles on account of having been moved. They aren't linked to anything. My only guess is that he wants to perform some kind of bizarre mix-up in vandalising articles to look like the Wikinews main page, although that seems tenuous and I can't possibly see why he'd be creating them as templates. Note he's used identical nomenclature to the Wikinews main page templates. I can only fathom that he may well actually just not understand that the main page isn't editable, or thinks he can somehow get around it. I'll leave a talk page message and if he doesn't respond within 24hrs satisfactorily I'll delete them. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Advocate Cabal

Hello all: I've recently started a new initiative, Wikipedia:Advocate Cabal, which aims to provide informal advocate services to assist Wikipedians in solving problems. I would be most grateful for comments, flames, &c., and indeed if people would be so good as to help out that would be brilliant. Anybody who wants an advocate might also like to make the monumental first request. :) Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can make it more responsive and helpful than AMA, I'm all for it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Impersonation

I'm not sure where to report this, so I post it here. I think that user:Kayabusa_futura is impersonator of user:Hayabusa_future and user:*brew is impersonator of user:*drew. borgx ^(talk) 07:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Kayabusa futura has a good number of legitimate edits and therefore is less likely to be an impersonator, I think. *brew only has two edits so far, both seemingly legitimate, but due to the few edits is more problematic, but I'd suggest only keeping watch at the moment. --Nlu (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

vandalism on my user page!

Mikkalai vandalized my user page. Stefan cel Mare 20:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be a real problem these days [71] [72]. Respected admins vandalising userpages, just awful. --Sean Black ^(talk) 21:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not vandalism, it is part of the procedure to tag sock puppets or suspected sock puppets. We will wait and see what CheckUser says. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 00:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Usnewslink

I've blocked this user indefinitely for legal threats made on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judith Haney and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USNewsLink. --InShaneee 21:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC) ]]ermione1980 01:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I zapped a few that were obviously appropriate to delete. I'll try to help out more often with maintaining this category in the future. --Improv 01:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is for obvious cases. If you're not sure it's under the CSD, it's not under CSD. If you agree that it should be deleted, list it as an AFD (or maybe prod). Superm401 - Talk 15:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, well, it could be the nominator was sure which CSD it was under but didn't indicate it clearly, so the request for help figuring it out is pretty appropriate. And just to emphasize, for something that clearly needs to go I highly recommend WP:PROD over AfD. -- SCZenz 15:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but if an admin can't tell at a glance, it's not a clear enough case for speedying. Superm401 - Talk 22:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on keeping this clear recently, but have been ignoring tons of userboxes geting dumped in at once for the most part. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 06:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Editing MediaWiki pages

I just wanted to check if there are any special rules or guidelines for editing protected MediaWiki pages, aside from obvious things like using common sense and discretion. For concreteness, I'm interested in adding a link back to the WP:PROD list from the page that comes up after you delete something (for the same reason there's already a link to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion). Is there any reason that's a bad idea, or anywhere it should be discussed? -- SCZenz 02:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• As a rule of thumb, any major edits to the MediaWiki pages should be proposed on their respective talk pages beforehand. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You can also post here or at the Village Pump. Going back to your question, I don't see any problem with adding PROD to the MediaWiki page. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I currently notice that MediaWiki talk:Deletedtext has yet been created yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I can't imagine many people watch the Mediawiki pages—there are a lot where changes would be quite noticable—which is why I figured I had better post somewhere else. Since this seems to be an adequate place, I'll give my specific idea a little longer, and nobody objects I'll put the link in. -- SCZenz 03:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You may as well post at the talk page anyway, just in case. Chick Bowen 03:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• I believe the general rule of thumb is that if it's gonna be a significant visual change or change in meaning it should be proposed on the talk page and/or the Village Pump since people watch the village pump more than the mediawiki talk pages. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• I've always started on it's talk page, then listed a link at VP. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 06:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:PROD is broken

If you check out http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/en_proposed_deletion , the list of proposed deletions, you'll notice that almost every entry was added to the list at 14:59 25th February. This is not the case, the bulk of those were prodded before that date. So you have articles like Ogie which should now be in the red csd zone looking like theres 5 days left to run.

I notified Interiot of this pretty much as it happened. I come back now later, and see that it hasn't been fixed. A possible cause for his script breaking, is that Template:Prod was blanked. It was only reverted half an hour later, at 14:59, which is also when all the proposals have been logged to have taken place. So this post is twofold really:

• If the breakage is due to the blanking of Template:Prod, then maybe it's best to protect it.
• Maybe you should go through the list and look for articles which should now be deleted, like Corinis

Hahnchen 05:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've protected it. In the meantime, this this is the last pre-vandalism version of the on-wiki backup. —Cryptic (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

He's using the cl_timestamp field in the database. That isn't going to be reliable. --Gmaxwell 05:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

In the context of this vandalism, it's not going to be reliable, or are you saying cl_timestamp won't be reliable in other contexts too? Anyway, I'll come up with a fix if I can, but for now Cryptic's pre-log looks like the best route to go for admins deleting things on schedule. --Interiot 06:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, actually I was wrong. I though cl_timestamp got refreshed when purges were performed, but that doesn't appear to be the case... I'd avoided using it in the past because of this. --Gmaxwell 18:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein case. Raul654 13:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Frys104 / User:Ryanlong / User:Pjh1810 (same user, just sockpuppets)

On Febrary 8th, I placed a cleanup tag on the Bashas' article.[[73]]

February 14 User:Frys104 removes the cleanup tag, even though the article is mostly advertisement. The user isn't aware at that time of wikipedia policy. I assume good faith

February 19 User:PaulHanson adds an advert tag to the article. User:Frys104 immediately removes the tag. [74] I replace the advert tag, explaining why on the summary, so User:Frys104 will know why the tag was added.

February 22 User:Frys104 removes the advert tag [[75]], and blanks out the talk page [[76]] User:Frys104 vandalizes User:Bovlb's user page [[77]] User:Frys104 vandalizes my user page [[78]] User:Frys104 blanks out my user page and leaves an ALLCAPS message about how I can't edit "his page". [[79]]

February 23 User:Rebelguys2 reinserts the advert tag, and reverts the page blanking done by Frys104 [[80]]. User:Rebelguys2 reverts User:Fry104's vandalism on User:Bovlb's user page.[[81]] I try to clean up the Bashas article, but it still has POV stuff in it, that I wasn't sure how I was going to edit out. I add a vandalism warning on Fry104's talk page.

February 24 I replace the advert tag on the Bashas article, explaining why on the summary. A 'new user' User:Ryanlong joins Wikipedia. His very FIRST edit is vandalism on my talk page [[82]]. User Ryanlong's other edits look surprisingly identical to User:Fry104 [[83]] User:Ryanlong blanks out the Bashas talk page, and leaves a message about how the previous info was nonsense [[84]] I replace the blanked out text on the Bashas talk page. [[85]] I add a second warning on Fry104's talk page, and a first warning on user Ryanlong's talk page. I report the vandalism of the two users on [[86]] User:Ryanlong removes the advert tag [[87]].

February 25th A 'new user' User:Pjh1810 starts editing similar articles as the first two vandals. [[88]] His first edit on the Fry's food and drug talk page is to try to remove references to Frys104's vandalism. [[89]] User:Pjh1810 removes the advert tag on the Bashas article [[90]] User:Frys104 removes the vandalism warnings on his talk page. [[91]], so he's obviously seen them. User:Prasi90 warns Ryanlong against vandalism. [[92]] Ryanlong removes the vandalism warning on his talk page. A new user User:Worstnightmare vandalizes my page and the pages of other a half dozen contributers to those pages, and reverters of Frys104's, Ryanlong's, and Pj1810's vandalism [[93]] He is quickly blocked.

February 26th User:Weregerbil reverts the vandalism warning blanking on Ryanlong's talk page.[[94]] User:Pjh1810 claims on the Fry's food and drug page that he is not the same person as the other vandals [[95]], but his list of contributions is the same as the other two: [[96]]

It seems clear to me that at least three of the vandals (Fry, Ryan, and Pjh) are the same person: the edit histories and vandisms of all three are nearly identical, occurring on the same pages to the same users. Take a look at Frys104's contributions: [[97]], compare to User:Ryanlong's: [[98]] and user:Pjh1810's: [[99]]. They are the same.

Many of the guy's contributions seem sound, but he vandalizes any user he doesn't like, and it's become a bad situation.

I am less certain about User:Worstnightmare's identity, because he was blocked so early that he didn't have a chance to make other contributions before he was blocked.

Please block this user/users for an extended period. I'm tired of dealing with his vandalism, and I suspect about 20 other people are as well. User active today.--Firsfron 19:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

British Raj to British India cut and past move

There was a WP:RM request to move British Raj to British India on 4 December 2005 (UTC). See Talk:British Raj#Requested move. The decision was "It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. WhiteNight T | @ | C 21:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

On the 23 January 2006 user:81.103.63.238 did a cut and past move from British Raj to British India. As can bee seen by the contributions of 81.103.63.238 this was a sockpupet used to bypass the WP:RM consensus. Since the cut and past move there have been a number of edits to the page British India. Please could an administrator merge the newer history back into the British Raj page and make the British India a redirect page. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Reading the relevant discussions, it seems pretty straightforward. I'll do the move. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I got a problem

The User:SPUI has not only vandalized Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Squidward, but I consider his user page to be extremely obscene. I would like you to look into this and tell me if this user is violating Wikipedia standards or not. Reason being is my standards of obscene are set pretty high and I would like you to make a judgement call. Now User:SPUI just reverted to hus vandalism. If I revert in again then I would be pushing the 3RR Rule or would I? Thank You (Steve 02:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

He's free to have what he wants on his userpage unless an arbcom ruling (I'm not aware of any) explictly states that he cannot. However, it is vandalism, and 3RR doesn't apply to reverting vandalism. Use WP:AIV to report. NSLE _{(T C)} at 02:27 UTC (2006-02-27)

SPUI is an editor with a talent for dichotomy. That said, I fail to see the point of his edit to that page; as the bots only use that image, it's the logical image representing the bots. Reversion despite opposition is inappropriate. On the other hand, I fail to see the point of having an image at all. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 02:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The image is copyrighted and should not be used outside of the article namespace. SPUI is quite right, even if he's not going about it in the right way. Chick Bowen 02:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd advocate what Pathoschild says above, and remove the image totally, there is no point of having an image at all. NSLE _{(T C)} at 02:34 UTC (2006-02-27)

Second Chick Bowen. In his usual disruptive way SPUI has made a good point. What would be useful is linking to the image–it's the common thread in these attacks (which makes it easy to hunt down the open proxies involved and get everything reverted). --Mackensen (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Larger issue, different solution: I've temporarily deleted Image:Squid.jpg, after saving a backup copy. It's not an important image, and its only widespread use has been for vandalism and disruption. Will restore once we have the vandalism situation under control, which doesn't seem to be the case yet. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Please restore the image as soon as possible; it's used in the article Squidward Tentacles, and removing it does nothing to deter vandalism. The vandalbots don't care if they're blanking with red links instead of Squidwards. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 06:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I sort of agree with Pathoschild because this vandal will do something else... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Account Unjustly Blocked

[The following was moved by Chick Bowen from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard]

I have discovered that my account "Happyjoe" is blocked from editing due to some sort of misunderstanding over the Big Spring, TX article. I am uncertain who to contact to have this mistake fixed. Please remove this block so that I may complete necessary editing on other articles. Thank you for your timely assistance in resolving this problem... Happyjoe 69.145.215.206 04:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The block log shows that Essjay (talk · contribs) applied an indef-block to you. The justification of the block is shown in the RFC against you. You may contact the admin in question (Essjay). Thanks. --Ragib 04:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked this IP for 24 hours for block evasion, since he has admitted to being User:Happyjoe. Chick Bowen 04:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Heated edit wars over trivial differences

Can some mediation person talk to the two people involved at Angels and Airwaves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Both 3RR'd. -- Curps 00:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

WTF. WP:LAME? --cesarb 00:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I added it. It is one of the best examples. --cesarb 01:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Tykell and User:Alex 101 are both at it again. I've warned them that 3RR doesn't mean they get three free reverts a day, but somebody needs to keep an eye on them and the article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Both have gotten two blocks in immediately after their return from 24 hour blocks for 3RR warring. I've blocked both for 24 hours more, and the blocks should start increasing if this continues. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Over 40 reverts, edit summaries using death threats, all over a case of "is" or "are"? Boy, I thought some things on WP:LAME were lame, but this takes the cake. It should be mentioned right at the top as the lamest edit war ever. Tykell, Alex 101, do you have lives outside Wikipedia? JIP | Talk 13:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like 69.12.166.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is one of these two users. I just blocked him for (guess what) 3RR on Angels and Airwaves. He also seem to have been vandalizing user and user talk pages (including this interesting one [100] which proves he's really not Mike [101]). --cesarb 16:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:WP talk:Mooooooooooo~! (edit | [[Talk:Talk:WP talk:Mooooooooooo~!|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

article deletion history

*copied from talk page*

This article is included in the list of featured articles.

Category:Featured articles

1. REDIRECT Cattle

um? delete this

this article is proof of a sytematic bias in wikipedia

against anons.. I mean look at this, an anon creates this nonsense article, it's deleted twice, an RU comes along and recreates it, and it gets labled as a featured article??! what is wrong with you people?--64.12.116.200 15:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

*end copied from talk page*

What? —Cleared as filed. 17:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• That's my point exactly, when an anon creats an article that is patent nonsense, it get's a speedy, when an RU creates the very same nonsense page, it sticks around for about a week, and gets nominated for featured article status--64.12.116.200 18:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

  I cannot see it on the list of featured articles. The bogus category was added by the creator. It was created by 64.12.117.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), not by a registered user. And it didn't stick a whole week, it was only a couple of days. --cesarb 22:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What article are you talking about? User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

He's talking about Talk:WP talk:Mooooooooooo~!. --cesarb 12:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

movie plot summary copyvio by User:Katja9 10

I've come across a whole slew of movie articles recently created by User: Katja9 10. They've all got very brief descriptions ("19xx film directed by ___"), a brief cast list, and a plot synopsis which in every case I've looked at was cut-and-pasted directly from imdb.com or some other site. You can look at the user's contributions list and probably spot lots more.

I tagged several of these with {copyvio} and listed them at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 26, but I'm thinking that's too tedious and the wrong approach. I'm afraid the expedient thing to do will be simply to delete every article this user has created since at least February 9. Checking all the text is timeconsuming, and the trend is clear, and the articles aren't worth keeping once the copied synopses are removed. (They aren't encyclopedic; they don't contain anything the imdb doesn't. I assume we don't want to try to duplicate imdb, that if we're going to have an article on a movie, it ought to have some pretense of being notable and encyclopeic.)

I left a message on the user's talk page a little while ago. They may have seen it, because the synopses they've posted since then (yes, they're still at it) are lightly paraphrased from the imdb ones, although I notice they're now cutting and pasting the "goofs" list, too. Steve Summit (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, you can't go through and delete all of this users contribs because she has copyvios, the right thing to do is go through each and every article and tag it. You have to assume good faith, especially with a new user. Mike _{(T C)} 19:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Or you could tag all of the offending articles with a speedy delete A8 copyvio, but i dont know if the articles will meet all the requirements for it. Mike _{(T C)} 19:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I am A'ing GF here. Another question: when adding {copyvio}, is it proper to blank the whole page, or just the offending text, or what? Steve Summit (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

We can assume good faith–I'm sure that the new editor does mean well–while still cleaning out the copyvios. There's no point in producing scores (hundreds?) of extra edits and clogging up our copyvio process just because new editor doesn't understand our policies. Encourage the new editor to try to write more detailed articles about fewer movies. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Did that, and he appears to be listening to some extent. But there are dozens of copyvios extant, and I fear they will "clog the copyvio process" somewhat. Steve Summit (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Whats the point of the process if we don't follow for fear of creating a backlog? Mike _{(T C)} 22:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of process for the sake of process when we already know what the outcome will be? Save the bandwidth, server space, time, effort, and potential legal exposure. As far as I know, there hasn't been any objection to deleting these cut-and-paste copies; unless there's a serious objection here, then I think it's not unreasonable to assume that there is a consensus to delete them. We're better off saving the 'process' for cases where there is some dispute. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to a mass deletion. If the cases are identical, it makes sense. However, listing them on copyright problems will not clog it, though there is a perennial backlog. -- Kjkolb 03:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades == mega-correct. Process is important only in disputes; anywhere else (where WP:SNOW applies) can have process safely ignored. Anyway, this sounds familiar; I distinctly recall we used to have someone who added almost totally useless articles on TV shows, actors, and movies. I don't think they were copyvios, though. Johnleemk | Talk 03:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tagged 10 or 15 of the worst of them as {copyvio} before I got tired of it. I tend to agree with TenOfAllTrades and Johnleemk, although anything truly expedient would have to be done by an admin. If I proposed them all for speedy deletion it would be about as cumbersome as if I tagged them all with {copyvio}. Steve Summit (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocking function not working?

It seems to me that the block pages are not working for me at the moment. Is this true for anyone else? --HappyCamper 13:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocks issued for 3RR at Anarchism

I've just blocked two users for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR at Anarchism.

User:Infinity0, [102], [103], [104], [105]

User:RJII, [106], [107], [108], [109]

I have also minded them of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, given recent edit summaries and comments on Talk:Anarchism. Hiding talk 13:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Advice requested Part Two

I would very much appreciate more input from admins on this matter, as otherwise this can just turn into a back-and-forth litany of accusations between Giovanni and me. The Christianity article has now been protected. I would like to answer some of the accusations made against me, and then to request advice as to what should happen now.

I seem to be accused of having driven SOPHIA away. I disagreed with SOPHIA about some of her edits (while agreeing with others). I respected her and have never at any stage suspected her of anything dishonourable. At one stage, she said on the Christianity talk page that it had been "scary" to have me and two others "at" her at the same time. Following that statement, Str1977 left her a message saying that he was sorry if we had scared her, that it had not been our intention, and that he appreciated her efforts at calming down tension. I followed that with a post saying that I also regretted if we had scared her off, although I didn't recall having done so, and that I respected her as a genuine editor, here to improve the encyclopaedia. Our posts (Str1977's and mine) are here. She replied here that she had expressed herself badly, and that she had been trying to explain that the process of trying to reply to three simultaneous editors who agree (and can type a lot faster than she!) was scary when she was new. She also said that Str1977 had left her a nice message and that she regarded us both and KHM03 as serious, thoughtful editors, and that she admired the patience that we had shown towards Giovanni33.

Facebook moving

Recently, a vote was held on Talk:Facebook (website) on whether or not to move the page to Facebook. The vote was four in favor of moving and four not. User:Nightstallion closed the vote as "no consensus." A couple of days later, User:Savidan, one of the users who wished for it to be moved, went to Nightstallion himself and convinced him that the page should be moved, so he did. My grievance is that I feel the vote on requested moves was for nothing, especially if the user is going to disregard the opposing voices and get the page moved whether there is a vote or not. Someone please keep an eye out on the situation, because I am absolutely livid that the user has gone behind my back as well as others' just to get what he wants. Mike H. That's hot 08:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

(Move was reverted by FCYTravis. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-20 10:34Z)

I don't understand this; why was a vote needed? There's no article at Facebook, only a disambiguation page in which there's only one link to an actual article: Facebook (website). Isn't a move pretty automatic, given naming conventions? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Since there was disagreement, clearly discussion was/is needed. WP:AN is the place for process discussion, not content discussion, so I suggest this discussion be continued at Talk:Facebook (website). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-20 13:44Z

I would agree with Mel on this. The only other links are to a Wiktionary page and to a Wikipedia: project namespace page, and it's my understanding that interwiki and cross-namespace links are not exactly compatible with mirror sites, even if self-references weren't an issue. — Feb. 20, '06 [20:17] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

It didn't used to be a Wiktionary page, there was actually stuff written there. My point is that there was a vote, there was no consensus, and a person went behind the backs of others and got the page moved anyway, which is wrong. Mike H. That's hot 23:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Since significant changes (transwikification) were made after all votes had been cast in the first vote (and since the original vote was not listed at WP:RM until after all votes had been cast), another vote was held. The result of the debate was move. As far as the earlier actions of savidan, it appears he noticed that there was no longer a namespace conflict and believed that exsisting guidelines allowed for a move; please remember to assume good faith. --L1AM (talk - 'tribs.) 11:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Siflige

I need some assistance from my fellow admins. I placed a prod tag on the article Siflige, as I considered it a non-notable gaming community. The prod tag was contested by User:Erik Navkire, so I attempted to change the prod to an AfD nomination. When I did this however, I discovered that the article had previously been deleted through AfD, so the AfD tag automatically linked to the old Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siflige discussion. How can I renominate this article, without it linking to the old AfD discussion? There are some arguments for the article to be kept on its talk page. Cnwb 03:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siflige 2 or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siflige (second nomination) would work. Then just change the target in the tag. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That's also what {{afd2}} is for. Superm401 - Talk 15:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Never mind. I wasn't thinking at all. Superm401 - Talk 18:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images

I recently told users at Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars that they cannot use fair use images in their templates because it is in violation of WP:FAIR policy. A user removed them. However, he also asked what is the policy on one person's artistic impression of something that is copyrighted (the example he was referring to was someone drawing an image of the Rebel Alliance logo and using that). I replied that I wasn't sure what the policy is. What is the policy on that exactly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deskana (talk • contribs) .

IANAL and all that, but copying is copying, whether you use a photocopier or a scanner or you trace it. If the original is not eligible for fair use, a copy will not be either. --bainer (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The user in question has recently pulled up Image:Small NES controller.png. He's asking that since this is an original work based on the SNES, why can't he create an original work based on the Rebel Alliance logo and give it to Wikipedia for free use in the WikiProject Star Wars? Deskana (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

IANAL, but one difference is that the NES controller is a three-dimensional object, while the Rebel Alliance logo is two-dimensional. Thus, a picture of a NES controller is not a substitute for an actual NES controller, whereas a picture of a Rebel Alliance logo is a Rebel Alliance logo. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

IANAL either, but you can not copyright most three-dimensional objects. The controller may be trademarked, but it is not copyrighted. The image is almost certainly trademark fair use if the controller is a trademark at all. Superm401 - Talk 15:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if a particular nation's laws are preferred here, but in the United States, artistic derivative works, in particular, artistic pieces making use of other works -- whether the original work was copyrighted or not -- do not generally require approval from the original copyright holder -- it's typically considered fair use. See Andy Warhol's Campbell Soup Cans as a reference. If you like, I can dig around WestLaw to find a case or two on the issue to finalize it. Jkatzen 08:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It depends on how the derivative is being used: it's fine to make derivations for artistic purposes (e.g. Warhol) or to satirize; it's not ok to use them just as a means of getting around copyrights. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 15:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

IANAL, but not all artistic derviatives are appropriate, and most satires aren't. It's most likely to be fair use when the derivative is parodying the original. Note the difference between parody and satire. Superm401 - Talk 00:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

the appropriateness of signing posts under another user's name

Recently, SoothingR (talk · contribs) was promosted to an administrator. It seems that it is a Wikipedian custom for newly-created administrators to personally thank each supporters with a fancy message. However, it seems that he forgot to acknowledge MONGO (talk · contribs), and MONGO copied SoothingR's message onto his talk page, as if SoothingR posted it.

I know that registered users who don't feel like logging in will sometimes sign their posts under their registered name. But I'm not sure if posting a message under someone else's name is so appropriate.

Any thoughts on this? --Ixfd64 07:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Copying someone's full message, including signature, is quite common; however, in situations like that, where the context where it's posted is important, a small note to the effect should be added. --cesarb 09:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Ixfd64...thanks for asking me?...SoothingR (talk · contribs) posted his/her thank you to my USERPAGE and all I did was move it to my TALKPAGE...next time, WP:AGF.--MONGO 10:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, no wonder. I didn't think of that. --Ixfd64 10:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ixfd64, if we can assume good faith of suspected sockpuppets of prolific vandals, then surely we can assume good faith of MONGO? — Feb. 24, '06 [10:30] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I think this quite clearly shows why edit summaries are important. --cesarb 10:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. --Ixfd64 10:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries I usually don't do on talk pages or especially in my own usersapce areas...maybe a bad habit...next time you assume I am up to something how about simply asking me? Thanks in advance!--MONGO 10:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, I know they didn't assume the best of you, but I think we could all do without catty comments like "if you think I'm doing something bad, why don't you just ASK me." Mike H. That's hot 10:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Is that a fact...since when is it not appropriate to ask someone up front what the deal is rather than posting incorrect commentary about them in this manner behind their back. I didn't capitalize ask as you did...so don't overemphasize a simple request on my part.--MONGO 10:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to "quote" me make sure the "quote" is what I have written...thanks!--MONGO 10:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd like to think you should have brought this to MONGO's attention before reporting it the noticeboard as if it were disruption, without prior discussion. Please assume good faith, Ixfd64. Don't do that again, it's utterly violating of trust and sneaky. Quite beyond belief. -Zero^Talk 11:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

MONGO's request is quite a reasonable one. I'd expect the same. — Feb. 24, '06 [15:17] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Yes, I also have the same bad habit of not using edit summaries on my own userspace; I've been trying to avoid it. Sorry for not noticing the paired edit to your user page; if you were a vandal or a new user, checking the contributions would quickly spot the other part of the move; however, I remembered seeing your name before, and went the "old user, probably did a small mistake, no need to even look beyond the diff" route. --cesarb 13:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing MONGO of anything - I was just curious about what happened. I apologize for the misunderstanding, though. --Ixfd64 22:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Collateral damage, again

Sigh. I have just been autoblocked again for happening to share an AOL dynamic IP (in this case 152.163.100.204) with a suspected vandal. Although this is usually already extremely frustrating, in this case insult was added to injury, because the autoblock was under the signature of Lucky 6.9, an administrator who, according to their own talk page, no longer wishes to be affiliated with Wikipedia! I try not to lose my temper that easily but I should very much like to know how the clucking bell being autoblocked by an absentee admin who has apparently just packed up and gone is any different from vandalism perpetrated by an anonymous hit-and-run vandal?! As I have noted before, I think the collateral damage issue has gotten to the point where the autoblocking is more disruptive than the vandalism it is supposed to combat Vremya 16:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Related to the famous Bug 550, is there any reported bug to take the autoblocker off AOL or similar massively-shared IPs? - David Gerard 16:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

<devil's advocate> Or we could just ban anon edits from AOL and the like... flood of complaints might just get them to change their IP allocation policy... Ban anon editing from such IPs, but allow people to register if they supply a validated email address... is that a bird? is it a plane? no, it's a pig! </devil's advocate> Rd232 ^talk 21:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That's an amazing idea, and after providing their email addresses, how exactly do they edit from a blocked iP? Oh yes, wonderful plan! Hey, here's an idea, maybe even though AOL 100% ignores its own paying customers, maybe they'll be more responsive to an administrator from an online encylopedia! That will certianly inspire them to radically overhaul a server system that hasn't been updated since the 1990s! Now if only we had some sort of {{template:sarcastic emoticon}}, that I could place at the end of my sentance, maybe AOL will make one for you if you ask nicely!--64.12.116.200 22:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please, can we ban all AOL IP addresses with an explicit request for them to email AOL's support and policy making people for long enough to get a change made? I'd like to think it wouldn't take too long, but can we at least try for a week or two to get some press out of it? - Taxman ^Talk 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL - AOL is part of one of the largest media conglomerates on the face of the earth, they can't get bad press unless they want it and literally choose to write it themselves; AOL/TIMEWARNER/ABC/CABLEVISION/SONY/NEWSCORP/PARAMOUNT, if you can find a press/media outlet that AOL isn't affiliated with, then by all means, take it to them - LOL -152.163.100.200 00:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting that out of all the times people complain about AOL, no one ever mentions that having or not having a unique sharedip is a choice made by a given user, AOL not withstanding, the only time AOL actually applies it's bizaire sharedip system is if you're one of those idiots who thinks that AOL is a perfectly good web browser, the second you exit the AOL shell you are assigned a reasonably unique IP in the 172.128.0.0 - 172.191.255.255 range, yet I don't think I've ever seen a single AOL user on wikipedia actually fess up to this, the only inention I can gather from that is that all the AOL sharedips are either idiots, or harboring some sort of malice against wikipedia, and since 10 minutes on an AOL message board will clarify that it is in fact the former, not the later, there's little than can be done about it--172.149.179.164 00:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• I mean look at me, yes I'm using an AOL sharedip, and yes theoretically someone else could eventually wind up on this very IP, but chances are so small that I can assure you, I will never be faced with a sharedip autoblock, as long as don't use AOL's native browser--172.149.179.164 00:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for calling me an idiot. Now that we know where we stand, could we cut down on the sneering and actually explain how to exit AOL without being unceremoniously signed off? Don't think I haven't tried; I just haven't managed to stay online in the process. Not all of us whose parents weren't smart enough to pay for a PhD in computer science are vandals, you know Vremya 02:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

(Deep breath) Okay, I probably should not have lost my temper. The only excuse I have to offer is that in the last week I have been autoblocked every single time I was trying to contribute, any edits I succeeded in making only being lucky enough to make it in before I got the door slammed in my face (yes, it's that bad). Having said that, I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings. Insert your favorite picture of Vremya munching humble pie here. However, I would still like an answer to my question, so let me try to frame it less abrasively: The statement of User:172.149.179.164 that "no one ever mentions that having or not having a unique shared IP is a choice made by a given user, AOL notwithstanding" may be technically true in the same sense that having or not having a French-Latvian dictionary is a "choice" made by a given user, but just try to buy one at your corner bookstore. Note the operative phrase "no one ever mentions." I assume that 172.149.179.164 has not realized that one likely consequence of the fact that no one ever mentions this is that for the vast majority of AOL users for whom, like myself, computers are not their field of technical expertise but tools to do something else with (like, say, contributing to an encyclopedia), the fact that unique IPs are available to AOL users under certain technical circumstances amounts to a well-kept secret. So: What is the secret? How exactly does one obtain a unique nonshared IP from AOL? As far as I could gather, it involves shutting down the AOL browser. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to do that without effectively losing my connection (and I have tried); as far as I with my lack of technical training can tell, AOL's dial-up program is the browser. Could someone please give a more extensive, less technical, and (pretty please) less sneering explanation? I promise I won't snarl again if it means chewing my own arm off (which I've nearly done in frustration at the constant blocking anyway :-( Vremya 04:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I know this is probably completely unhelpful, but... have you considered switching ISPs? android79 04:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is true, but I've heard that running an application that requires a continuous connection to the Internet (e.g. an IRC client), will force AOL to keep you with that IP for the session. Also, I believe that the AOL IP means that if you run Internet Explorer or Firefox instead of AOL's built-in browser, you're assigned an IP in that 172 semi-dynamic range. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I mean, the second part anyway, more or less, the trick is that of course, you can't actually close the AOL shell because it's what's providing your interent access, but you certianly can open a new window, the part about a continuous internet connection however, is, creative.. but nothing more than a rumor, and I'm sorry if I offened, to be fair my harsher comments were directed at the unregistered users who are always going "oh I'm not a vandal, that other guy who looks like me is", sorry if I offended

The only drawback, is that editing like this, AOL behaves like a true rotating IP address, so you have to contantly explain to people "yes I know how to use wikipedia and only have 2 contributions but I'm not a sockpuppet" which gets tiresome--172.145.206.190 04:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I use AOL, and I have never once been involved in a collateral block. I run an IE window separate from AOL's Internet connection. I used to use Firefox, but there seems to be an incompatability between Firefox and AOL which keeps causing Firefox to freeze up. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah I used to get into autoblocks alot, now I do the same thing Zoe do, it's better off to run a IE window seperate from AOL, I gives the 172 semi-dynamic range instead of the three problem ones. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that the discussion seems to have focused on AOL (naturally enough, as AOL users are among the most common victims of collateral damage), it may be worth recalling that dynamic IPs vulnerable to collateral damage are not confined to AOL users. Solutions for AOL users only, though helpful, do not solve the deeper problem that autoblocking is arguably a loose cannon Vremya 23:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocking summaries

I notice that many users are blocked with cryptic summaries like "User...". Since the summary is shown to the user as the reason for their block, these are totally useless. Please use "Inappropriate username" or another wording that provides a valid reason for the block to the user. Zocky | picture popups 05:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Many of the usernames that get blocked are just throwaway sockpuppets or vandals playing denial of service games or username creation performance art and watching the block log and never even triggering a block (for instance the "block me" accounts... but if we ignore them and don't block, they sometimes go ahead and vandalize anyway, for instance [110]). In other words, much of the time when "user..." is used, the user who actually created the username will never even read or see the block message.

Because of autoblocking, meaningful block summaries very often do more harm than good. In cases of vandalism, I do put "vandalism" in the block summary, but every single day I get e-mail from one or more collaterally damaged AOL users asking "why are you accusing me of vandalism?"

The way that the Mediawiki software handles autoblocking is entirely inadequate and often harmful. At the very least, "established users" (non-throwaway accounts) should be immune from all forms of IP-based blocking, and since autoblocks almost never make sense for AOL addresses, the software should internally detect AOL IP ranges and silently not autoblock them.

Perhaps it's time to get rid of autoblocking altogether. Half the time it doesn't work because the vandal can shift IP addresses, and most of the rest of the time it causes more harm than good because it blocks everyone stuck behind an ISP or school or corporation proxy IP. -- Curps 06:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Every single day I get e-mail from one or more collaterally damaged AOL users asking "why are you accusing me of vandalism?"

Well, at least as to that point, I have been working on a template|template] that might not necessarily diminish the volume of such messages but would at least ensure that they are less confrontational :-) Vremya 07:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zocky. Undescriptive block summaries are not helpful at all. Unless the blocked accounts were created in bad-faith, I will usually reset the blocks and use more descriptive summaries. Even other administrators may be confused by undescriptive block summaries. Sometimes I will check the block list and I would have no idea certain accounts were blocked. I'm pretty sure that we have lost several good contributors this way. --Ixfd64 22:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Curps is assuming bad faith, which is against the ideal of Wikipedia. Robust Physique 01:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Curps's block performs a vital service though I agree about the block summaries, maybe someone should ask him if he can change the summary from username... to innapropriate username or some variation of such. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Special:Statistics

Special:Statistics has a typo in it saying "of which 829(or 0.08%) belong to administrators", when it should say "of which 829(or 0.08%) are administators", could an admin please fix this here.

Prodego ^talk 22:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"belong to" is correct. You don't say the account is the administrator; you say the person using the account is the administrator. --cesarb 22:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Much of the necessity for this page and WP:AN/I is that those one million-and-change accounts are not one per person. Chick Bowen 22:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No, he's right: there is an error in that sentence. I am an administrator, and there are two accounts that belong to me (the other one is for bot edits).I have heard there are over 800 admins; if they collectively own 829 accounts, less than 29 own two accounts. I don't believe that. Eugene van der Pijll 22:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, only the accounts that have admin rights are counted. I assume your bot account doesn't. Maybe it should be "of which 829 have sysop status," but that's less elegant. Chick Bowen 23:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You are right, I didn't notice the word "accounts". Sorry, Prodego ^talk 00:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Not all of the accounts owned by administrators are accounts with administrator rights. It should say "... are administrators" because it is the account not the individual that has the administrator rights, sockpuppets owned by the same user are unlikely to also have admin rights. --Victim of signature fascism | Do people who don't think Jesus existed exist? 00:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Weird event

Could someone smarter than me explain what happened with Miles provance? I came across it through the Random article button and deleted it. As you can see (if you're an admin) it was tagged speedy, but it had been tagged in December and was obviously not in the CSD category. Why is this? Are there likely to be more of these floating around? Chick Bowen 23:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to guess that it was subst'ed and thus the category code was in <noinclude> tags. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was probably that (I think the subst: code was fixed to act the same as transclusion, but only recently). --cesarb 23:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And, if you want to find more of these, they should all be visible on the Special:Whatlinkshere output for the speedy deletion templates, since they have a hidden link back to the template itself. --cesarb 23:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Central parole violation

I blocked Central (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for violation of his personal attack parole. His repsonse was, erm, less than kind [111]. In my opinion it constitutes a further, even more blatant violation of his parole than the initial attack he was blocked for. However, since I was the subject of the attack(s), I'd be more comfortable if someone else could look into this and block if they feel it's necessary. Thanks.--Sean Black ^(talk) 00:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

While that comment is certainly offensive (and unfair), I'm not comfortable blocking based on it. Superm401 - Talk 00:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I am, and have. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Central speaks the truth. Robust Physique 01:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Are you saying that his insulting and demeaning comments towards me are true? If so, I'd appreciate an apology.--Sean Black ^(talk) 21:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there some way to help 66.99.13.253?

User 66.99.13.253 (talk for user 66.99.13.253) has been reverting one of the facts in the article for Niles North High School repeatedly for about a month now. The user apparently disagrees with the filming locations of Sixteen Candles. Twice now he/she has posted somewhat grumpy comments about it in the article itself, which makes me suspect that he/she does not know how to look at the page history or talk page, or even his/her own talk page. I can't send the user an email of explanation because he/she is anonymous. It seems inappropriate to try to debate the factual dispute with this person within the article itself. Is there any way to handle this other than continuing to revert the page (and continue to research the information) until he/she either gets bored and gives up or figures out that there is a more appropriate place to discuss this factual disagreement? Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks. Crypticfirefly 05:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I had a similar problem once, and did "debate within the article" by using HTML comment tags. Jkelly 05:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good idea! Crypticfirefly 05:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

List of sovereign states

A few in-favour-of-Georgian-POV editors are currently discussing with a few Abkhazia-and-South-Ossetia-are-sovereign-the-same-way-that-Transnistria-and-Northern-Cyprus-are editors, and I'm currently a bit stressed out and don't want to participate too much in the debate (since I tend to violate WP:CIVIL when I'm under stress, which I don't usually do). If debate doesn't quickly lead to a solution, would calling a straw poll be acceptable to see whether the majority of interested users considers Abkhazia and South Ossetia to belong on the list? —Nightstallion (?) 07:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe Nightstalion either misunderstood or misinterpreted or misrepresented the position of some of the editors (including myself). They are not in-favour-of-Georgian-POV only. They are, using Nightstalion's terminology, Abkhazia-and-South-Ossetia-and-Transnistria-and-Northern-Cyprus-are-not-sovereign. And I am not sure what he means by "If debate doesn't quickly lead to a solution" since he and User: Jiang appear to be the only ones opposing the reasonable NPOV resolution. Any help would really be appreciated since this is not going anywhere despite kilobytes of valid arguments. (PaC 10:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

The "reasonable NPOV resolution" is simply your version of the article. Abkhazia and South Ossetia have been in the article since 2004. Come on. --Khoikhoi 02:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Content dispute

Right, my first foray into resolving a dispute in an article, as an admin. (I'm surprised it took this long) I'd like for more experienced users to scrutinize my actions with regards to this protection and this advice that I gave to help resolve the dispute. KnowledgeOfSelf 11:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems pretty standard. Be prepared to answer complaints about protecting the "wrong version". See {{wrong version}}. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 11:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You'll do fine, KoS. Mark's right about the wrong version - I myself have never protected anything else. See m:The Wrong Version also. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Aye it just happened too! Thanks for the feedback :) KnowledgeOfSelf 13:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Main page redesign vote

The Main page redesign official voting has started and will continue until March 18th. We put a notice of the vote on Talk:Main page, Wikipedia:Community Portal, and it's been mentioned in the Signpost. While we don't want to blanket Wikipedia with notices (to the point of annoying people), were else do you think we should put a notice to make sure people are aware of it? Thanks. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

On the Village pump. --cesarb 17:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Are there major objections to a notice (such as {{Template:Mainpagevote}} on the village pump pages, beneath the {{Template:Villagepumppages}}. Maybe just on the policy, proposal, and news village pump pages. The main page redesign is somewhat cross-cutting of those topic areas. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if you do it, please post a normal message on the village pump. Wikipedia has so many colorful boxes already that some people will not even notice another one. --cesarb 20:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Administrators acting bad

Administrators are acting really naughty recently. I got warned. I want a link. This poop is not tolerable. I want links! Crowbaaa 16:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you ask the admin who warned you? In any case how about this link, or perhaps this one. Leithp 16:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

A Few Questions

Well I was just wondering how you become an admin and please don't delete this, my last notice was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crowbaaa (talk • contribs)

You were warned by me for this particularly unhelpful set of edits. I fail to see how warning you about this is being "naughty". Before you even think about becoming an administrator, you need to figure out what it means to be an effective editor first. android79 18:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Generally, you need about 3,000 edits and 3-4 months (or preferably more) of good effective edits before you should even consider becoming an admin. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Racist edits on Woodridge, IL

Somebody has made repeated racist edits to the Woodridge, IL article. For a long time all the edits were coming from 24.15.173.210, to the point that I left a comment on the user talk page. Whoever it is now seems to have switched to a different IP address. Can we get the page semi-protected, or something? For more info, see the talk page and history for the Woodridge article. 134.173.65.34 17:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Post this request to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection there are admins there who actively monitor the page and will apply protection if they feel its needed. Mike _{(T C)} 20:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext

I just added information to MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext telling users what to do when the blocked text wasn't added by them (and, mostly important, mentioning that one of the causes can be spyware, since link-adding spyware have their links added to the m:Spam blacklist to prevent false accusations of spamming). However, I'm not 100% happy with my wording (particularly, I'm not sure it's clear enough for J. Random User), and would like for someone else to improve it. --cesarb 17:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have tried rewording the message, though sure it could still be worded better. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice you reworded everything except the very paragraph I had added? ☺ --cesarb 20:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

User:John cruthers and Caucazia

I noticed an odd link that went into the Kwanzaa article, and followed it up. What I found was an attack page for a made-up holiday, Caucazia, and an edit history that indicated that the user had been moving it around for nearly a month, see Special:Undelete/Caucazia. The user also linked a number of pages (his user page, his talk page, the talk pages for several other articles) to that page.

As near as I can tell, this account has been used for nothing but vandalism and disruption. I deleted the attack page, blocked the account for 24 hours while deciding what to do, and cleaned up after the hideous, tangled mess of redirects this user left in her or his wake. I'd like to solicit opinions on what the appropriate block length for this user is. As always, if any admin feels I have overstepped my bounds, feel free to review or reverse my changes.

Thanks, Nandesuka 22:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

User keeping copyrighted image on talk page

A user added Image:Fireworks.jpg to a few user talk pages in celebration of the millionth article. The problem is, this image is fair use and no source. I notified that user (also the uploader), and removed it from all usages. Karmafist accused me of copyright paranoia, added the image, and threatened to revert me if I removed it again. I'm involved in another dispute with Karmafist, and so I'm not going to take any more action by removing it. But if someone could at least tell me if I'm right, or if it is unnecessary copyright paranoia, this would be appreciated. Ral315 (talk) 05:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, you're right.

1. We can't claim fair use without citing a source for the image;
2. We can't claim fair use without citing a rationale supporting the fair use claim;
3. Our policy forbids fair use images outside of article space anyway;
4. Celebrating a million articles in our free encyclopedia by taking someone else's artwork without credit just doesn't seem like a good idea.

Are we likely to get caught or face a lawsuit? Nope. Was the uploader's heart in the right place? Probably. Should we pull the image because it isn't ours, isn't free, and because we have lots of other fireworks images available on Commons? Yep. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the two remaining instances of the fireworks images with (what I think) are attractive fireworks from Commons. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought, and I understand that the uploader shouldn't be caught in the crossfire. Thanks for substituting another image. Ral315 (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

SOPHIA

SOPHIA was extremely hurt and angry when the checkuser result came through, showing her connection to TheShriek. It was I who requested a check, and I did so in consultation with other editors. I did not include SOPHIA in it. When Giovanni arrived, he engaged in massive edit warring. I don't mean an accidental slip into a fourth revert (as I did myself on one occasion) — I mean six and five and eleven, ignoring warnings and pleas from other editors. It was unfair because none of the "older" editors had a history of running to WP:AN/3RR to report an opponent, especially not if he was new, and we were all trying to stay within the rules ourselves. At least four new redlinked users appeared and said on the talk page that they agreed with Giovanni. Most of them began reverting to his version, and also following him to other pages, voting where he voted, claiming that there was consensus, etc. These users were BelindaGong, Kecik, MikaM, and TheShriek. All except TheShriek have been blocked for 3RR, and again they were not reported for a first, accidental slip into a fourth revert. When I requested the check they were all fairly new. The contributions of the first four would probably show that at least 95% of their contributions are agreeing with Giovanni on the talk pages of various articles, voting where he votes, and reverting (or doing partial reverts) to his version. The fact that the checkuser showed Giovanni to be the same as BelindaGong certainly justified requesting it, since Belinda and Giovanni constantly took double votes, took at least six reverts, made claims about the number of editors who agreed with their version, and set up an elaborate pretence of not knowing each other. TheShriek was also shown to be the same as SOPHIA. However, when that result came through, I saw that there was no evidence of gaming the system, taking double votes, or multiple reverts. I sent SOPHIA a polite message here, telling her about the result, and asking if she would like to clarify anything, as there was now a statement (not an image) on TheShriek's page that he was a sockpuppet for SOPHIA. She posted a rather angry reply here, saying the TheShriek was her husband. We all accepted that, and were sympathetic, but she could not be pacified. I posted two more friendly messages on her talk page, and some one the Christianity talk page (e.g. this one), explaining that we respected her, and that nobody thought she had done anything wrong, and that I had personally removed the sockpuppet notice from her husband's page. When she complained that the would be permanently in the edit history, I told her that I had used my admin powers to remove it from the history, and asked her to let me know if there was anything else I could do. KHM03 was also sympathetic to her, and Str1977 posted a very friendly message to her. So much for the accusations made by Giovanni and his supporters that she left because she was persecuted and hounded for her POV by the Christian editors.

With regard to Freethinker99 (talk · contribs), he arrived at the Christianity talk page while Giovanni was blocked, and told us that he was a new user and that he agreed with Giovanni. His writing style and arguments were simlilar to those of Giovanni. His second edit was a revert to a Giovanni version. He reverted three times in a little over two hours (like Giovanni/Belinda).

• At 20:24 on 14 February, KHM03 posted a message to Giovanni33's talk page, asking him to clarify if he had any connection with Trollwatcher, John1838, or Kecik. [112]
• At 23:08 on 14 February, KHM03 added "And User:Freethinker99".[113]
• At 23:59 on 14 February, Giovanni answered "I'll . . . state for the record that these users are not in any way associated with me, present or past." But he signed his post while logged on as Freethinker99.[114]
• At midnight on 15 February, Giovanni logged on as Giovanni33, and replaced Freethinker's signature with his own.[115]
• At 00:04 on 15 February, Freethinker99 posted a comment with little relevance to anything being questioned on Giovanni's talk page. It would give an ostensible reason for Freethinker still to be in the edit history after the telltale signature had been replaced.[116] I'm sure many Wikipedians who have been away from a talk page for several hours just check the difference between the last version they were familiar with and the current one, rather than going through each diff.
• At 00:11 on 15 February, Freethinker posted that he had written that message for Giovanni and had signed it by mistake.[117]
• At 00:19 on 15 February, Freethinker claimed that he had let Giovanni write a post to his own talk page on his (Freethinker's) computer.[118]. (Eight minutes earlier, he had claimed that he had written that post for Giovanni.)
• At 00:23 Giovanni posted to his talk page that he had not seen KHM03's question about Freethinker when he answered that he had no connection to any of those users, and that he did, in fact, know Freethinker.[119]

I did not attack Freethinker. I did not block him. (I don't block people I'm in dispute with.) Nor did I add the sockpuppet template to his userpage (though I support the admin who did). I did say that his story, if true, makes him a meatpuppet.[120] I stand by that remark. If he really is a different person, he arrived at Wikipedia to revert to Giovanni's version, and to argue for it on the talk page.

Giovanni recently followed me to Jdavidb's talk page, and saw a message I had posted there thanking Jdavidb for bringing me to Wikipedia, as I believed it was he who had posted someething on some blog asking people to join Wikipedia if they were prepared to respect NPOV. On discovering that post, Giovanni posted to several talk pages and project pages that I, despite saying that it wasn't allowed to invite friends to join Wikipedia, had joined in exactly the same way. For the record, I have never met Jdavidb, and have never, as far as I know, reverted to his version of any article. We very seldom edit the same articles. That is now being compared to Giovanni's friend and wife (if they're not Giovanni himself) reverting constantly to his version, while pretending to have no connection to him.

I apologize for boring everyone with such a long account, but I really would appreciate some input, as BelindaGong and Freethinker have now both been unblocked, and the Christianity and Adolf Hitler articles will presumably soon be unlocked. I really have no idea whether Giovanni, Belinda, and Freethinker are one person, or two, or three; but their connection to each other (which they tried not just to keep secret but actually to mislead people about) has been shown. What is their position now? WP:SOCK says that "Proven sock puppets may be permanently blocked if used to cast double votes." Well, Giovanni and Belinda have taken double votes, (see [121] [122] [123] [124]) but Giovanni is now insisting that Belinda is his wife, and is therefore not a sockpuppet.

Can someone clarify what the situation is now? I seem to recall that it came up in the case of Hollow Wilerding, but am not sure where to look for information regarding that case. Was there reference to some policy or some ArbCom ruling that a family under one roof is officially one single user for voting purposes, or am I imagining that? I'd like some reassurance that Giovanni and Belinda are not entitled to 6 reverts between them every day. And to anticipate his likely statement that I have reverted to Str1977's version, I'd like to say that I have never met Str1977, and we both have a long history editing articles in which the other user has no interest. We do have some overlap of interest and of POV in Christianity-related articles. Before Giovanni and his sockpuppet(s?) arrived, I would say my average was lower than one revert per day.

We now also have new users John1838 (talk · contribs) and Trollwatcher (talk · contribs). I certainly don't want to imply that every new user who supports Giovanni is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. (I was once a new user with a POV!) But these two users seem to be just criticizing editors, rather than making helpful contributions. In particular I'd like someone to take a look at John1838's user page.

Any help would be appreciated. AnnH ^(talk) 22:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The content and style of John1838's posting matches those of Robsteadman - both the WIKI user and the TES contributor.Crusading composer 00:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Why you so hawny? and User:Waya sahoni

Accusations of ban avoidance and sockpuppetry but I don't know what is going on here. Anyone familiar with this? Rmhermen 02:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about other issues but it looks like the first one you listed is a fairly obvious username policy vi9olation. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If the first is a username violation, so is the other, being a phonetic variation. Joyous | Talk 03:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The second one has been accused of being another account of Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. Looking through the history of his other accounts should quickly tell the rest of the history. --cesarb 03:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser#waya sahoni (talk • contribs) and Gadugi (talk • contribs). --cesarb 03:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And the first one does look like a sockpuppet of someone else, created to be able to chase the second one without fear of retaliation. --cesarb 03:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The two seem to be in the middle of a massive revert war right now on a talk page. *Dan T.* 04:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I {{usernameBlocked}} blocked both for being needlessly offensive? Superm401 - Talk 00:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No objections from me, both appear to be violations. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

As someone familiar with this soap opera, I feel I have to point out that Why you so hawny? was a phonetic variation on the second, and has been banned already for stalking/username violations. waya sahoni is almost certainly a sockpuppet of a blocked user, Gadugi, which happens to be the account of an irritating and disruptive net.kook called Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, and there's some sort of bizarre edit war going on over the article which bears his name.

To be fair, 'waya sahoni' is probably something meaningful in the Cherokee language and (assuming it's not offensive in Cherokee) probably shouldn't be blocked for that particular reason. I recommend finding some sort of excuse to get waya sahoni blocked or banned from Wikipedia though, because Jeff just won't stop being a disruptive influence and making a mess all over the place until he has complete control over his article. Sigh. --Aim Here 07:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This user User:Aim Here is an SCOX role account that comes through an anonymous proxy and is shared by multiple users via a VNC server. I have been quietly editing Cherokee articles. I added Jeff's article to the Indigeneous People project because it appeared on the Cherokee People category page. I have ONLY been placing the {{NorthAmNative]] tag and flagging the article for POV cleanup on the Talk page and a revert war ensued. THESE editors resort to Sock puppet and fantasy banned user allegations when they loose their arguments. They started this by creating multiple sockpuppets and vandalizing my user page. I opened an RFC on moving the LKML content to LKML where it belongs and this is the result. Aim Here is a meat puppet for SCOX and a role account. I listed ALL the SCOX meat puppets on the RFC page. These accounts are duckblinds for POV pushing, stalking, and harassent of Wikiepdia editors. They operate these other accounts for DOS attacks on people they really don't like, I guess we should feel lucky. Waya sahoni 07:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk about your abusive post.

* SCOX role puppet - whatever that is, it doesn't sound nice

* allegations of sockpuppetry without proof

* fantasy banned user, ugly perjorative for 'lie'

* more unproven allegations of sockpuppetry

* unproven allegations of vandalism

* multiple unproven allegations of being a meat puppet, sounds ugly

* unproven allegations of POV pushing, stalking, harassment.

* unproven allegations of Denial of Service attacks. This is a charge of criminal behavior...

Vigilant 08:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Also check the SCOX mailing list on Yahoo. There are several hundreds of posts where Aim Here, MediaMangler (i_s_p), Pgk (Pgk, pgk PG_King), Vyrl, saltydgmn, Kebron, and Neal_r_Hauser (Why you so hawny?) list VNC SPAM access points to these proxys to spam this article as well as others on Wikipedia. One of them is operated out of Washington State, One is in San Jose, and another is in the UK. There are three others that use anonymizer.com and the-cloak.com. They hand out logins and use them with Instant messenger to spam and vandalize Wikipedia, then discuss their forays and Wikipedia's reactions on the SCOX mailing list. Waya sahoni 08:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

These are serious allegations Waya sahoni. Do you have any proof? Otherwise these might seem to violate the WP:NPA rules?? Vigilant 08:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, documents and posts on the SCOX board speaks for themselves. Wikipedia should search through warmcat for the searchable listing. Search on "Wikipedia" in the message bodies. Very interesting. Waya sahoni 08:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Using Warmcat's Yahoeuvre I cannot find any proof for your allegations. Just 'wikipedia' gives lots of hits, and all I see is discussion and speculation about edits occuring here on WP. Granted, many of the posters there do not hold very flattering views of Jeff Merkey, but such opinions outside of WP have no bearing on what happens here, right? I then tried combining 'wikipedia' with various keywords, such as 'msn', 'proxy' or 'anonymizer' and can not find any relevant hits. There are posts discussing how to access Jeff Merkey's website 'merkeylaw.com' through proxies (such as [125]), mostly because Mr. Merkey was in the habit of publicizing IP addresses that accessed that site. --MJ^(☎|@|C) 14:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC).

Well, we don't allow the use of anonymous proxies on Wikipedia. Mostly are already indefinitely blocked. Which makes it a bit more difficult to use an open proxy here (but then, as long as you are logged in, only developers and a few select people can see your IP address, so there's not much need). --cesarb 15:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Why you so hawny? was created to harass Waya sahoni. I blocked that account. Waya sahoni has stated that he has no intention of making legal threats or suing anyone at Wikipedia, so even if he is Jeff, he is not banned for making legal threats. I object to the blocking of Waya sahoni unless he violates policy in the future. —Guanaco 21:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Could another admin look at this?

Could another admin look at Mgarard's contribs. It's a whole slew of book pages. He had created an article called Gravity by Mark Garard Gravity by Marc Garard [-Jeff], which was literally just pictures of the book pages. I have a feeling that all of the images should be deleted, but I'm iffy on image policy. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I came accross Gravity by Marc Garard and started to load each individual book page with intention of nuking them, but it nearly crashed my browser. He claims copyright on the material, though, but they have no useful encyclopedic purpose and should be deleted, I think. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Simple. Either this is original research, in which case we don't want it. Or it's a copy of a primary or secondary source, in which case we don't want it either. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 11:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Besides, he claimed copyright on the material. He would first need to release it under the GFDL to make it admissable at all. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If he had copyright, he automatically licensed the images and text under the GFDL by uploading them. Superm401 - Talk 08:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

GFDL retraction issue

I and others are getting into a reversion battle with User:Thepcnerd over three images contributed by User:Thepcnerd. The images were relicensed to GFDL by him but since he had a pet page of his afd, he now claims he never granted GFDL and wants the images deleted or put under a more restrictive copyright. You can see the main to and fro on my and his talk page. He has been told by more than one admin that his argument is nonsense but he continues to push his case and revert the GFDL flag on the images. I'd say delete images and be done with it but that sends the wrong message. Garglebutt / (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The images are:

• Image:Lakeokeechobee.jpg
• Image:FloridaTrailSign.jpg
• Image:Contents of MRE.jpg

I have indefinitely blocked him for legal threats. Before undoing the block, please explain here. Superm401 - Talk 06:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Also discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Thepcnerd, revocability of the GFDL, legal threats. —Cryptic (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing POV war

As some of you may already know, there's been an ongoing war of POV edits on a number of articles relating to political figures in Vaughan, Ontario, with a number of users asserting that User:pm_shef is inherently biased because of his own family connections. While admittedly there may be some truth to that, these people have not directly addressed any specific examples of what they believe to be biased editing on pm_shef's part; instead, they engage almost entirely in ad hominem attacks and reversion wars. In truth, pm_shef really hasn't broken any conduct rules, while several of his accusers (a handful of newly registered usernames who've never edited anything not directly related to this dispute) have already had to be blocked for 24 hours for page blanking, 3RR, etc. Because I've already been involved to an extent in the discussion, however, I'm asking if somebody neutral can assist in reviewing and resolving the situation. Thanks. The main articles in question so far are Alan Shefman and Susan Kadis. Bearcat 05:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching this too: I just wanted to mention that the main offenders are User:VaughanWatch and User:70.29.239.249, and the dispute also extends to the article Sandra Yeung Racco. pm_shef may have broken the 3RR rule in combating this, but he seemed to have been merely confused about it; see User talk:Mangojuice. Mangojuice 05:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at this. That's User:Hars Aldens one and only edit to Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Toms River, New Jersey

The edit history of this article appears to have changed. If this is an accident of memory, please let me know; if there was partial deletion, who was responsible? Septentrionalis 06:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There have been no deletions on that page. You can check the log yourself. Superm401 - Talk 07:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

history seems to go back pretty far and there haven't been any page moves there. What was the problem Pmanderson?--Alhutch 16:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Shortly before my most recent edit to the article, sometime early 1 March or late 28 February, there was an edit with moved the local embarassment "below the fold" (in the words of the edit summary). I reverted it. It's not in the edit history now. This may have been a glitch, showing a preview of which the editor thought better as a real edit. There may have been a rollback. Or my memory may be failing. I'd like to know which. Septentrionalis

Special:Confirmemail

A message popped up in my watchlist that "Wikipedia email confirmation has been enabled." I hadn't seen any Wikipedia talk pages about this, and it's always best to take a "better safe than sorry" stance on stuff you are potentially clicking on on the internet. Can anyone confirm that this is legitimate? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It is. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

About four threads up is a post about it from Brion, the lead developer. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 06:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. Can never be too careful. :o) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What, you think Wikipedia does illegal stuff????? Crowbaaa 14:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of VeryVerily

This arbitration case has closed. The one-revert per page per day remedy from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily, and its associated enforcement, are vacated with respect to VeryVerily. However, the other still applicable remedy, namely that pertaining to discussion of reverts, and its associated enforcement, remain in force. Ruy Lopez is banned from using sockpuppets, and is placed on probation. VeryVerily may appeal to have the remaining remedy lifted in four months. The remedies will be enforced by block. For further details, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 15:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

ADMIN Alert!

The user Rasterman has created a page entitled Charles Lee (BAPE Master). This page is very obviously a vanity or vandal page. Could an admin take care of this please? (I currently can't find the templates for warnings to put on talk pages, and I have no idea how to delete the page.) Thank you. Filmcom 18:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If you put a speedy delete tag on the article, an admin will see it. Gamaliel 18:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Request to have multiple external links for the good of measuring traffic

In the Ajax (programming) article anon 71.198.121.203 (talk · contribs) from IBM has for the last weeks been repeatedly inserting multiple links to IBM tutorials on the topic. I replaced the links with one common link to all their Ajax tutorials as I believe that should be sufficient. But he now asked me to let all the links be listed as they (interestingly enough) "are trying to determine the traffic and interest of each one, to help determine future commitment by IBM for this type of content." [126]. I told him that I don't think this is a good enough reason to bloat wikipedia articles with extra links, but I also said I would ask for other admins opinions on this which I hereby do. He has previously asked to let the links contain extra strings in the URL, "tracking tags to find wikipedia in server logs easier", which I don't really mind as long as it's clearly not affiliate/profit motivated. And I don't think it is in this case. Shanes 20:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep it at the one link. The tagging isn't really a problem as long as he is not profitting from it (although this case is arguably advertising), but multiple links where one is better is a problem. --maru (talk) contribs 20:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Mark Bourrie

User:Mark Bourrie, an admitted online friend of Rachel Marsden, persistently removes whole swaths of sourced material from the Rachel Marsden article, see this for instance. Homey 21:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

66.210.38.254

He has been vandalizing quite a bit and blocked twice already. He last had activity vandalizing Hedgehog. He defintely needs another block. Raintaster 21:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of. -- Psy guy ^Talk 21:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• And do use Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism in future. Thanks! :) - Mailer Diablo 03:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Robert Steadman Composer

I have been proved right - despite being mocked by some administrators. The article about Robert sTeadman is essentially a vanity article created by the subject in a shameless attempt at self promotion. The subject used sockpuppets to block any attempt to edit the article and to smear anybody who attempted to do so. The subject attempted to get the article protected - and cheekily wished to have access whilst everybody else was blocked. When the article was referred for deletion, the subject privately contacted administrators to discredit those voting against it and to canvass support. The subject then went on to vote for himself. This is a shameful business. I did point all of this out to the administrators at the time and was dismissed as a troublemaking crank. Ironically, the subject of the article has proved himself to be a much more troublesome user.Crusading composer 00:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Request Relist of Amal Mavani AfD

Please relist the AfD discussion for Amal Mavani. There have been several additions which appear to be "goofs". If this request is not appropriate here, please refer me to where I should place it. Thanks. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 00:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't need 'relisting' since it's still an open debate. -Splash^talk 01:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• And AfDs are automatically 'relisted' if there is insufficient consensus to determine the outcome of their debates. - Mailer Diablo 03:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

A message from the Squidward vandal

Today I received this email from User:Projects (the Squidward vandal):

we have all the proxies we need and this statement:

So now we know that his name is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, he lives in Chicago and he was the president of a chess association called WDCA. Mushroom (Talk) 05:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Only first name is correct, we use many IL proxies (legal access)and I was never a member and president of any club, lol. I was an international tournament director for 2 years 97-99, only, however, I never give my exact name exact, anywhere, including on your 'great finds' lol and there are many mistakes there, I want to let you know we contacted phroziac asking for assistance what to do, because many posts were being reverted automatically, even those where they eventually were prooven to be concise/exact and true and to the best of our knowledge. But Phroziac and others gave us trouble. There are three of us. I am a historian, not a vandal, but I am working on a program that will autmoticlly catch on your site and change many pages without any of us being present. By loosing us, you lost huge knowledge of sports and much more, all the things we said e.g. about 1998 1999 nba season, eventually, reverted, and on many other topics. I will not go into the details here. And no,

I do not live in Chicago, but use Chicago proxy, I am from Indiana, I contacted certain lady at wikipedia, then she passed on info to that whore phroziac, did you honestly think i would give my real name and even if u do find, that makes no difference, we will keep on bothering you all, just so you know. But it's inappropriate to post any names, even if they are half correct, because they were written to one party, THE WIKI ADMINISTRATION, Ms. Carter, she forwarded our concern to that whore phroziac, carter said it's best for us not to post here, since many sites will automatically be reverted, you have codes you inserted which automatically notify aholes like curps, i am a computer programmer and I know all the codes in the world, you could have had a top commander and anti vandal guard in your sects, if you just allowed us to talk normally, now you have chosen war, a war, which we intend to continue one way or the other. I demand that you enforce the rules and not user people's names, because I do not want members of any club to be on vandal list, if they are, even better, we can not wait to sue you.

And again, you are all hypocrites, you do not follow your rules...

I think that you may only have his alias, but I won't post his alias or real name here, as per the privacy policy. -- Kjkolb 09:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

One way or the other, you guys have no life, we do.

Mushroom (Talk) 01:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I got this on my talk page. It was reverted by another editor, I probably would have ignored it since I'm less likely to get in trouble that way. I gave the information I had to an editor trying to stop the vandalism, but all of the names I found may have been aliases. If they were, it probably means that he uses aliases offline in day-to-day life. The name above was taken from an email. I also found names that he used for his websites, chess tournaments, newsgroups and a newspaper article. I have not had any contact with him and I have not been involved with the case in any other way, so that's all I can say. -- Kjkolb 03:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

After posting this, I found an email from him. I informed him of my intention to stay out of this from now on. My focus is on writing and improving articles. Thanks, Kjkolb 03:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Triumph of the Will

Requesting that we get as many people as possible watchlisting this today. It's the featured article...and given it's subject, I'm expecting high amounts of vandalism. I just had to sprotect it because of a penis vandal...and it's only been the FA for 2 hours. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Watching, and adding "nasty penis vandal" to my list of inherently funny phrases. android79 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Do not protect or semi-protect. This is today's FA. Please read User:Raul654/protection for more information. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

99.9999% of the time I agree with you. But I protected it for 15 minutes to try to ward off a penis vandal. Of course. It didn't work. :) It's going to be a rough day I'm afraid for us vandal fighters. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey Liu

This appears to be an article about an entirely different subject, the use of the word "gay" specifically, for a long time back in its history. Am I missing something? -Splash^talk 02:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was target of a pagemove vandal. NSLE _{(T C)} at 02:36 UTC (2006-03-03)

Redirects deleted, move reverted. NSLE _{(T C)} at 02:41 UTC (2006-03-03)

User:joshbuddy

Please do NOT block this user for squidward, hes testing an anti-squidward bot. Thanks Tawker 07:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

God of War trolling

Whilst some POV declaring on your userpage might be good for the project, WP:NOT a webhost for politial essays. User:God of War has been hosting User:God of War/Tyranny and Fascism - Past and Present (previously User:God of War/Was REVENGE worth it President Bush?. This is an abuse of userspace. I would have sent it to MfD per process, but the page in question has the bold header Warning! The following contains a Point Of View that will tempt some to censor it by listing it at WP:MFD. clearly trolling for someone to do that and make him a 'free-speech martyr'. This I attempted to reason with him [127] and [128] but was met only with [129]. I am sorely tempted to speedy this as patent trolling and block him for disruption - but I've had enough calls of 'admin abuse' for this week. Perhaps someone else could take this up and try either reason or deletion. --Doc ^ask? 09:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You're not going to believe this, but I will actually try to talk to him. Better if it's a user (especially a pro-free speech one like me) than an admin, which will just upset him and others (quite understandably as I see it). I agree that that essay has no place on wikipedia and crosses the line of allowing political and social info on a user on their userpage. The Ungovernable Force 09:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Userspace exists as a scratchspace, a personal office if you will, to help with building the encyclopaedia. It's not a free patch of land that anyone who registers a free account can regard as their entitlement, and it's not somewhere where one can put inappropriate content and hide behind a kind of "userspace privilege" to protect it. I've spoken to God of War (talk · contribs) — or someone claiming to be him — many times on IRC, and, as near as I can determine, he's intelligent, and fairly cluey on what Wikipedia is and what it's for. He knows better than to write inflammatory personal essays and then bung them in userspace and say "NPOV doesn't apply! I can do what I want!". God of War has the potential to be a good contributor to our encyclopaedia, but at the moment he appears too busy being childish and abusing his userspace privileges. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I have listed it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:God of War/Tyranny and Fascism - Past and Present. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a mistake, if you read my initial post and the offending article's header, you will see that this is exactly what the troll user was hoping for. --Doc ^ask? 14:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Relax with the personal attacks there doc. If I was trolling I would be posting this everywhere. As it is, I was keeping it quartered off in a sub-page until I finish working on it.--God of War 19:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it needs to go, somehow. Which would be worse, trolling at MfD or trolling on ANI when someone speedies it? android79 15:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hey guys, Has anyone here actually tried reading it? It's not a rant and it's not an essay.

It's only a copy/paste of the declaration of independence with a few factual statements with news stories referenced under each line of the declaration. I was going to get to it eventually but until then I moved it out of my main page and into a sub-page.--God of War 18:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

So what does it have to do with Wikipedia's goals? Move that kind of thing to your own homepage/myspace whatever. Heck, I don't care, link to it from your WP user page, just keep junk that doesn't have any useful contribution to WP off WP. Please focus on what we're here for and not spend so much time on what we're not. You're wasting significant resources. - Taxman ^Talk 10:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard all day. The MFD discussion and this section of the noticeboard are taking up just as much minimal hard-drive space as my little sub-page.--God of War 20:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And if you followed what I wrote above we wouldn't have had any of it. To prevent more disruption and waste of resources we have to deal with it when we see it. If you don't want to focus on what Wikipedia is here for then spend time instead at places that are set up for what you're trying to do. - Taxman ^Talk 14:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This takes up a fraction of a cent's worth of hard drive space. I'll donate an extra 25 cents to Wikimedia if you let God of War have his subpages. —Guanaco 02:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Doc, Doc, Doc... a couple points:

1. It's a copy of the Declaration of Independence reached by a vague link at the bottom of a userpage.
2. We'd all be more sympathetic if your statement "I am sorely tempted to speedy this as patent trolling and block him for disruption - but I've had enough calls of 'admin abuse' for this week." instead read more along the lines of "I am sorely tempted to speedy this as patent trolling and block him for disruption - but I all the calls of 'admin abuse' this last week have caused me to reflect and realize that perhaps there is yet room for growth in my understanding."
3. How about this as a compromise: you let the dude keep his little essay, I'll donate the two following userboxes, and the user agrees to display one of them on his userpage. That way balance is achieved. Mmmmkay?Herostratus

This user recognizes that userboxes are the #3 cause of death, right behind cancer and heart disease.

This user believes that Wikipedia administrators are incapable of error when speaking ex cathedra.

Page swapped to hide vandalism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Critique_of_Finno-Ugric_and_Uralic_language_groups&diff=prev&oldid=41311270 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Critique_of_Finno-Ugric_and_Uralic_language_groups&diff=prev&oldid=40315740

show, that User:Dbachmann twice vandalized the page in short time intervals. Today suddenly his vandalisation disappeared from the history, and my impression is, that the page was manipulated, swapped with a page, that was deleted about a year ago. Could please someone check this? Thanks, Adam88 20:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I see no vandalism, and both diffs are visible on the page history. --cesarb 00:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Critique_of_Finno-Ugric_and_Uralic_language_Groups&action=history This is the history page, the both diffs are not visible. Can you please tell me exactly, where are listed the deletions on that page? Also the discussion page belongs to the deleted page and not to the current one. Adam88 19:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for pointing out that duplicate. Both pages should be redirected. And don't go around calling a disagreement over content "vandalism". Lupo 20:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

none of the pages may be redirected. Redirection = vandalismus.

There are two different pages; one has "groups" in the name (lowercase g) and the other one has "Groups" in the name (uppercase G). This is why you are not seeing the changes; you are looking at the history for one page and expecting to see the changes on the other. --cesarb 20:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

this is just User:Antifinnugor back from his ban with a year-old axe to grind. I protected the redirect now. I'm a bit tired of being called vandal by various trolls, consensus was and is clear as day on the issue. dab (ᛏ) 20:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

if you do not vandalize "redirect", you won't be called vandalizer, and won't be tired because of that. Does anybody force you to vandalize? It is that simple.

cesarb, thanks for the clarification. Now I found both pages. Adam88 08:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes has again violated his probation

User:Ted Wilkes has again violated his probation, although he had been blocked for doing so yesterday. He is still calling me a liar. This is certainly a personal attack. He has deleted some passages concerning Nick Adams's supposed homosexuality and an external link from the Nick Adams page, although he is banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality. See [130] and [131]. See also his aggressive behavior on the Talk:Nick Adams page. This is unacceptable. Onefortyone 19:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have two things to say.

• While I agree User:Ted Wilkes has violated his ban, Onefortyone is also violating his probation with all these dubious edits to the sexuality section of the article. I humbly suggest that both be given clear warnings to cease and desist from any sort of editing in the article for now and that neither be blocked unless it becomes necessary as a preventative step to enforce the existing ruling (which I strongly disagree with but respect in terms of process).

• I think the RfAr should be re-opened, there is much to discuss and resolve. The last RfAr has not worked. Wyss 19:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The main problem is Ted Wilkes, who is aggressively continuing edit warring with me. Onefortyone 19:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Wilkes has repeatedly violated the arbcom ruling. I banned him for 24 hours some days ago because of a number of violations, but treated them collectively as one breach. He has now committed two more unambiguous breaches. I have imposed a 1 week ban for the two breaches and am treating them as two clear and deliberate breaches. He is now up to three. If (and given his behaviour it seems a case of when) he hits five as per the arb ruling he will be banned for one year. He seems to treat arbcom rulings as a joke. They aren't. If he doesn't get the message then he will soon have a year to cop himself on. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Wyss (talk · contribs) emailed me to say you had blocked her by mistake. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No mistake. She deleted lines of another article dealing claims about someone's homosexuality. That breached the arbcom ruling which says that she and Wilkes are banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality. The clauses "any edit" and "related to homosexuality or bisexuality" shall be interpreted broadly. This is not the first time she has broken the ruling. The first time I judged given past behaviour to be unintentional. In this case however she unambiguously disobeyed the arbcom ruling at least 3 times. breach 1 breach 2 breach 3 As a result there was no choice but to block her. I have to say that while Wilkes seems a complete nutcase (who is strongly suspected of being a notorious multiple hardbanned user from some years back) Wyss normally acts more responsibly. But in this case the enfringments were clearcut and necessitated a block. Indeed she is very lucky that she only got a 24 hour block having made three clear breaches. She could have been blocked for longer. Some users would have imposed longer for three clear unambiguous breaches like those. To breach the ruling once is wrong. To do it three times in the one article smacks of giving the two fingers to the ruling.

Here is just one of the bits of text she deleted. According to a theory by Professor Machtan, which he explained in his book The Hidden Hitler, August Kubizek had a homosexual relationship with Adolf Hitler. Both Brigitte Hamann and Professor Machtan wrote that after meeting Hitler during the latter part of 1905, the two quickly became close friends and lived together, sharing a small room they rented on the Stumpergasse in Vienna. In Young Hitler, the Story of Our Friendship, Kubizek wrote that during their time together Hitler "always rejected the coquettish advances of girls or women. Women and girls took an interest in him in Linz as well as Vienna, but he always evaded their endeavors." Kubizek also wrote that Hitler had a great love for a girl named "Stefanie" and wrote her countless love poems but never sent them. Instead, Kubizek says Hitler read his poem "Hymn to the Beloved" to him. Professor Machtan stated that while the Stefanie girl definitely existed, some of Kubizek's 1953 writing was a deliberate "heterosexualizing" of Hitler in retrospect (p. 43).

She replaced the above text with William L. Shirer, in his book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich cites a letter dated August 4, 1933, six months after Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, in which he wrote his boyhood friend, "I should be very glad . . . to revive once more with you those memories of the best years of my life."

Deleting that was a clear and unambiguous breach of the prohibition "from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality". FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I can't see any basis for disputing the block. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Warning:

I got warned and I want links, please, I think there is a slight misunderstanding DS. Crowbaaa 14:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

How about this for a link [132]? --Syrthiss 14:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I cannot see what is wrong with that. Federal and the other words do have articles, so why not have links? What do some innocent links do. Rid Wikipedia of members? Noooo. Make people smarter? Yeeees. So what's wrong?Crowbaaa 12:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Drawer full of socks (talk · contribs)

A while back, this user was blocked probably for an inappropriate user name. Drawer full of socks put the unblock template on his talk page but I removed it later and explained about his user name to him. Every day now, a new anon IP addresses keep adding the unblock template back to his talk page giving the edit summary "request for unblock upheld". Can someone look into this? Moe ε 04:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

sprotected, and added a notice about the reason for the block. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 07:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

SQUIDWARD!! bot testing

I'm currently testing a bot to revert SQUIDWARD attacks. Please note this. Thanks. joshbuddy^talk 07:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this bot approved? WP:BOT states: Sysops should block bots, without hesitation, if they are unapproved

It's MY bot and its approved running with a bot flag Tawker 07:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

yes and i belive your flag is for {{subst:}}ing templates, and thats all your bot shoud be used for tawker until you have permison from wp:bots Benon 09:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Earl of Stirling, anon editor and legal threats

68.179.175.185 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is claiming to be (the) Earl of Stirling which is being disputed on both his talk page and the article talk page. In the course of those discussions 68.179.175.185 has made clear legal threats against Hansnesse. I've given a him couple short blocks but he has continued to make them. He has a block ending now and depending on his attitude I'm going to block him for a longer period of time. thanks Rx StrangeLove 16:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Will repeated blocks shall deter him from initiating legal action, if he chooses to do so? As legal threats are not tolerated here a permanent block may be in order. Apart from this, contents may require suitable modifications, about which I do not have any idea. --Bhadani 16:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

We don't block in order to convince someone not to go to court. We block for legal threats because once a legal threat has been made, it removes any possibility of reasonable discussion towards consensus. The block should be indefinite; at least until the issue is settled. Jkelly 17:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it, the best we can do is to keep him from making them here. I was thinking about a month. As he is editing from an IP I won't block indef. A month should cool him off, and if he keeps it up on his talk page I'll protect/semi it. Rx StrangeLove 17:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me make certain I understand this correctly: He's the Earl because he claims to be, not because of any other reason; he lost his only court case about it against the UK according to him (although no-one else has been able to find the case)[133]; and now he's threatening to sue WP? The mind boggles. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

We get these noble impersonators now and then. It's their bad luck that the British peerage is remarkably well-documented, and that a fairly high level of knowledge (to say nothing of pedantry) is required to fool those who know the subject. Earl of Stirling indeed. Next he'll claim he's the Duke of Cleveland! Mackensen (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for a month (before I read the above discussion) as noted on AN/I. I regret only failing to block him after the first (very clear and unambiguous) threat; decent wikipedians shouldn't have to suffer under the veil of threats. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Holy Chickens (from outer space 2, the movie remember?)

Soooooooooo, I think that the Notability test is chicken fried in water. It says that it is not a guideline, why should my article be deleted because of someone else's religion, i think it was a good article that I poured a lot of work into! Crowbaaa 17:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about deletions is conducted at deletion review. Thanks. Chick Bowen 19:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If only I had the faintest idea what Crowbaaa was talking about I'm sure I would be really interested :-) Just zis Guy you know? 19:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

First Council of Nicaea and Council of Jerusalem

There's some disagreements underway about the status of Ecumenical Councils or some such nonsense. There may also be some 3RR violations, but I'm not sure. As I've just nominated FCoN for Featured Article status, I'm loath to step in and start knocking skulls... can anyone poke around and see if there's anything that can be done from a procedural standpoint to quell the chaos? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Mac and Rachel Cory

I'm hoping another admin can give me some fresh insight. I've reverted the page twice and redirected to the show the characters were on, Another World, on the grounds that all the information in the article is already at the AW page, and that having a daughter article solves nothing as it's not telling anything new or in-depth, just stating the exact same things that can be found at the article on the series. The user, MrKing84, is not great at discussion from what I've gathered. I think it should be one way, and he thinks it should be his. Rather pigheaded, both of us, so hopefully someone else can mediate on the Mac and Rachel talk page. Thanks! Mike H. That's hot 21:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not take the info out of the parent article and let him keep it in the daughter article? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Libel

Reporting myself for an out-of-process speedy deletion of a template here. Here's a copy of my explanation (on Wikipedia:Libel):

I've removed the {{libel}} template. It is a serious problem if we find libellous material and don't deal with it. The correct thing to do, is to remove the text until it can be verified, sourced, put into neutral language and replaced (or forgotten never to be seen again if that's more appropriate). Just tagging it is a Bad Thing. I speak as one of those that deals with the angry emails from people reading that they are actually monstrous, murdering child molesters and not an average headmaster. -- sannse (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I fully support this decision, although perhaps a note could be added to the template explaining why it shouldn't be used? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

SVG Request

Could another administrator (who can upload and save SVG files) upload Image:Flag of South Africa.svg, tag it as {{c-uploaded}}, and protect it? I've gone ahead and changed the In the news image to Image:Flag of South Africa.svg.png, a more appropriate image, after a request on the talk page. Once the SVG is uploaded and protected, then the template's image can be changed and the .svg.png can be deleted. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind; the news item has been removed and the previous image replaced. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Woer$ and templates

Relatively new Woer$ (talk · contribs) is creating some kind of main-page-like templates. His talk page history shows some prior warnings for vandalism (categories and possibly templates). I'm not sure what the purpose of those templates is, he's not really answering questions in any detail. Possibly just paranoid, but maybe someone else can take a look. -- Curps 02:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of them appear copied from Wikinews. I'm not sure what purpose those templates would serve here; I would say if he doesn't respond, go ahead and delete them unless they prove to be serving a useful purpose. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The templates actually seem to be verbatim copies of the Wikinews main page templates, with some minor changes and after having lost their various CSS styles on account of having been moved. They aren't linked to anything. My only guess is that he wants to perform some kind of bizarre mix-up in vandalising articles to look like the Wikinews main page, although that seems tenuous and I can't possibly see why he'd be creating them as templates. Note he's used identical nomenclature to the Wikinews main page templates. I can only fathom that he may well actually just not understand that the main page isn't editable, or thinks he can somehow get around it. I'll leave a talk page message and if he doesn't respond within 24hrs satisfactorily I'll delete them. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Advocate Cabal

Hello all: I've recently started a new initiative, Wikipedia:Advocate Cabal, which aims to provide informal advocate services to assist Wikipedians in solving problems. I would be most grateful for comments, flames, &c., and indeed if people would be so good as to help out that would be brilliant. Anybody who wants an advocate might also like to make the monumental first request. :) Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can make it more responsive and helpful than AMA, I'm all for it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Impersonation

I'm not sure where to report this, so I post it here. I think that user:Kayabusa_futura is impersonator of user:Hayabusa_future and user:*brew is impersonator of user:*drew. borgx ^(talk) 07:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Kayabusa futura has a good number of legitimate edits and therefore is less likely to be an impersonator, I think. *brew only has two edits so far, both seemingly legitimate, but due to the few edits is more problematic, but I'd suggest only keeping watch at the moment. --Nlu (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

vandalism on my user page!

Mikkalai vandalized my user page. Stefan cel Mare 20:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be a real problem these days [134] [135]. Respected admins vandalising userpages, just awful. --Sean Black ^(talk) 21:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not vandalism, it is part of the procedure to tag sock puppets or suspected sock puppets. We will wait and see what CheckUser says. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 00:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Usnewslink

I've blocked this user indefinitely for legal threats made on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judith Haney and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USNewsLink. --InShaneee 21:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)