From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive up to about Sep 30. - David Gerard 15:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 General 1.1 Template deleted 1.2 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency 1.2.1 Seriously considered deleting the VfD 1.2.1.1 VfD Closed 1.3 Anonymous poster at Robert W. Welch Jr. 1.4 MediaWiki:bad image list 1.5 Template:3rrblock 1.6 Server trouble? 1.7 Blocked IP returns immediately 1.8 User:Ehoxha 1.9 History pages? 1.10 Seeking opinions 1.11 Blocking open proxies 1.12 Category:NowCommons 1.13 Dodgy Unicode again 1.14 Final decisions 1.15 User:Fenian Swine 1.15.1 Sock/impostor update 1.16 VfD that is WAY overdue 1.17 Speedy deletion reminder 1.18 Lost archived peer review 1.19 Canada Free Press and Judi McLeod 1.20 VFD on Moonbat 1.21 Flooding a new page at wikipedia, all time !! [Kourosh_ziabari] 1.22 People attmepting to delete with no reason at all 1.23 Sockpupperary 1.24 Main page intro 1.25 use of user:Diablo 1.26 "consultation" 1.27 complaint 1.28 Major Willy on Wheels cleanup 1.29 Admin assistance requested/username 1.30 Unsubstantiated antisemitism charges on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Anti-Semitism_in_Poland archive page 1.31 JarlaxleArtemis 1.32 Probation 1.33 Human Rights Servey on Wikipedia (The final post of I_sterbinski) 1.34 Votes for Deletion v. Pages for Deletion 1.35 fix front page 1.36 User:Madchester 1.37 Username Trollderella 1.38 Jim Davidson (comedian) 1.39 Dot Six temporary injunction 1.40 Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion 1.41 User:132.241.245.49 1.42 Did You Know? - Spelling mistake 1.43 Willy has now got Milk 1.44 Encyclopedia Dramatica 1.45 harassment by ginadana 1.46 Image Problem 1.47 Backlog at WP:CP 1.48 {{wikitravel}} 1.49 Curps' block bot 1.50 Sandbot - New tools! 1.51 Problem with AfD/Old? 1.52 Language dispute 1.53 Confirmations of permission 1.54 Editing and page title conflict 1.55 Page redirect 1.56 Is this sockpuppetry? 1.57 Help with a VfD/AfD page 1.58 Unblocking User Astrolox - Me 1.59 An Unfair Deletion 1.60 Recent block 1.61 User:Pigsonthewing and User:Leonig Mig 1.62 Gabrielsimon 1.63 New Templates 1.64 Poll 1.65 Joe Hornung Article 1.66 Help me!!!! 1.67 Special characters 1.68 Porsha Blaze 1.69 Bogdanov Affair 1.70 Howard Stern vandal 1.71 Michel Lafosse 1.72 User:Agriculture on West Virginia 1.73 User:83.132.240.187 1.74 Deleting tactics 1.75 User:Ann Heneghan's stalker 1.76 Scott Fisher 1.77 User:Ironbrew and User:IMNOTEMICO 1.78 User:Adrigo 1.79 Help-desk spammers 1.80 User:JimmyCrackedCorn 1.81 User:216.175.112.9 1.82 Washington, D.C. 1.83 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sher Khan 1.84 Rick Santorum 1.85 Jocker City 1.86 Trolling and subtle vandalism at Encyclopaedia Dramatica 1.87 Bloodsport (film) and commandofans 1.88 A gentle note to -Ril- 1.89 User Gorgonzilla Continually Making Repeated Personal Attacks 1.90 Rainbowwarrior1977 1.91 Larsoner and sockpuppets 1.92 209.91.172.131 1.93 Lucky 6.9 1.94 Flower album 1.95 User:KennyWILLY and User:WILLOBIE 1.96 Kingdom Hearts II 1.97 User:Forsworth 1.98 Njyoder 1.99 User:Dudtz userpage 1.100 Francesco Crispi and the Swedish editors 1.101 User:L'Houngan & User:Albanau 1.102 User:Ed_Poor 1.103 User:24.54.208.177 1.104 George W. Bush vandalism 1.105 Photosynthesis Vandal 1.106 Advice on use of user space sought 1.107 Falkland Islands 1.108 New users log 1.109 The MilkMan situation 1.110 Kurdish people 1.111 AfD for 3 September seems messed up. 1.112 Please help! 1.113 Can admins delete words from edit summaries? 1.114 Please fix forked talk page 1.115 User:Sam999 1.116 User:Uriah923 SEO block 1.117 Avengers (comics) 1.118 policy vote 1.119 New speedy deletion criterion 1.120 User:JarlaxleArtemis indefinitely banned 1.121 Indopedia 1.122 GordonWatts 1.123 Imitation of user on Expansion theory 1.124 image deletion 1.125 Improve this article about Wikipedia 1.126 Cheese Dreams sockpuppet? 1.127 WP:RM 1.128 User:Anittas 1.129 Sollog 1.130 Iasson 1.131 User SPUI 1.132 User:MutterErde 1.133 Vandal on Hurrican Rita page 1.134 Infinite block of an IP 1.135 User:John Henry DeJong 1.136 Homosexuality in Singapore 1.137 Urdu language, Bollywood, Bhangra 1.138 User:Joseph108 on Vishwa Nirmala Dharma 1.139 AOL IP Ranges 1.140 User:FlashAmI 1.141 Porn star articles 1.142 Jack Sarfatti dispute 1.143 Yellowikis 1.144 Version deletion 1.145 Copyright violation, Nablus and Shechem 1.146 Merging page histories 1.147 Wells Fargo Center 1.148 Jack Sarfatti/Talk:Jack Sarfatti 1.149 Rattlesnake Island

[edit] General

[edit] Template deleted

I have taken action and deleted Template:FloridaDecencyLaw

Here is the contents:

Under Florida Title XLVI, Chapter 847, Section 11, it is a misdemenor and possible third-degree felony to distribute photographs of sexual acts in such a way that they are available to minors. Without an age check, such photos are against Florida Law, and could cause Wikipedia to be shut down. This image appears to violate that standard and should be considered for deletion.

It is absurd and can only be disruptive, specifically created as a legal threat, so is against the Wikipedia:No legal threats policy anyway.

Ta bu shi da yu 12:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record (if anybody cares :) ), I support this action. Zoe 23:45, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I actually find that message vaguely alarming, but I presume there's a counter-argument to the claim? Everyking 04:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

What about Freedom of speech and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The law in question makes repeated reference to "obscenity". In the United States, the legal definition of "obscenity" is the Miller Test. Every image on Wikipedia will either pass the Miller Test on the grounds of literary or scientific merit, or the image will be listed on IFD as being unencyclopedic. Any remaining parts of the law that don't reference obscenity should be covered by the First Amendment. --Carnildo 06:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid y'all are a little out of date or optimistic. While the Miller Test led to the development of "community standards" as the judge of obscenity, that, by itself, has been used specifically to cripple online endeavors and mail order. (When a federal action is sought, they pursue simultaneous prosecutions in 4-5 communities where standards are offended, thereby bankrupting the commercial concern and using "community standards" as a weapon.) Additionally, the new attempts at chilling online adult content, in particular, have largely sailed past the courts in de facto destroying the Miller Test (although not de jure). This does not mean that I agree with the template, but simply saying "free speech" is naive these days. If our educational/artistic merit would be judged in aggregate or in detail is also unclear. I would hope it would be the former, in which case we'd have no worries, but the winds blowing through the US in the last decade are fickle and freezing. Geogre 03:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Under Florida Title XLVI, Chapter 847, Section 11, it is a misdemenor and possible third-degree felony to distribute photographs of sexual acts in such a way that they are available to minors. Without an age check, such photos might be a bit iffy under Florida Law, but not under Federal Law, and are unlikely to cause Wikipedia to be shut down. If you're really paranoid, you could always move this image to our servers in Amsterdam.

*innocent look* Kim Bruning 12:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency

This is going to be a revolt in the making, when it comes to WP:CIV and WP:NPA. It already has caused Agriculture to pack his bags and leave. Admins should go by there to make sure that things aren't becoming too hot. --Titoxd 03:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

There are also policy questions involved, and Jimbo Wales has extensively weighed in.--Noitall 04:36, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

This VFD is doing wikipedia no good. People are voting and bickering over the existance of this project as if they were voting over a proposed wikipedia guideline or policy. In my opinion a way to end this mess (and the sooner the better) would be to create a wikipedian club instead and replace this project with that. Along the lines of Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club. Call it Wikipedia:Decency concerned wikipedians club or something, and then people can just sign up there as they would with this project. I personaly don't understand why these people can't have their own Wikipedia Project (so I voted keep), but a wikipedia club should be an acceptable compromise and nobody can't possibly deny a club from existing. Or can they? Shanes 04:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

We don't endorse this project. If they really want a club, they can form this offsite. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not really about whether the WikiProject or club is or should be endorsed, it's about keeping things civil. Several RFC's can be filled out with the amount of personal attacks and flaming that have been occurred in this thing, and there's plenty of vote-changing, sockpuppeting and personal attacks to keep admins busy around the clock. This VfD is only a day old, and with it exceeding 100 KB by now, the frenetic pace of it isn't going to change in the foreseeable future. It is probably the most intense discussion in Wikipedia right now. --Titoxd 04:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. No, "we" don't endorce it. And if general endorcement is a requirement for a project or a club, then fine. But I didn't think it was. Do "we" endorce Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion, for instance? Shanes 05:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It's manifestly obvious to anybody who looks that any WikiProject is simply an association of Wikipedians with similar interests. The only issue here should be whether WikiProjects should be extended to cover people with similar opinions; there's no question that "we" don't endorse any WikiProject. Incidentally, does "we" mean The Community? Does the community have to agree on something, or have a majority in favor, for it to exist? If so, why do we have inclusionist and deletionist associations? — Dan | Talk 19:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem if they want to have their club, so long as they don't slap their Big Brotherish templates all over articles like Islam, Wicca and Pandora Peaks. But it seems clear from the outset that they are attempting to impose their own POV on the entire encyclopedia and are trying to use their templates to force it down the throats of every other editor. Zoe 04:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

The whole thing is just an absolutely dismal display. I cannot believe so many people are voting to delete a wikiproject just because they have different views. Views have nothing to do it, because both sides' views regarding decency are compatible with Wikipedia; it's all a matter of consensus to be worked out, policies and practices to be developed, etc. The VfD is nothing beyond a single question: should these people be allowed to have a project promoting their views about obscenity issues and so on? You could ask the same question if people formed an "anti-censorship" wikiproject. The answer should of course be yes in both instances. I'm stunned that this is actually a matter of contention. Everyking 05:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Well, no. This Wikiproject's sole goal runs counter to WP:NOT. That's entirely different. Virtually every other WikiProject or related organization is about adding or organizing content, or both (or isn't actually doing anything at all, as the WikiProject Inclusion mentioned above). All of that is constructive. This one is the opposite. Radiant_>|< 09:58, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on the merits of the project are not to spill over here, please. Everything on that I've already read in the VfD, which is arguably the biggest train wreck in Wikipedian history. Polls are evil. The problem here is that if you agree the project is in fundamental contradiction of Wikipedia's goals, you'll be inclined to think VfD has something to say about it. But if you don't, you won't. The VfD can't settle the meta-issue and it's not trying hard either; instead people are happily flaming each other on the "decency" issue itself. Polls are evil. Oh, and did I tell you yet how polls are evil? JRM · Talk 10:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• We should hold a poll on that :) Radiant_>|< 10:58, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

  They did! The outcome was "banana". Or "no consensus", I forget. But that page illustrates exactly why this VfD will do anything except have a constructive outcome. Of course, Kim Bruning made the mistake of asking people whether it should be closed, thereby ensuring nobody could do it without getting shouted down, and possibly reverted.
  The real trick will be containing the flamewars, trolls and other assorted nonsense after the nomination has run and getting some decent (pardon the word) discussion on track. JRM · Talk 11:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Polls are not evil. We can't even agree on that, apparently. Everyking 17:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  "Polls are evil" is a slogan, not a moral absolute. Read the article. It doesn't say "don't ever use polls, ever, because they can never come to any good", it says "if you want consensus, a poll is the last thing that should be on your mind". Polls have their uses as census-takers and opinion-gatherers; constructive discussion is a thing they only support as an afterthought, however, and only by generating enough heat to power something more productive. The article should really be titled "polls have limited areas of application and should be used with care", but that's a whole lot less catchy than "polls are evil". (Where "evil" isn't used in the mainstream sense either, but in the hacker sense.) JRM · Talk 00:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This VfD, and the "Ed" incident, also helped convince User talk:Filiocht, to leave the project: User talk:Filiocht#Why I won't be back any time soon. — Paul August ☎ 00:46, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hmph, people advised me against closing this VfD early. I guess the advice could have been better. :-P

The conclusion from this VfD is already No Consensus, there's already too many keep votes for anything else. Hmm, would some folks be interested in getting together and actually declare that (and more importantly, patiently explain why)? It doesn't even need to (all) be admins, anyone can close a VFD. It'd be interesting to see who at wikipedia is actually still skilled at negotiating and obtaining consensus. :-) Kim Bruning 01:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

anyone with that skill is probably sane enough to stay away from this mess. while things have calmed down a bit this is only because voteing is the only thing to do right now. It is probably best left untill the weekend when thing will be a bit quieter.Geni 01:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

People are leaving over this though. Do we have a point at which we say "enough"? If there's a good plan to follow. I wouldn't mind (temporarily) losing adminship over it, for instance. Better than the terrible damage this is doing to the project, in precedence and in people lost. Kim Bruning 01:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It is best left alone now. If you try and stop it you will just bring up another set of issues. Attempts to stop these things on wikipedia before they have run their course tend not to work unless you nip things right in the bud. I think things are calming down the vote rate has fallen the flame wars have mostly burned out. I don't think we are likely to lose any more people. At this stage keeping it contained and letting it run down of it's own accord is the only real option.Geni 02:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Did so on the talk page. I am not going to close it; not on my own, not in a group. That should have been done five minutes after it was opened. Not one day, not three, not now. If this didn't have a built-in self-destruction timer I'd agree, but this isn't worth it. To me, at least. There's no reason the consensus bandwagon... I mean, boot camp... I mean, gathering place can't be set up irrespective of the VfD circus that's going on, though. The project talk page would be a natural choice, after cleaning out all the existing crap, of course. JRM · Talk 01:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Very well, let's let it burn out. But after that, we should seriously look at vfd. And I'm not just talking people who happen to have an admin bit set. :-P Kim Bruning 02:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Build a centralised point for conflict, and you'll get conflict. It shouldn't be a surprise. I like the idea of pure wiki deletion. Put a notice on the article, let people complain about the deletion on talk. Most articles that really need deleting would get deleted practically unnoticed. If there were bickering, it would be localised and if there were any need to arbitrate, we could simply say "keep the article and move on to something else" and what's the harm done?

Of course, I'm not kidding myself that such an eminently sensible course will actually be taken. Far from it. We'll continue to have war because people like it. -- Grace Note

I agree with Geni, it would be a mistake to try to "stop" this now. And I agree with Kim, that we should do something about something ;-) Filiocht leaving is not a good sign. Paul August ☎ 02:43, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Should I even bother to point out the hypocracy that the Morals and Values Council or whatever they wanted to be called, was perfectly fine with the idea of a VfD, right up until the first vote tally when they found out they were losing, at which point they unilateraly decided that a WfD was a really bad idea, and thus, doesn't count, unless they win, then it counts--64.12.116.74 02:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Probably not, since WP runs by consensus, not random straw polls. Please also review this. Thanks, and good day. Tomer ^TALK 02:58, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Some questions and comments from me during this vfd

• There needs to be a clearer definition of "consensus", or at least a consensus definition of consensus depending on the issue. You can make it loose, but at least set some paramaters. The vote has been steady at around 60-40, but is that enough? Doubtful? Possible?
• agriculture apparently won't come back regardless of the end vote, thus making all of this moot unless someone officially takes over the project for him.
• A clearer policy on preventing sockpuppets from voting is needed, and it needs to be clarified if IP address votes should be considered as sockpuppets regardless of edit tally.
• What would Wikimedia do if someone brought legal action on Wikipedia?
• This is an amazingly diverse community, and regardless of the failures shown by this vfd, the fact that that so many people care about trying to address these failures show the success of this project in my opinion: a large amount of users want to protect and advance this project however they can.

Karmafist 13:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• A clearer definition of consensus is not needed, certainly not here. The outcome is quite obviously no consensus, which defaults to keep, or rather, VfD isn't the right tool, use something better. VfD operates by "rough consensus", which is deliberately not chiseled in stone with unmoveable percentage thresholds to discourage gaming the system and getting tangled up in borderline disputes over whether consensus was "really" reached (in such cases, the answer is almost always "no").
• Wasn't aware projects were owned by people in the first place. It's obvious this project can't simply muddle on in its current form, if only because it triggered a heated VfD. I suggest all of us "officially take over".
• What's wrong with the existing policies? Sockpuppet votes are routinely ignored. Again, in this case, it hardly matters. Users who are clearly not sockpuppets couldn't reach consensus on the matter; a barrel full of sockpuppets won't change that. The issue for IPs is even clearer: the majority is cast by sockpuppets and people who have no idea what Wikipedia is about. They are still free to voice their opinion, but their votes are not important as far as raw numbers go. Those few IP addresses used by people who are knowledgeable of Wikipedia's policies are another matter, but they are rare as hen's teeth on VfD. In any case, closing administrators are expected to exercise good judgement in deciding what votes were cast in good faith and what votes were motivated by malice or ignorance, and they generally succeed. Other people are free to point out edit tallies, possible motivations and their opinions on whether the vote should count, but ultimately this is just extra information.
• Challenge them? I don't see the issue here. Legal action is distinct from legal threats, though. We get a lot more of the latter than of the former. And as Jimbo has pointed out, the chance of someone taking legal action against us is close to zero, since it's a) highly doubtful any laws are being broken in the first place and b) in nobody's best interest to challenge Wikipedia over them.
• That's not how I read it. I voted keep and certainly do not wish to "protect" and "advance" the project. In its current form, it's severely misguided. It needs to be retargeted and the inflammatory/ambiguous "decency" nonsense (whose decency?) should go. If by "success" you mean "generates discussion", then yes, this project is amazingly successful. Discussion doesn't build an encyclopedia, however. JRM · Talk 21:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• On that last point: Karmafist may refer to the whole wikipedia project; in which case, he's right. If he means the wikiproject: I've tallied the keep votes: at the moment, I'm counting 81; but only around 13 voters say they agree with the goals of the project. Eugene van der Pijll 11:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I see the second political party on wikipedia has arrived Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship. If this gets listed for deletion I will be found in a very deep bunker a long way away (probably wikibooks).Geni 21:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

To everyone: please do not proliferate discussions. Take any comments on this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship. JRM · Talk 21:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seriously considered deleting the VfD

I just looked at the VfD now--I voted keep very early and hadn't really been back since then. It's a mess and the collateral damage is in my opinion much worse than would be the possible effects of either keeping or deleting this project. On the other hand deleting it would have just annoyed everybody. There's nothing for it, this just has to run its five days (not a second longer) and be quietly tallied by someone who is patient enough to do so. It's been about three days now so I suggest that anyone who fancies taking on the challenge should get started now--there are hundreds and hundreds of edits on that VfD. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The score is already being tallied, see the talk page: 77 keep, 107 delete. Eugene van der Pijll 13:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The score isn't tallied until the closer does it. It's a specialist job. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Who's going to be brave enough to close the VfD? Someone has to close it... Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Why would one have to be brave to close it? It seems like a straightforward "keep (no consensus)" vote. (And if I were to close it, I'd just base my decision on the tally on the talk page. There has been remarkably little sockpuppet voting and other controversial activity on this vote, and the tally is not even close to a consensus to delete. But I'm not going to close it, as I have already voted.) Eugene van der Pijll 10:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The only reason I won't be closing it is that I don't close discussions I participated in. I agree that it looks pretty straightforward, and the sooner this one is closed, after the five-day lag time is up, the better. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

If you want, I could close it, as I have not voted yet and believe that I am unbiased. So far it does look like a no-consensus, but I would take some time looking at the comments, seeing if there are any more sockpuppets, etc. Of course, I wouldn't mind if another admin closes it... Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD Closed

After an anonymous editor decided to try and close this VfD in my name, I have closed the discussion with a result of No consensus. --Allen3 ^talk 02:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Should perhaps someone talk to Gateman1997 (talk • contribs) about this threat to renominate the project. Dragons flight 16:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous poster at Robert W. Welch Jr.

I'm not sure if this is the most appropriate place for this, so if there's a better place please let me know.

There's a problem arising in the Robert W. Welch Jr. article. What appears to be a single anonymous poster has posted an atricle which is a direct copy from this site: http://www.robertwelchuniversity.org/content.php?con=40 . In addition to being a copyright violation, the information from the site appears to be highly biased on a controversial subject. I have attempted to post a more NPOV article on this subjcet (see the Revision as of 02:13, 12 August 2005) but the anonymous poster keeps deleting any information except his or her own.

In addition to the Welch article, it appears this same poster has created similar problems at the John Birch Society, Joe Kernan, and Mitch Daniels articles.

This poster (assuming it is one person) posts anonymously using addresses starting with 63.134.129. Among the variations on this are 63.134.129.90, 63.134.129.13, 63.134.129.11, 63.134.129.112, 63.134.129.142, 63.134.129.158, 63.134.129.191, 63.134.129.223, 63.134.129.31, 63.134.129.223, 63.134.129.189, 63.134.129.75, 63.134.129.191, 63.134.129.210, and several others. It also appears Western Goals Foundation may be the same poster.

I'm open to suggestions on how this should best be handled. MK2 04:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Gracious. This has been going on since April? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Remove all CopyVio material, if the editor persists in re-inserting then block with range blocks. Let me know if you need help with that. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the article started with copyvio from the Welch site. Gonna be a bit tricky -- might make most sense to totally delete it as a pure copyvio, and then MK2 can restore his original version. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, judging from some of his other edits, this poster has been doing this kind of thing since at least December of last year. (It's hard to track down because he has a slightly different name each time he signs on.) No reason to think he's likely to stop.

I have no problem with restoring my previous versions, (I'll go and give it another shot) but I don't want to participate in a revert war. And I have no idea what a range block is or how to use one. MK2 07:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MediaWiki:bad image list

What the heck is this page, other than Tim Starling's personal opinion? Zoe 20:37, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

The software prevents any image listed there from being inserted inline into a page. It was created for the purpose of combatting vandalism. Its weakness is that it can only be used for images which consensus has decreed should not be shown inline in the relevant article, e.g. autofellatio2.jpg; consequently, unless we want Image:Circpn.jpg to disappear from its article, we can't list it on this page to prevent people using it for vandalism on other pages. — Dan | Talk 20:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Where was there consensus that this image be put there? Zoe 23:51, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

no one made enough of a fuss when it was put there to worry about. Incerdently if you reopen this issue I think it may be posible to ban you under the dissruption clause. I mean the fight over at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency is bad enough but GNAA got listed on VFD again. I feel that restarting the Autofellatio debate is not something we need right now. In short please for the love of Exploding whales leve this issue alone for now.Geni 00:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME!!!!! Who the xxxxx died and made you God? And have you seen that I was not the person who brought up the image for a vote for delete in WP:IFD for apparently the THIRD time? 04:09, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Good god, both of you cool it. No threats and no yelling. Let's try discussing what this discussion is about now. Dmcdevit·t 04:28, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

oh dear. I appolgise if my extreamly lighhearted tone was missinterprted and I apologise for giving anyone the impression that I would ban them. No I can't stop anyone from reopening this issue if they want but I really really hope they don't. Again I'm sorry.Geni 11:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Ok. Cease fire, everyone. Play the ball, not the man, etc. The question is "How is/was consensus for these images determined?" - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe that consensus for not showing the autofellatio 2 image inline was reached at talk:Autofellatio, I presume that the autofellation thumb image is there for the same reason. I can't remember where the request was made for a technical enforcement measure, but I wouldn't be suprised if it arose out of the previous autofellatio IfD debate. Imho having a major debate about the introduction of this feature wasn't necessary, but consensus must be reached for each image that is added to it. Thryduulf 06:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

technical inforcement was due to it's use in vandalism. The agreement not to put it inline wasn't exactly due to consensus but more due to fatgue on both sides. now will people please stop tyring to reopen old battles or are we going to have to have a debate over schools as well?Geni 11:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The issue was partially decided at Talk:Autofellatio and in a series of IFD arguments (which I'll find later when I have the time to search the archives), but mostly here and here. — Dan | Talk 13:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

after everybody was really fed up with the topic, I think both sides were grateful for the face-saving compromise of "link, but don't inline". I don't think any other result will come of it if we go through the excrutiating debate again, apart from more workforce and nerves lost to more productive use. dab (ᛏ) 19:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The decision was on the basis of an earlier image that we held a vote on. If I recall correctly the vote was headed for a no consensus and there was some argument over how to interpret that. Jimbo Wales intervened and said that the image in question was unencyclopedic in his opinion and if not deleted it should at least be linked rather than inlined. He has since then expressed his personal satisfaction with the eventual outcome--that the old image was deleted as a copyright violation, a drawing was placed inline and agreed to be generally suitable, and a new image was obtained with a compatible licence, and this new image was linked rather than inlined. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:3rrblock

Hi. Just to let you admins know, I've created a handy template at Template:3rrblock. It includes links to the reverts and everything, so it might be useful in dealing with 3rr vios. Let me know what you think. Vacuum c 03:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

This appears to be redundant to {{3RR3}}, though the new one has a bit more. Was that intentional? Dmcdevit·t 06:38, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

No, it wasn't intentional. I do believe my template ought to be used, however, because it puts the onus on the blocking administrator to provide evidence of the reverts and thus quells any unnecessary squabbling. Vacuum c 20:43, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

This would seem to add to the work involved in issuing what should be a simple block. All the evidence will already have been presented at WP:AN/3, or at least should have been. -Splash 20:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I prefer mine it's less work User:Geni/3RR(although i do need to get round to makeing a mention that you can edit your talk page).Geni 00:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Server trouble?

Is it just me or has the Wiki been unusually slow and unstable the last couple of weeks? I get 'no response' errors about 30% of the time I hit submit. And it's not even peak time. Radiant_>|< 12:18, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

It's not just you. The good news is that most of the time when you get "Server error/no response", the edit was committed anyway.

Atlant 12:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked IP returns immediately

I blocked Zivinbudas as 85.206.202.162, and he returns immediately so Dab has to revert his vandalism. What happened? If someone unblocked him, I'd like to know why.--Wiglaf 15:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

If someone else blocked him as well for a shorter period of time, the shorter block expires first. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 18:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

His most recent edit was one minute before you blocked him (cf. the block log and his contribs). I always refresh a vandal's contribs list directly after I block him to make sure I haven't missed any edits. — Dan | Talk 18:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess it had something to to with the slowness of the server :).--Wiglaf 19:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Zivinbudas is very quick to redial. If you block one of his IPs, make sure it is a /21 rangeblock, otherwise it will have no effect at all. Also, I suppose we should note somewhere that his 1 year ban is reset. dab (ᛏ) 19:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Dab—check User:Zivinbudas. :-) Tomer ^TALK 23:59, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Can we as ordinary admins reset his block is that a task for the arbitration committee?--Wiglaf 19:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I have reset his block.--Wiglaf 20:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It might not be such a bad idea to keep track of the socks/IPs he edits from that cause the ban to be reset, similar to the way it's being done at User:Lir. Tomer ^TALK 23:59, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ehoxha

This isn't yet a dispute, but because I'm not knowledgeable enough about the topic, I'd like to see someone take a look at User:Ehoxha's edits to Freedom Institute, which seem to promote a pro-Bush POV (he removed a parargraph critical of the organization from the article). BTW: the username is also probably a cause for concern. AlbertR 21:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History pages?

Is it just me, or has the format of history pages changed? There's only a single space between the date and the username, where before I'm sure there used to be a few dots, or something. It just doesn't look right, anyway. I can't see any MediaWiki: pages that have been edited recently that might have caused this. sjorford →•← 12:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed the same thing. It is somewhat annoying as the anon IPs tend to blend in with the dates. - SimonP 15:20, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking opinions

Please take a look at Talk:Religion and schizotypy#Moving the page/redirects and the history on Religion and schizotypy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). I would like to solicit opinions from fellow admins on this as to whether I'm being (un)reasonable or not. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking open proxies

We very much need a software upgrade that would allow for blocking of all known open proxies, even if there are a very large number of them. See for instance the edit history of Hurricane Camille: [1]. -- Curps 16:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. It's probably RyanCahn. There's a vandal stalking me, and he's the only person I've pissed off recently. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I've just collected a huge list of IPs that have been stalking Cyrius, (and actually, I'm still collecting them). How do I make sure they are open proxies, other than just doing a google search and seeing if they pop up on those illegal lists of open proxies? Func( t, c, @, ) 18:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

You might want to check out the incident here. I checked those IP addresses against a bunch of RBLs using this. Feel free to ask if you need help checking any of them. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:NowCommons

Could someone please see my comments on the category's talk page and start doing something about it? IMO, enwiki is too focused on bureaucracy and too little focused on getting things done. Jon Harald Søby \ ^{no na} 16:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

If I delete nowcommons images, would anyone really mind? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 20:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

If in the process you lose essential copyright information, such as the list of original authors, then yes we would all mind. Moving a GFDL image to commons means more than just uploading it over there, so one needs to check that all the neccesary steps were taken before the image is deleted. For the most part, people have been discouraged from deleting NowCommons images while we await the magic MediaWiki tool that will make it simple to move the authorship and version information to Commons. Dragons flight 20:30, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dodgy Unicode again

Following up the discussion above about Chinese usernames, I note that User:Сurps and User:Сdс have been registered, but these are not the same as the known users Curps and Cdc - instead the c's and d's are Cyrillic letters, which look the same but are separate characters as far as Unicode is concerned. They don't have any edits, but they ought to be blocked indefinitely anyway, as probable bad faith accounts. (Three similar accounts have been blocked already, see list at [2].)

Putting in some sort of automatic block or check for such usernames sounds like a nightmare, so it's probably just something to keep an eye out for. (Is there a way of generating something like Special:Listusers&startfrom=Zzzzz?)

Try [3]. (However, this is only for users with a user page. You can also try the User talk pages.) Eugene van der Pijll 21:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

On a related note, the discussion further up the page doesn't seem to appear in the TOC (it should be 7.4) - I'm guessing this is because there are Chinese characters in the heading. Known bug? sjorford →•← 17:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

the users have been blocked.Geni 17:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I pre-emptively registered the Cyrillic Curps myself, after Func reported his impostor. It might have been simpler to just block indefinitely, but this way I'm sure even if the block drops for some reason. -- Curps 02:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Somebody made a template a month or so back that you could put on the user and user talk pages of accounts you register to preemptively prevent impersonation. Unfortunately I can't remember what the template is called... Thryduulf 10:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

{{Doppelganger}}, of the form {{Doppelganger|RealUser}}:

{{Doppelganger|RealUser}} --Calton | Talk 10:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. :) -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 18:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that template. ‡ Jarlaxle 20:43, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final decisions

The arbitration committee has reached final decisions in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Emico and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Argyrosargyrou →Raul654 20:09, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fenian Swine

Should User:Fenian Swine be required to come up with a less contentious User name? Zoe 22:28, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Since I think "Irish Pig" would, I'd argue yes from analogy. Whining that no offence was intended will no doubt ensue. - Nunh-huh 22:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, he claims that he is a Fenian. Zoe 22:45, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

And so the whining begins<g>. - Nunh-huh 22:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Let the guy have his name for God's sake and get a life you people. He is probably wanting to make some useful contribution, let him get on with it and don't piss him off so he buggers off. You admins are out of control, don't you have anything better to do, like making a proper contribution to this endeavour? --81.76.36.114 14:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If he is wanting to make some useful contribution, an inoffensive name will aid, not hinder him. - Nunh-huh 16:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Neither should the name he has hinder him - lighten up, move on and spread peace. There is work to be done. --81.79.117.98 16:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It shouldn't but it could cause other editors to take his edits less seriously. From Wikipedia:Username:

Remember that a controversial name may colour other users' perspective on your own credibility or political viewpoint. In addition remember that Wikipedia is a world-wide source book and so take care in selecting a name to avoid anything that might potentially cause offence to someone from a different culture, religious or ethnic group.

Wikipedia recommends that users avoid

1. names of politicians, military or religious figures or events;
2. any other names that may be seen as potentially offensive, or endorsing or opposing the politics, policies or beliefs of a public figure.

People should be able to judge you purely on your contributions, not an emotional response to a potentially controversial nickname. Avoiding an offensive or insensitive name is in your own interest. So do please be careful. Remember you are working as part of a community. Show everyone else the respect for their beliefs that you expect them to show to you.

It's in the user's best interests to select a name that does not purposely offend. slambo 17:11, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• At least have the common courtesy to tell me about this.I have made serious edit's to this project and I feel it would be highly unfair to force me to change my name.I am a Fenian and mean no offence by my name.--Fenian Swine 23:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Well that is a problem that the 'other' users will have to work through. If User:Fenian Swine finds his edits are less well received, or he receives negative comment on his talk page he may well reconsider his name, but that should be up to him. My point is that it should not be in the domain of admins to police this area of policy in such a rabid fashion.

This whole 'offensiveness' topic is obscured by subjectivity. For example, the user name Nunh-huh could be construed to be offensive to large numbers of disabled people. I work with disabled people, many of whom are speech impaired, and that particular user name resembles a phoenetic reconstruction of some profoundly speech impaired people's attempts to vocalise.

But that would be political correctness gone mad, which is precisely what this admins debate about an honest users name is. PC GONE MAD. BTW, your name, slambo, is only one consonant away from sambo - where does it stop? Lighten up, move on and get to work. --81.77.137.70 18:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

All of this has been discussed on the user's talk page. The user understands the issue and desires to continue using this username. If anyone feels strongly enough to pursue this, I believe the appropriate forum is WP:RFC, not here (since it would be community consensus that matters, not administrator consensus). As 81.77.137.70 says, please move on and get to work. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:08, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

It's already on RfC, I brought it here because nothing was being discussed there. Zoe 04:33, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I myself have enjoyed many a discussion with the above user and have found him to be a serious individual who found his name through a private joke. He desires to keep the name and continue making serious edits. PS He really is a fenian. I see no problem.Tunney 23:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Look, I wouldn't be offended by it. You're not offended by it. But someone is offended enough by it to go to this trouble. He should change the name and move on. Can't he just call himself Fenian? Or something more subtle that more sensitive editors just won't get? Clair de Lune 07:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with offensive usernames, this is about the abuse of admin powers by Zoe. He is not offended by the name but is just flexing his "administerial bollocks", not because it is within his authority to do so, but because it contradicts his POV and he can. Until there is a concensus that this username violates WP policy it should be unblocked, and Zoe should be sanctioned appropriately. His edit history reveals a swift propensity to revert, delete and block, but no willingness to respond to criticism or genuine enquiry as to his actions. Which admin has the necessary "administerial bollocks" to reinstate this username until such time as there is a proper concensus? --81.76.0.139 11:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• I don't want to get involved in this issue, but I just want to point out that insulting people isn't going to win you any sympathy. Radiant_>|< 12:34, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

There is no insult to anyone, just a colourful analogy. I do not want sympathy. I want fairness and transparency in this closed process for an unfairly maligned user, predicated on one particular admin's POV regarding the users name. Nobody has responded to the point at hand: what authority did Zoe have to block this user, and what is any other responsible admin going to do about it? If you are an admin, please do get involved in the issue and sort this out. See: Rfc for a fuller debate. I also repeat, I am not Fenian Swine. --81.76.39.113 13:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

No, you're probably one of the many concerned citizens who wants to keep people honest by heaping scathing commentary on them. Ascribing nasty motives and clamoring for sanctions whenever people don't keel over immediately to cater to your demands is not a good way to go about things. Admins are volunteers too, you know. Two wrongs don't make a right -- just because you see admins misbehave doesn't mean you can beat your chest in self-righteous indignation pointing it out and expect people to accommodate you. 69.46.0.40 13:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Relax 69, let's get back to the point here. This discussion started about a possible violation of WP user name policy. No concensus has been reached that this particular name breached the policy, yet the user has been banned. This is wrong. A responsible admin should rectify this, that is my point. You are the only one engaged in chest beating as I see it. --81.76.39.113 13:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, that is your point, and if "get a life" and "flexing administerial bollocks" and "X should be sanctioned appropriately" are supposed to be rational support for it... But, hey, don't mind l'il old me. You have a Point, this Entitles you to things. I don't, and will shut up now. 69.46.0.40 13:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

What? Stick to the issues, try not to become emotional. A WikiPedian has been banned without due process on the whim of one particular admin. There was no concensus that the name was in violation of WP policy. I repeat: this is wrong, and should be addressed. I am not attacking you or all admins, although I suspect from your comments that you are an unsigned in admin. I think admins perform an admirable function, but there are lapses that need to be addressed and, in my opinion, this is one of them. --81.76.39.113 13:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I bid your fairwell.Good look to Zoe in the future.May she block many more innocent helpful user's such as myself.Also your blocks are highly ineffective as I can still edit.Ticfaidh Ár Lá.--213.202.143.141 14:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

well what do you expect I just undid your block. the suer name produces few results from google. I think a policy of wait and see would have been best.Geni 14:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

For F**k's sake, why did this take so long? --81.76.39.113 14:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

This reminds me of the matter of User:ClockworkSoul's and User:CyborgTosser's user names, which came up when each of them had their RFA. ClockworkTroll agreed to become ClockworkSoul, while CyborgTosser kept his user name, (outside of the US, I gather that the word "tosser" isn't, um, nice, or something).

As was the case for CyborgTosser, I needed someone to explain to me why "Fenian Swine" was offensive, and in the end, I really don't see the problem, given that he is a "Fenian". If he was a British apologist for Oliver Cromwell, it might be a different matter, but since he isn't, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. Func( t, c, @, ) 16:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

And the issue remains, who the hell is going to reprimand the loose cannon, renegade 'admin' that masquerades around these parts as Zoe. Probably also known as Anon:69.46.0.40

Zoe is a hard working competant admin. I 've seen rough admins and zoe isn't one of them.Geni 19:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Wait, let me guess, this ID will be miraculously blocked as well for "violating" WP policy. NewsFlash people: This is called suppression of free speech censorship, oppression, fascism - the list goes on. I will now go off to don my brown shirt, and my black hat. --Mr Swine 17:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

No wikipedia is a private organisation it has no power to affect your freedom of speach. If you ahve a problem with the way wikipedia is run you are free to level or try getting policy changed via the normal process.Geni 19:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sock/impostor update

Please note that when I reverted Muc Fíníneach for blanking a comment by Davetunney on User talk:Zoe, s/he created Davetunney., a Davetunney lookalike with a period at the end of the name and complete with copycat userpages, and used it to blank the comment again. Another oddity: the apparently real Davetunney who made the comment about enjoying discussions with User:Fenian Swine in this thread (see page history, but see also this), was round about the same time suggesting Fenian Swine be banned. Oh, btw, and Fenian Swine apparently nominated Davetunney for admin. Yawn... one possible reason for these inconsistencies might be that Davetunney's account has been compromised. But I suggest the only sensible way of sorting out these stage-Irishman japes would be through an IP check of, uh, several accounts. I've permabanned Davetunney.-with-the-period, of course. Unless somebody here protests, I'm going to leave the autoblocker to its dirty work, too. Bishonen | talk 19:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I am thoroughly confused by this whole thing, but User:Fenian Swine. (with a period) was editing the user page of User:Fenian Swine (without a period) in ways that were not entirely positive, so I blocked the swine-with-a-period. FreplySpang (talk) 16:44, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD that is WAY overdue

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Adequacy Style Troll. Someone want to close this? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Seems to me that most of the 'keep' voters are sockpuppets. Familiar crowd. Let me guess, WP:KAANASTFDB2? Radiant_>|< 10:10, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• OK, I'll close it. Will take some time. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Hold on, it doesn't appear to be linked to the August 3 log, or any other log, resubmitting instead. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe it was removed from the daily log? (then again I have looked over August 3 and didn't see evidence thereof) Radiant_>|< 13:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion reminder

A friendly reminder to those who are doing speedy deletion: Images are not redundant, and therefore should be placed on IFD instead, if they are merely similar, such as JPEG versions of PNG images. I am seeing more of these situations popping up, and was recently asked about it. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• OK, I was told that the wording on that policy on CSD is a little ambiguous, so I copyedited and added "or any other picture that has been saved in a different image file format" to make it more clear. If you can make it more clear, be my guest. The point, as I recall, is that different file formats each have their own pros and cons (which are listed on WP:IUP#Format), and thus when you convert an image from JPEG to PNG, some of the resolution and quality may change. That is why they should not be candidates for speedy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you convert from JPEG to PNG there is a 100% chance of quality loss, so the image could be deleted without remorse. If you compress them separetely from the same matrix, that's a different story. --Sn0wflake 18:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Really? JPEG is the lossy format, not PNG, so you lose information when you convert from PNG to JPEG, not the other way round. If you convert from JPEG to PNG, you just end up with a bigger file. Rl 18:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe you might be missing my point, somewhat. I am not some JPEG advocate, I am merely implying that any compressed image which is converted to another compressed standard produces a result worse than the original. The best you can hope for is that it looks just as good, but pixel-level that's not true, right. So unless the two versions are generates from the same PSD (for example), you can rarely win anything by keeping the replica. Unless maybe pngcrush is very wisely and carefully used? --Sn0wflake 19:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Taking this off the noticeboard. Answer at User talk:Sn0wflake. Rl 19:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• While Rl is correct, the point is that not everybody knows that, so the CSD should simply state that having two identical images in different file formats is not grounds for deletion (e.g. GIF is also lossless, but converting JPEG to GIF can nevertheless lose quality because of the lower color depth). Radiant_>|< 08:01, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lost archived peer review

Could someone give me a clue what's happened to Peer review/United Kingdom and weapons of mass destruction? Thanks - SP-KP 18:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

It appears that this peer review was originally submitted with several other pages at Wikipedia:Peer review/France and weapons of mass destruction. Checking what pages link to the article is usually the quickest way to track down peer reviews such as this when the link on the talk page is not working do to page moves or similar problems. --Allen3 ^talk 19:37, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canada Free Press and Judi McLeod

Canada Free Press and Judi McLeod have been the target of a smear campaign by an anonymous user who has made other attacks on them in the past (off Wikipedia); Hobbes000 (talk • contribs) (a brand-spanking newbie) seems to have corrected the article, but Ms. McLeod and the paper are understandably concerned about these articles. If some neutral parties would watchlist these articles in case in case more potentially libelous material is added, it would be appreciated. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Watchlisted. I'll keep an eye out. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VFD on Moonbat

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Moonbat has been running for 24 days and no-one has actually closed it. I would do it myself only I have voted in it. David | Talk 22:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flooding a new page at wikipedia, all time !! [Kourosh_ziabari]

You are a wiki admin and I need your help. Can you explain about this changes to my page? [4] He is flooding page Kourosh ziabari with under-18 langauge all time and I don't know what to do 70.52.6.147 He uses many IPs and Wiki IDs and I don't know what to do. 70.52.6.147 is his last IP. I adivce you to take a visit from this comparation of main text and hacked text. I can name this, just hacking a page. Using the most abusing comments, word and phrases for a 15 years old jounrliast! I can not call it anything except hacking.

(Unsigned comments by Kourosh ziabari (talk • contribs) 23:53, August 24, 2005

[edit] People attmepting to delete with no reason at all

Pages being affected: -Ryan Moore -Kitty Goodard -Blood Line I found people requesting that my pages were delted, claming it was a student film. As the writer of the film, I can confirm that the movie is real and being made. It is not a student film. I was shocked and digusting at the accusations that because of my age, I wa snotbelived. SOme one accused me of starting several page sto promote a film I want to make. It is being made and it is not promotion. I am adding a geunie independent film and tweo confirmed cast members. Please, I request that people stop mocking my film and discontinue their requests for my pages to be taken down. I hope you make the right descion, because I am very upset at this unfairness

• Note Ryan does not seem to understand what Wikipedia is and is not. -- Corey.spring 10:18, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

• delted , I was shocked and disgusting (that was my favorite one, was snotbelieved, SOme, page sto, it is not promotion, tweo. First of all, if the article was written like the above paragraph it may have not been because of your age. Also, If you are a writer, god help anyone who tries to read that. By the way, a good phrase I read on wikipedia somewhere is that if your subject is notable enough, then someone else without a direct connection to it will come along a write an article. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpupperary

This is going to be easy, User:Adamwankenobi already confessed, a check may be done to make sure. [5]. User is agresively reverting Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Adamwankenobi was blocked previously for a number of reasons. I hereby request you EXTERMINATE! him. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

User openly admits on his user page (among other places) to repeated vandalism to George W. Bush. He apparently fails to realize that Wikipedia does not tolerate such behavior, and seeks to disrupt an article for personal satisfaction. Nufy8 02:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"It's all in good fun" - response to sockpuppetry and vandalism. This shows someone who doesn't care if he breaks the rules. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:29, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

To be fair he has ceased and desisted the sockpuppetry. I have had my disputes with him but he's stopped his part in the Bush vandalism a while ago. Redwolf24 03:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, as far as I am concerned he could be the one vandalising bush in the past week. Dubya is an idiot btw, just to establish my pov. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 17:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Main page intro

• Can someone please make the 2001 on the Main Page introduction a link to the 2001 page? Thanks! Flarn 00:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • This has been discussed, believe it or not, and the current link situation represents the outcome of a lengthy argument, so I think it's best not to mess with it. — Dan | Talk 05:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] use of user:Diablo

Hi,

I just signed up as fr:Utilisateur:Diablo and would like to use the same user name in EN Wikipedia.

The previous contributor using did only 3 edits in 2003 & nothing after :

   * 14:50, 9 December 2003 (hist) (diff) Cyclops (comics)
   * 14:49, 9 December 2003 (hist) (diff) m Cyclops (comics)
   * 14:43, 9 December 2003 (hist) (diff) m Archangel (comics)

Could you send me by new e-mail the new password accordingly (I placed an interwiki on User:Diablo's page to French Page Utilisateur)

Yours sincerely,

fr:Utilisateur:Diablo

84.5.88.98 18:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I think doing something like that would be a violation of GFDL. Zoe 19:57, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

If en:User:Diablo was a vandal impostor of a longstanding user on another wikipedia, you could ask a bureaucrat to change their name to something else, to free up the name Diablo for you. However, this does not seem to be the case here: this would seem to be an ordinary though short-lived user who registered the name legitimately long before you. So I don't think a bureaucrat would be justified in bumping the name. -- Curps

• You could try registering User:Diablo! both here and on FR, though. Radiant_>|< 07:37, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "consultation"

I was looking for info on consultation and when I searched for it something about Texas came up. Just thought you should know. Thanks, Lewiswillie.

The article at Consultation is about an event in the 19th century history of Texas. For the practice of professional advice, see consultant. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] complaint

I would like to recommend the blocking of the user Bearcat of wikipedia. This user continues to use foul language and went over the line by making a death threat in this particular post (I blocked the obsenity and name):

"This whole ****ing thing is just absurd. So Jacques Rose built them a bookshelf. Big fat hairy whoopde****ingdoo. We live in a country in which the right to a private ballot is inviolable; no Canadian is ever obliged to reveal how he or she voted in an election or referendum. [******* ******] really needs to **** off and die now. </rant-off> Bearcat, who can POV on a talk page if I want to 06:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)"

This sort of stuff can't be tolerated and is even worse than vandalism.--Esto 04:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Wishing that someone would die isn't a death threat. It would be a death threat if he said he or someone else would kill that person. ‡ Jarlaxle 06:23, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Qv Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks. Radiant_>|< 07:44, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

- oh come on, so you're saying that if I wrote "you really need to die now", that can't be considered a death threat? Especially with an obsenity mixed into it.--70.25.139.42 20:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Well from what I can see no one bothered to even mention the problem to Bearcat on his talk page. That would pretty much be the first step. - Taxman ^Talk 19:44, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Major Willy on Wheels cleanup

See the move log. He's doing the page moves faster now, about 200 pages. -- Curps

There's still about 50 or so pages left to move back. Click on the "500" link in the move log. -- Curps 12:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Admin assistance requested/username

Could someone please block User:GAYNIGGER ON WHEELS for the obvious inappropriate username? Thanks! EdwinHJ | Talk 15:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Big surprise for you all I am sure, this user is engaged in some vandalism [6]. Please block. Thanks again. EdwinHJ | Talk 15:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Curps got him indef for page move. Done. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 15:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unsubstantiated antisemitism charges on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Anti-Semitism_in_Poland archive page

On the Vfd page a former user is being accused of making anonymous antisemitic edits in two places on the page by Users "Witkacy" and "Schwartz und Weiss". The edits were actually made by 80.130.xxx.xxx who is unlikely to be the user concerned (although this is not Witkacy's belief). The situation could easily be remedied by removing the user's name. Luckily this could be done without affecting the discussion or the vote and ordinarily I would do it in accordance with the "No personal attacks" policy. However because this is on a page which would not ordinarily be edited, I thought I should run it past people to see what they think about the situation before I jump in with both feet and remove the offending name. Note that there is no doubt about the antisemitic comments. The doubt lies in the identity of the person making them. Comments ? -- Derek Ross | Talk

[edit] JarlaxleArtemis

User:JarlaxleArtemis is (for the fifth time) currently editing Wikipedia articles (e.g., [7] [8] [9]) in defiance of his ban on doing so pending resolution of his arbitration proceedings. Perhaps someone could temporarily block him and revert his edits, as has been done previously. I've notified him on his Talk page. —Psychonaut 09:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess so, but what struck me was the decision that looks like it's going to pass: he will be "banned for one year from Wikipedia". I find that staggering. I don't know a whole lot about the user, but I have seen his edits in passing and never thought they were anything but good. The only exceptions I can think of were some pictures that looked like they might be copyvios, but they were later removed. Everyking 09:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The temporary injunction is on the page "Proposed decision", so is not actually in effect yet. At least, that is how it looks to me. At the main page of the proceedings, it says, literally, "Temporary injunction (none)". Eugene van der Pijll 10:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at this diff, you'll see that the injunction is in full effect. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:06, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

So you personally have not seen any problematic behavior from this user, therefore he must be an all round good guy who dosen't deseve banning. He I've got an idea - let's get rid of the evidence pages for the AC to read documenting such minor things as deliberately breaking the sandbox, posting libelous remarks, Encoraging harrasment of his teacher by email, mailbombing admins, taunting vandals, vandalising user pages, etc. Why bother with that when we could just ask you? If you personally haven't seen bad behaviour, it can't have happened right? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 10:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, Theresa Knott really does have a point, even if she didn't present it in the best of fashions. This is JarlaxleArtemis's second arbitration case, and if you look at the evidence page, you'll clearly see that the sheer volume of evidence that is being presented against Jarlaxle is ludicrous. There's a reason why we've got the arbcom: seemingly good editors are sometimes not. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:20, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Yes I'd like to apologise for my tone. I shouldn't have edited while irritated. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to justify anyone's bad behavior, but a year seems absurd. Why not a month coupled with probation, something like that? Everyking 18:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The point isn't to punish him for misbehaving, the point is to prevent him from making it harder to build an encyclopedia. If he's causing problems now, nothing will have changed in a month. On the other hand, he seems to be in high school so perhaps in a year he will have matured a bit. Isomorphic 06:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you think he is doing more harm than good to the encyclopedia? I think it's totally unjustifiable to impose a one year ban on a good faith contributor. Only the worst trolls and those engaged in severe and persistent disruption should be subject to such a harsh penalty. It is actually self-destructive for us to treat our own contributors that way. Everyking 06:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

you don't think copyvios are a mjor problem. Fine you clean out WP:CP. see you in a month. maybe.Geni 09:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say that. Does Jarlaxle understand our copyvio policy now? I think if he'd pledge not to violate it again then the penalty should be light. If not, then I would feel more inclined towards harshness. Everyking 11:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Ahem. We've already tried that approach. And seeing that he's already "read and understood" Wikipedia policies, you're affording him not a second but a third chance? No way. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 13:22, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

JarlaxleArtemis is responsible for uploading more copyvio'd images than any other user I've encountered, even after he had been repeatedly warned by myself and several other Wikipedians on his Talk page, and even after he was forced to admit he read through and understood Wikipedia's copyright policy by his first arbitration. However, even now he continues to upload questionable material and change image copyright/license tags. I for one am tired of cleaning up after this guy. —Psychonaut 14:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Probation

Please look at Wikipedia:Probation and use the talk page to give feedback regarding this proposed arbitration remedy. What links here will tell you the cases it is proposed in. Fred Bauder 16:09, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Human Rights Servey on Wikipedia (The final post of I_sterbinski)

Dear all,

Wikipedia was recently a subject of intensive research of an huge international human right organization. A team of people from different nationalities and ages were acting on Wikipedia for 20 days, investigating previously noted anomalities of Wikipedia free editing and forming a final report, which (between the others similar reports) will later be a guide to all future moves of the organization concerning Wikipedia. Acting under an account of a real person, their privacy is to be held private. Therefore, very few private information will be revealed.

Also, this is a result of the lack of final possition of the organization concerning Wikipedia and human rights, which was still not formed.

The team's final post on Wikipedia, where they explain their actions can be found on the following addresses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I_sterbinski

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia#Human_Rights_Servey_on_Wikipedia_.28The_final_post_of_I_sterbinski.29

The team would like to thank to all the persons who took part in the correspondence with us.

We also want to appologise for keeping our identity secret for a longer period.

Best regards,

Aleksandar, Biljana, Asparuh, Christos, Valjon, Michael and Ana Luiza

I sterbinski 01:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Macedonia again. Ho hum. (damit I need a rolleye emotocon)Geni

how about, ϘϘ (qof qof) dab (ᛏ) 20:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have a clue what this is about? If so, could you post a quick explanation here? I guess I'm missing some history... Isomorphic 05:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

it's just a clumsy hoax by a frustrated editor, see User_talk:I_sterbinski, Talk:Macedonia if you're interested. dab (ᛏ) 10:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

there has been a long running battle going on on wikipedia about Macedonia. I assume that someone is trying to phase us in order to make us give in to thier pov.Geni 10:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes for Deletion v. Pages for Deletion

There currently is a minor bug in the deletion system. Some VFD's go to pages for deletion some for votes for deletion. Currently "Esquivalience" is on both, with different votes and all.TheDeletator 04:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Fixed now, courtesy of Splash. Radiant_>|< 09:06, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] fix front page

It currently reads:

1. Hurricane Katrina strengthens further to a Category 4 hurricane with winds of 233 km/h (145 mph) and begins moving towards New Orleans, Louisiana, after killing seven people in the U.S. state of Florida.

You should have it read:

1. Hurricane Katrina strengthens further to a Category 4 hurricane with winds of 150 mph and begins moving towards New Orleans, Louisiana, after killing seven people in the state of Florida. Currently it is the second-most intense named storm in the United States since 1851. A mandatory evacuation of New Orleans has been issued for the first time in history and the city sits on average six feet below sea level.

That provides much more insight about the gravity of the situation. And here is the proof: The Most Intense Hurricanes in the United States 1851-2004 with [10]. "The pressure dropped to 915 mb at 6 am. " and the last storm with that level or lower was Hurricane Camille in 1969 at 909. Hurricane Katrina is now the second most intense named hurricane since 1851 in the United States. 71.32.199.15 09:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Madchester

This admin seems not to have grsaped the blocking policy, and is ignoring my comments. So far I've found him blocking one IP address indefinitely for vandalism, and another for a week (there may be others). I think that the power has gone slightly to his head, but as he doesn't seem to be affected by my remonstrations, could someone else have a word with him? I don't think that it's a sign of anything more serious, but it needs to be nipped in the bud. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Username Trollderella

I have opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/Trollderella concerning the appropriateness of the username "Trollderella". Please direct all comments to that page. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• What's that got to do with admins? Kappa 20:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Admins tend to be more involved with community management issues, and have more experience dealing with them, than your typical editor. Nothing wrong with posting a note here when something like this comes up. Isomorphic 05:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Davidson (comedian)

Could someone think about protecting Jim Davidson (comedian)? it's suffering from chronic vandalism and I'm bored with reverting it. Kappa 20:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: article was vprotcted by Uncle G. El_C 05:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dot Six temporary injunction

DotSix, using any IP is prohibited from editing any Wikipedia page other than his talk page and the pages of this Arbitration case until a final decision is made in this case. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean the articles can be unprotected, or is it better to keep them protected? --cesarb 15:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Tried it (was also requested on WP:RFPP), didn't work, protected all again. --cesarb 16:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked DotSix for 24 hours for multiple violations of the injunction. He was actually using sockpuppets (what a surprise) since 67.182.157.6 was already blocked for a 3RR violation. Carbonite | Talk 16:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Be careful because he uses AOL. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion

To help to obtain consensus in an extensive discussion on renaming at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion, Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion (with a shortcut of WP:NFD) has been created. The purpose of the page is to hold the deletion discussions for pages in namespaces other than the main article namespace, that heretofore would have been taken to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (e.g. project pages, user pages, portal pages, and so forth). The discussion area is ready to go live. The deletion discussions of non-main namespace pages that were currently open at WP:VFD have already been transcluded there. Uncle G 01:43:13, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

• That's great, but a question: are there differentiated guidelines for namespace deletions? I'm not being snide; I really think that having no avenue for establishing communal feelings about a namespace page is only half the problem. The other half is that the same criteria have not applied to namespace pages as article-space pages, and that has left namespace in a no man's land, where anyone could put up anything and expect it to last as long as electrons flow or be deleted by the first offended admin-level user. Geogre 02:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • There are certainly differentiated guidelines for non-main namespace nominations. The text at the top of WP:NFD on what avenues to investigate before nominating something for deletion reflects what is said on Wikipedia:Deletion policy on the subject. How markedly differentiated the nomination guidelines are is a subject for discussion. As for deletion guidelines, there almost certainly are differences. Wikipedia:Brion Vibber Day almost certainly wouldn't last were it a main namespace article, but as the record of an edict from Jimbo I it would most likely be kept as a project namespace article. Uncle G 03:29:04, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  • Procedures for deleting non-main-namespace pages have always lagged behind procedures for deleting articles. The issue just hasn't come up often enough for consistent procedures to evolve. The standards, though, are different from article-space deletions since the content and purpose are entirely different. I don't think there are many cases where we really need to delete a page in the User or Wikipedia namespaces; usually redirecting or putting a "historical" tag should be enough. That said, I like the new page since the handful of non-main-namespace pages that end up on VfD usually provoke large, disruptive discussions. Isomorphic 05:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The page has been changed to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, or WP:MfD. Maurreen (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:132.241.245.49

Well over the course of many weeks and months, User:132.241.245.49 has made contributions to the site, however many of them are not in the spirit of NPOV. Edits such as [11] and [12] showcase this and he has also gone as far as to vandalise pages: [13], [14], the last example being quite recently. He has been left notices on his talk page about his POV editing but it doesn't seem to be getting through. I feel that he needs a mentor or someone with experience to help him learn how to edit an article neutrally because some of his contributions have actually been worthwhile. Derktar 06:13, August 29, 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Did You Know? - Spelling mistake

Could someone please change the "Yrauskin Airport" entry in the "Did You Know" section on the main page to "Yrausquin Airport" (it's been misspelled). "Yrauskin" gets only 4 Googles while "Yrausquin" gets 655. I've already moved the page to the correct title. Alr 14:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I have corrected it on the template. -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! Alr 15:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Willy has now got Milk

The MilkMan (talk • contribs) seems to be Willy under a new name or a copycat. He is creating a bunch of sleeper accounts on a daily basis. I have indef blocked all the new ones I found today. I also decided to block "Milk"-named accounts with zero contributions, on the grounds that when a legitimate new user first creates an account, it's usually for the purpose of making an edit.

• Curps, why do you say he is Willy? I have no objection to your blocking the various milkpuppets. He spent a couple of days sending me copious "fuck you" emails after I blocked ten or so of them. FreplySpang (talk) 17:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's characteristic of Willy to register a bunch of sleeper accounts, then let them age for a while and make a few edits with them (often minor vandalism or short taunts on the user or talk page). By doing so they pass the non-newbie threshold checking to be able to do page moves, and hence pagemove vandalism. There really isn't any other reason to register sleeper accounts unless you have long term plans to use them for pagemove vandalism. That's Willy's style. It's also very telling that many "MilkMan" accounts started appearing on August 26, the very day we staved off the latest wave of Willy pagemove vandalism. Anyway, if it's not Willy, it's a copycat who wishes to do much the same things. -- Curps 18:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Aha. That makes sense, thanks. FreplySpang (talk) 18:34, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • fear the copycats, though. We are relying rather too much that there will not be a hundred willies ante portas one fine morning. The web is wide and full of crazy people, I don't feel good about this... I would ask that ordinary admins get an emergency break button, stopping all page moves, wiki-wide, only to be used during massive attacks. dab (ᛏ) 18:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    • That would be great. Maybe not all admins, but at least all bureaucrats. We're going to have to keep finding ways to combat sneaky vandalism. As Wikipedia gets more and more popular (as it is obvious that will continue) there will increasingly be more and more people willing to be more and more persistent in vandalizing. The only way to keep this place sane will be to make sure that on the whole fixing vandalism is cheaper than vandalizing. - Taxman ^Talk 19:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Any news yet from the developers about a (temporary/emergency) solution? Radiant_>|< 09:52, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Can't there be a change to make page moves more easily revertable like regular edits are? — Omegatron 13:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

It will require a change to the Mediawiki software. See bugzilla:3185 to vote for rollback of moves to be corrected, and bugzilla:1454 for a request to throttle how fast moves may be made. --Allen3 ^talk 15:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Everything should be throttled to prevent bots. It isn't currently?

I've read a little about "bot flags" and assumed people needed to get their bots approved before they could get these flags, which would then allow them to do fast bot-like things and not be restricted by the software. — Omegatron 15:36, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

They do, but nothing stops someone from running something like Tcl/Expect on they're machine that basically makes the clicks for them. I'm assuming there's similar tools for Windows, but even if not, I'm sure that's whats going on in some cases. - Taxman ^Talk 16:51, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

According to them, we should be able to rollback page moves now. --AllyUnion (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind... didn't know there was a bug still. --AllyUnion (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I mean limited by the server-side software, not the browser. Minimum amount of time between each edit from the same IP, maximum number of consecutive page moves in a given time period, etc. — Omegatron 06:00, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia Dramatica

After a WP:3RR complaint, I blocked both SchmuckyTheCat and 2004-12-29T22:45Z for 24 hours for a 3RR violation (2004-12-29T22:45Z documented it at WP:AN/3RR). Following this, Dmcdevit protected the page, per WP:RfPP. Schmucky beleives, as he says on his talk page and at the administrator's noticeboard of incidents (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Real life sometimes intrudes), that the information on the founder's previous employment was evidence of "clear real-life harrassment", and that Jimbo should be informed. I disagreed on his views, but promised him I'd take the matter to WP:AN. Can some admins please take a look at the case and review it? Thanks in advance! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually I protected it beofre you did the blocks, not that it really matters. Schmucky left the not on my talk page, too, but I honestly don't know what to think about it. I don't know or care much about this article, and I only protected it because of the obvious edit war. Dmcdevit·t 04:59, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it harassment. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The seven external links following Sherrod DeGrippo's name look a little stalkerish to me, and after reviewing the edit history, I can't help but feel that User:2004-12-29T22:45Z was showing quite a bit of inappropriate POV in the matter...not that this is an admin matter. With the page protected, I hope they can work this out on the talk page. Flcelloguy's actions here are entirely justified under 3RR, as I think it would be difficult to show that 2004-12-29T22:45Z's edits represent "pure vandalism" as 3RR allows for. Func( t, c, @, ) 14:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

To be fair to user:2004-12-29T22:45Z a lot the external links were only added to apease User:SqueakBox and confirm that ED:GirlVinyl = Sherood DeGripoo (wether the info should be there is another matter and being discussed ATM).--ElvisThePrince 15:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

This user 2004-12-29T22:45Z concerns me. I'd appreciate very much a little extra attention paid to this user's contribs in general, and some extra thought given. There are a number of peculiarities here (see my comments), few of which I can isolate to specific policy violations, but which combine to set off my stinky fishy odor detector. I'd like a few eyeballs and brains here before taking steps. — Xiong熊talk* 18:05, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

[edit] harassment by ginadana

I am being harassed by user:ginadana who is trying to advance an anti-blog adgenda along with user:dreamguy (see how he votes to delete blogs). Gina Dana has written to my talk page with warnings. Aparently I misunderstand some secret policy. But rather than warn once, she advanced to the final warning right away in her next edit. I hadn't even made any more edits or responded. She also claims that users are not allowed to edit policy, but this is clearly untrue because how would policy get there otherwise and why would access be allowed? please help! 12.111.139.2 23:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)--

[edit] Image Problem

I have inadvertently uploaded an image over Image:Flathead_Indians.jpg. It was an image of a Flathead delegation in Washington, D.C. I would gladly fix it myself, but the image page isn't giving me a revert button, or any sign that there was a different image there. Can someone fix this? I'll gladly reload the Flathead Family image that overwrote this. TIA, Mwanner 23:47, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

• As per your request I deleted what you uploaded here. There is no revert button because the image you uploaded was actually the first image saved under that name here on en.wikipedia. The image that "you saved over" is actually the image saved on Wikipedia Commons. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • By the way, Mwanner, if you did not know, the feature that we are discussing allows users to use images from Wikipedia Commons without ever having to upload a local copy here on to en.wikipedia. The bug in this feature is that similar situations can occur in which someone can upload an image with the same filename that "blocks" the one from Commons. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks. I knew there had to be an explanation. So if one could rename images, that would have been a fix... why is there no Image Move? Thanks again. Mwanner 02:00, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog at WP:CP

The backlog on this page is rediculous. It's grown to be about 310kb long and takes an unreasonable amount of time to load. I would much appriciate someone cleaning it up at least a little. Alr 02:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not that bad, it's been getting shorter lately. Moving the stuff older than seven days to a different pagemight be useful though? --fvw* 15:28, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. Alr 18:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

For the past several days, I have been one of the only ones working on clearing the backlog (although there has been some significant help today). Since I am no expert on copyright, this can be somewhat problematic and it tends to result in me leaving items on the list when I'm not sure what to do with them. With pages needing wikification listed as the collaboration of the week, the list is growing faster than I can clear it. Assistance is definitely needed. After a concerted effort the size is down a bit, but it's going to keep growing fairly rapidly for at least the duration of the week.

Would it be reasonable to have transcluded daily subpages like at WP:CfD and other similar pages? (They could even be deleted as they are cleared, since it takes admins to finish the clearing already.) One of the problems right now is that the page is so large that any changes are slow. This makes it difficult to add new entries or to add useful comments to old ones. -Aranel (Sarah) 18:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I started working on the backlog yesterday -- I'm making it my major project at least until we bring it back down to manageable levels (and I do intend to go on working WP:CP after that, too). I think the best plan is to work through the backlog and ignore things that are too potentially complicated to deal with quickly. That might mean leaving a few entries for each day, but I think it makes more sense to deal with those after the backlog is sorted rather than drawing out the whole process. Incidentally, there's currently a discussion on WikiEn-l about good practice with regard to confirmations of permission that you might be interested in, Aranel. --Ngb ^?!? 18:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I definately think subpages are a very good idea for WP:CP, as the page is now larger and than WP:PUI, and probably sone others. Alr 18:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{wikitravel}}

I've come across this template in an article I'm working on, I get the feeling that its slightly deceptive since it is an external link that looks like an internal link. This is fine in the case of the commons since we're all working under the same license, but wikitravel doesn't work under the GFDL. Sould this template be used and if so, should it only be put in the external links section?--nixie 02:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length at TFD and the consensus was that links to non WikiMedia wiki projects are acceptable but they belong in the external links section of the article. I don't know where you came across this template, but if it was at the top of the article or anywhere else, it should be moved to an external links section. Dragons flight 02:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

It was in the see also section, but I've since moved it to external links. Thanks.--nixie 02:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• In my experience, TFD has a tendency to delete external link templates unless they're about sisterprojects. Of course, the way this one currently looks it won't make much of a difference, but as long as people aren't going to put up brightly colored boxes... Radiant_>|< 07:03, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Curps' block bot

Curps is currently running a block bot which automatically blocks all non-admins that make too many page moves (and it promptly blocked me when I was undoing a page move spree too). He refuses to get it Wikipedia:Bots certified first. The bots policy suggests blocking, but as the bot can even run blocked (admins can block even when blocked themselves) and he's threatened to unblock himself if blocked, something else may be necessary. --fvw* 08:21, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at AN/I (permanent link: [15]), and please see Special:Log/move for August 26. The traditional Willy pagemove vandalism always stopped after around 40 or so pages, even when we didn't block him in time. On August 26, as User:Dieseldrinker, he was doing 75 pagemoves per minute, see [16] and didn't stop until he was blocked. It took several admins and non-admins a few hours to undo what he did in only 2 1/2 minutes. He then launched 8 more attacks on the same day, however by this time I was running the bot and stopped him each time after about 20-30 pagemoves.

This is a new level of vandalism that we can't cope with by traditional means. As an urgent practical necessity, I am running a block bot. I hope that we will soon have pagemove throttling or some other mechanism that will make this unnecessary. Abstract principles have to be weighed against the need to prevent massive vandalism on a scale never seen before.

I have raised the trigger threshold for page moves to a new and higher level that will almost certainly prevent the triggering that happened to Fvw (who moved more than 16 pages per minute). By the way, the bot intentionally avoids blocking admins, but because Fvw was listed as "inactive" at Wikipedia:List of administrators I had not added him to the list; I have now added all "inactive" admins to the do-not-block list as well.

-- Curps 08:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I support running the bot, given the circumstances. I don't see why it shouldn't also go to Wikipedia:Bots for retrospective approval; maybe they can suggest an improvement to it, given their greater experience of running such creatures.-gadfium 09:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Traditional bots edit pages, this one doesn't. Traditional bots do leisurely janitorial work, fixing an interwiki link here or a bit of text there, and there's plenty of time to discuss their pros and cons. This bot was run in response to an emergency situation (the events of August 26). I am not sure that Wikipedia:Bots is the appropriate forum... the discussion that takes place there is essentially entirely by AllyUnion. I posted a notice on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents back on August 26, as that seemed to be a wider forum where far more people would see it. -- Curps 09:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• I tend to think the bot should be OK in this instance as long as the set number of moves is higher than what any normal editor can reasonably be expected to make and also lower than or equal to the number of moves Willy usually makes in a minute. It may be tricky to find that balance; Curps should be careful to check and quickly unblock any legitimate user affected by it. The problem, which occurs to me, is that the bot may ironically end up blocking people who are trying to move pages back to where they should be. Is there a way to deal with this? Everyking 09:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• I did indeed unblock fvw right away. However, I am running the bot 24/7, which means it is occasionally unsupervised. This is unfortunate, but I am arguing urgent practical necessity. For those who weren't involved in the events of August 26, please see the move log and AN/I discussion for that day. -- Curps 09:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• The bot has made the following blocks. Each time it reacted faster than a human could have. So it has a fairly strong track record of success.

• • 07:18, 1 September 2005 Curps unblocked User:#35795 (oops)
  • 07:16, 1 September 2005 Curps unblocked User:Fvw (ooops, sorry)
  • 07:14, 1 September 2005 Curps blocked "User:Fvw" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove)
  • 14:14, 31 August 2005 Curps blocked "User:BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove)
  • 19:10, 29 August 2005 Curps blocked "User:MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove)
  • 19:02, 29 August 2005 Curps blocked "User:BOING OING OING!" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove)
  • 15:29, 26 August 2005 Curps blocked "User:Mr Treason On Wheels!" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove)
  • 15:20, 26 August 2005 Curps blocked "User:Spongewilly Squarewheels" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove)
  • 15:13, 26 August 2005 Curps blocked "User:GAYNIGGER ON WHEELS" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove)
  • 14:17, 26 August 2005 Curps blocked "User:Willy willy willy willy... Mushroom, Mushroom!" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove)
  • 13:41, 26 August 2005 Curps blocked "User:George Willys Bush" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove)
  • 13:26, 26 August 2005 Curps blocked "User:Microsoft Willy on Wheels!" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove)
  • 13:10, 26 August 2005 Curps blocked "User:May the Willy on Wheels be with you!" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove)
  • 13:00, 26 August 2005 Curps blocked "User:My willy is bigger than yours!" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove)
  • 10:51, 26 August 2005 Curps blocked "User:Dieseldrinker" with an expiry time of indefinite (pagemove) (traditional block)

-- Curps 11:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• Irrespective of whether this 'bot does the same things as traditional 'bots do (That description of what traditional 'bots do is wrong, anyway.), the 'bot should be discussed on Wikipedia:Bots. That AllyUnion is the only editor who currently cares enough to voice xyr approval or disapproval in so many words does not matter. (The discussion of this 'bot may well change that.) Xe is certainly not the only contributor to the page, nor the only editor to discuss 'bots and to make comments and suggestions. (Netoholic's comments and suggestions on cases where people have run 'bots from accounts with administrator privileges are particularly pertinent reading.) Furthermore, people who want to find out what 'bots are running should not be expected to hunt through the archives of an administrators' noticeboard. Uncle G 09:55:41, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

• The only reason why I even post in Wikipedia:Bots is to make certain that they can indeed prove their bot is harmless. I've been following a general rule of allowing a test run of a given period, then if they have no complaints during their "trial run" -- they can apply for such a bot flag. The given period depends on the purpose of the bot, bots which seem to be more experimental or have the damage to cause harm yet may be still useful are given a longer trial run period. Personally, I'm taking the view that the Wikipedia talk:Bots page is a proposal for your bot to run. Therefore, people requesting for their bot to run must detail their proposal, and why they need a bot in the first place. Before this, we just allowed comments to sit a week, and everyone got their bot flag within a week. I intervened when I saw that there are some users who do make mistakes, who do use outdated bots, and who do not pay attention to warnings. Case in point, Flacus with FlaBot. However, FlaBot seems to be in line now. The rules generally are that you have to have two accounts. One for your bot, one for yourself. There have been cases where people are requesting a bot flag for their own account. There are requests for people attempting to establish bot accounts with no user page. Bot accounts should always have user pages, because they need to describe the work they are doing, allowing an admin immediate insight to what the bot is doing and can it be blocked. Supposely, we are to block bots on sight... But that seems to be less the case now... I don't want to feel like I'm the only one posting their to approve bots... but that's what it seems to result as now. --AllyUnion (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

As I told you on your talk page, I think the bot is a good idea. But you should get it vetted on Wikipedia:Bots first, so it doesn't do things like block me when I'm trying to restore page move vandalism. It's not some hurdle invented to keep the bureaucracy happy, it's there so people can check your ideas and make sure you don't cause collatoral damage like you did this morning. --fvw* 09:51, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

• I think this bot is an excellent solution to a long-running problem, and should be kept active until the developers have a more permanent solution against pagemove vandalism. Several are being discussed on bugzilla, by the way. At present the track record is 11 succesful blocks and one mistake, which was quickly corrected. Collateral damage of Willy is far larger than that of Curps's bot. Radiant_>|< 10:30, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

fvw, you were reverting page moves by User:Acid, who simply capitalized page titles in a way not in accordance with Wikipedia's usual style. Apparently a misguided newbie (his first edit was August 18) and not a vandal... nobody, including you, has ever blocked him. So calling Acid a "vandal" is misleading and unfair to him.

Furthermore you were doing these reverts three days after he did the original moves. You are making it sound as if you were accidentally blocked in the midst of urgently repairing Willy-style pagemove vandalism; that was not the case at all.

I apologize for the accidental block; you were doing pagemoves at a very fast rate which I would not have thought possible to do manually, as you say you were doing (especially considering that you have to click a button to confirm each page move). I have since raised the threshold even higher.

The urgency of the situation did not permit a leisurely discussion at Wikipedia:Bots or waiting a week for approval. That is a relatively quiet corner where very few eyes would see it. As I pointed out earlier, I posted a message about the bot at AN/I and it was discussed by those who were most involved with the August 26 willy cleanup. I am disappointed that you are being narrowly legalistic in the face of an unprecedented problem: as of a week ago, Willy can now move 75 pages per minute and that's far more than we can cope with by traditional means.

-- Curps 11:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

You know, because it seems that it only requires one community member to approve your bot, you could have easily fired me an email. Or left a message on my talk page. Personally, I applaud such a use of a bot, but I'd still ask you to run a trial run of one week or more to make certain all your kinks were ironed out. I feel that it's kind of stupid to have a user wait a full week for no one to say anything. I believe the policy should be allow the user run the bot immediately, if anyone says "STOP!" Then the user should immediately stop using it. --AllyUnion (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the collateral damage caused in reverting the page moves is more than this bot has caused. I know I've personally undone at least two cases where a page move has been rolled back by more than one person and ended up as a redirect to itself. Has anyone gone through and checked to see if there are any that haven't been spotted? (a query looking for pages that redirect to themselves would do it). Thryduulf 11:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've checked for these. The trick is to look for "Deleted to make way for page move" entries in Special:Log/delete and check those. I believe I've checked all the post-Willy cases going back to the origin of the move log, but when time permits I'll write a bot to do that checking. -- Curps 11:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, well it looks good, but as above, please do run it properly as a bot with a separate account and a userpage, etc. - Taxman ^Talk 22:22, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

It needs to run under admin privileges. It also doesn't edit any pages, so there's hardly any point: setting up a bot account is usually for the purpose of distinguishing automated edits (which are often not checked by a human when the edit is made) from human edits. -- Curps 00:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I hate to be a hardass, but as I understand the bot policy, this is not really negotiable. If you think the bot policy should be different, please discuss that on the appropriate talk page. In the mean time, all bots must be certified. Or they may not operate. Honestly I don't understand why you wouldn't want to get it certified anyway. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 01:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Running the bot under a separate account sounds like a good idea to me: it'll make it easy to distinguish bot-initiated blocks from those you initiated. --Carnildo 03:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

That may be true, but this also means the bot would have sysop rights. --AllyUnion (talk) 05:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Although... if the bot was a project bot, where there were several administrators who had access to the account and/or control of the bot, that would certainly make the account creation and upgrading of sysop status worth wild. --AllyUnion (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. We understand the bot would have admin rights, but it is important to distinguish those blocks, and I agree with AllyUnion, several admins should have access/control of it. That would help make sure the bot doesn't exceed its mandate. The bot policy is clear all bots should be run as bots. And if it looks like a duck... I also don't understand why you are so reluctant to have this not run under your account. Are you afraid of losing credit for it? - Taxman ^Talk 15:04, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, but if that was to be done, the community would have to define who "several admins" are. Granting access to all admins might create problems, and granting access to only a few will be seen as cliqueism. Maybe access should be granted to bureaucrats and Curps, was that to be done? --Sn0wflake 20:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Back to left. Thats fine to. I don't think that part of it is such a big issue. Make it bcrats, make it the first 10 admins in alphabetical order plus Curps and AllyUnion, or make it the first 7 admins that volunteer and know how to deal with bots (I not being one of them). We're all trusted members of the community, with the ability to block users, so I don't see the problem. - Taxman ^Talk 19:59, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

By several "admins", I mean those who volunteer to do so and have the technical expertise to fix the code. The issue of a separate account is more of a bot flag issue, which typically bots should run as a different account. The reason why I'm suggesting a community collaborative account is that we can pick a bot name that clearly indicates that the blocking was done by a bot, rather than an actual administrator. --AllyUnion (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

If you're going to have a bot running around blocking people, I agree it definitely needs its own account. Personally, I wouldn't have problems with granting a bot sysop powers (after all, all it means is we trust the bot: isn't that all sysop powers are?). Recommendation: the bot should have a mechanism where any sysop can terminate the bot in case it starts going beserk. How about we name this bot PageMoveAbuseBlockBot? — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 19:13, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

How about just SpeedTrapBot? Either way, it seems to work, and should be set about its business. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Since we're substantially in agreement about what should be done, what has to happen to have it actually be done? Lets get it taken care of- Taxman ^Talk 13:45, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbot - New tools!

I am pleased to announce that the Sandbot has a set of new tools to play with.

• Wikipedia:Sandbox / Wikipedia talk:Sandbox (Rake Sandbox)
• Wikipedia:Sandbox / Wikipedia talk:Sandbox (Enforce Header)
• Wikipedia:Introduction (Enforce Header)
• Wikipedia:Test (Reset Redirect)
• Template:X1 (Reset Template)
• Template:X2 (Reset Template)
• Template:X3 (Reset Template)
• Template:X4 (Reset Template)
• Template:X5 (Reset Template)
• Template:X6 (Reset Template)
• Template:X7 (Reset Template)
• Template:X8 (Reset Template)
• Template:X9 (Reset Template)

---

More manual resets. Added 07:22, 25 September 2005:

• Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading) (Reset)
• Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox talk heading) (Reset)
• Template:Please leave this line alone (tutorial sandbox heading) (Reset)
• Template:Please leave this line alone (template sandbox heading) (Reset)
• Template:Template sandbox (Reset)
• Wikipedia:Sandbox (Reset)
• Wikipedia talk:Sandbox (Reset)
• Wikipedia:Tutorial (Editing)/sandbox (Reset)
• Wikipedia talk:Tutorial (Editing)/sandbox (Reset)
• Wikipedia:Tutorial (Formatting)/sandbox (Reset)
• Wikipedia talk:Tutorial (Formatting)/sandbox (Reset)
• Wikipedia:Tutorial (Wikipedia links)/sandbox (Reset)
• Wikipedia talk:Tutorial (Wikipedia links)/sandbox (Reset)
• Wikipedia:Tutorial (Related site links)/sandbox (Reset)
• Wikipedia talk:Tutorial (Related site links)/sandbox (Reset)

They can be found here: User:Sandbot/Tools. --AllyUnion (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with AfD/Old?

In looking over the number of VfDs that haven't been closed off by administrators from August 25th (a few) and August 26th (a whole bunch more), I went to check out Articles for Deletion/Old and noticed that the numbers didn't seem right (it reports 0 open discussions for each date). I refreshed the numbers, and while the date and time of the last refresh changed accordingly, the numbers didn't, nor did they when I tried to purge the page cache. I wouldn't have any idea how to fix this, so I figured I'd report it here! (In addition, there are a bunch of VfDs on those two dates that probably want to be closed off.) Jason t c 18:27, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

This is because of the partial manner of the change (and re-change and un-re-change) over. User:Oleg Alexandrov is repairing his script that handles that. -Splash 19:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand that this has now been fixed. -Splash 21:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Language dispute

An anonymous IP-user from the range 203.164.18x.x. (an Australian dial-up, I believe) is refusing to discuss a rather minor, but still fairly relevant layout issue concerning the language infobox and has reverted at least two users, including myself and bishonen. The conflict is whether to actually write the full name of sub-families of language families, such as "North Germanic" or "South Slavic". The anon user insists on a format used by SIL in the Ethnologue, which simply shortens the sub-divisions to "North" or "South". To not state the obvious in an infobox strikes me as being very non-sensical and in the case of Slovenian language, it's a very potential source of confusion, since the language is a Western South Slavic language. There is such a thing as West Slavic languages and the following format is definetly can definetly be puzzling to the average reader:

• Slavic
  • South
    • Western
      • Slovenian

The only argument presented against writing the full names has been along the lines of "it's looks ugly the other way" or simply "fix class." and no attempt at talkpage discussion has been made. Under the IP 203.164.189.102 the user has made a completely obvious violation of 3RR, but it seems pointless to issue a block, since the IP changes constantly.

The relevant pages have so far been:

• Danish language
• Norwegian language
• Slovenian language
• Swedish language

Some help would be appreciated.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The user has now reverted no fewer than five other editors in three separate articles and I listed the incident over at the 3RR-page [17]. So far I've found 8 different IP accounts that have made the exact same edits in at least 11 different language articles.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

He's done it to Lower Sorbian language too. I didn't care until I saw this, so I'll revert it now. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confirmations of permission

A note for those us following up on claims of permission or ownership.

Per a recent thread on the wikien-l mailing list, suggested good practice is to forward confirmations of permission received from copyright holders to the Wikimedia PR department (permissions at wikimedia dot org) for safekeeping. This is to ensure that an accurate record of permission is kept, but to avoid the necessity of including sensitive, personal or private information such as email addresses and telephone numbers on article talk pages. There is also a template {{confirmation}} that can be used on an article's talk page to note that permission has been received and filed with the PR department. --Ngb ^?!? 14:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Could you please put this information on the Copyright problems page? Zoe 18:57, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I have previously mentioned it on Wikipedia_talk:Copyright problems and Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission. Does it need to be mentioned on Wikipedia:Copyright problems? I didn't list it there because there are no details there of what to do with copyvios. --Ngb ^?!? 23:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think putting the link to m:PR department would be appropriate. Zoe 19:15, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Editing and page title conflict

The title Nothing But the Truth is a 1941 movie and is linked to from Paulette Goddard, Bob Hope, and Edward Arnold. The current page has an article on a 1991 book of the same title which is completely unrelated to the movie. The author included a link to Amazon for the book with what appeared to be a private referral code, which I removed. How are these title conflicts resolved? "Nothing But the Truth (the 1941 Movie)" and "Nothing But the Truth (the 1991 Book)"???Amerindianarts 19:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). K1Bond007 20:00, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Is there a policy on insertion of referral links and code? Does Wiki have a referal code to Amazon for books??Amerindianarts 20:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Referral links should be removed, as you did, because they are a type of wikispam. If Wikipedia had such a code it would probably be used somewhere on Special:Booksources. It is not. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Don't capitalise non-proper names that aren't part of the title.
2. The naming conventions specify the use of "film" rather than "movie".
3. You don't need the definite articles.
4. You only need to disambiguate by year if there are two films or books of the same name.

1. So it should be: Nothing But the Truth (film) and Nothing But the Truth (book). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page redirect

Redwolf24 replaced my user page with a redirect to the sandbox, thereby zapping it. While this was a joke, I did not find it funny at all. --WikiFan04^{Talk 18:17, 2 Sep 2005 (CDT)}

Why post this here? Why not just go to his talk page and say - hey I didn't find that funny? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll do that. I told him in IRC I didn't find it funny, but then he was like ":-D lol" without saying anything else. I will leave a note on his talk page, though. --WikiFan04^{Talk 23:23, 2 Sep 2005 (CDT)}

I never said :-D lol o.O Anywho, sometimes I do things such as that to users in IRC who I thought would like it, such as AngryParsley gave me a prank star for something I did at his page. Sorry if that pissed you off. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is this sockpuppetry?

I have a set of suspected sockpuppet edits (apparently designed to harass me) that I don't know what to do with:

For example:

• [18]
• [19]

(Note, in particular, for the purposes of this statement, that he advocates a form of sockpuppetry, which he calls "Stalk puppets", BTW.)

And this edit:

• [20], which is a revert back to:
• [21]

Note, also, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Power_Word:_IRL_Name, which contains two semi-suspicious keep votes, one by one of the above mentioned suspicious editors (User:JeremyJX), the other by somebody who, while he hasn't engaged in any particular suspicious edits, does look like a sockpuppet for other reasons (User:SamsonFro).

This editor has previously accused me of vandalism (an apparent violation of Assume Good Faith); compare

• | My post to his talk page with
• | His response

Anyway. I don't know what to do with/about this. Anybody got any advice? Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 00:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help with a VfD/AfD page

A while back I submitted this page for a Vfd: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Liz shaw. When it needs to be closed, it would be nice if we could get an extra hand to help out. I think a redirect might need to be made. However, the page is easily confused with Liz Shaw (with a capital s). Currently Liz shaw and Liz Shaw NZ are protected from editing to help deal with the vandalism. If this should be reversed, please feel free to do so, and let me know. I was not too keen on page protection to begin with, but the edits were particularly persistent during the last few days. I also deleted images used in the article on the basis that they were not compatible with the GFDL. --HappyCamper 00:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unblocking User Astrolox - Me

User Talk: Astrolox My wikipedia account was blocked and I honestly think the block is unfair. I was blocked for being a sockpuppet, yet I have a (allbeit small) history of using wikipeda and an accoount. Two things that I would suggest most sockpuppets don't have. Trying to follow instructions I tried to email the admin who made the block but he doesn't accept email via wikipedia. I'm sure your aware that without using a different IP address this means I'm unable to do stuff like post on this notice board. I'd like to ask that an admin looks at my talk page and looks in to getting my account and IP address unblocked. (I know the IP will auto unblock but i'd like the username back). Alternatively, Could you please point me in the right direction? 195.74.104.234 12:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Message left on Astrolox's talk page; I've asked Radiant! to contact him. Thanks, Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 13:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Does this mean that every user who appears to have created an account in order to vote is getting blocked as a sockpuppet? Kappa 13:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • If you look at the log, Radiant! blocked a few users with the reason of "Flying Spaghetti Monster Sockpuppet". While no doubt some of those were sockpuppets, maybe a few legitimate users got blocked in the process. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 13:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes. This was one of those VFD votes that attracted a number of suspicious votes (not new ones though; in particular, accounts that were several months old, had very few edits other than VFD voting, and resurfaced after long inactivity to vote again, which could easily be an attempt at gaming the system). I am assuming good faith on Astrolox, and have just unblocked him. Radiant_>|< 14:13, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] An Unfair Deletion

User Talk: Felix Frederick Bruyns Okay, who deleted my message to Flcelloguy. It was polite, honest and completely in line with Wikipedia policy. If it's who I think it is (and I DON'T mean Flcelloguy) I am going to take this and many other incidents to the highest level of arbitration.

<really confused look> Am I missing something here? Either I never got a message from you, or it's posted somewhere where I haven't noticed it. Where did you leave this message for me? <end confused look> Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent block

Hi. Someone recently blocked User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters for a 3RR violation on Homosexuality. The user asked me to look into it, believing the block was inappropriate, and having looked over the page history I'm inclined to agree. Having been involved in disuputes at that page recently I'm reluctant to unblock him/her myself though, so if someone could look into it... Thanks. Exploding Boy 05:58, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the page history, and it looks like a plain-vanilla editing dispute. Can you elaborate on why you think the block was inappropriate. →Raul654 06:44, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Lulu also sent similar requests to SlimVirgin, Nunh-Huh and myself. Lulu was blocked by User:Bratsche. Looking at the edit history there does seem to be a lot of reverting by Lulu; I think the issue is that he claims that this edit is reverting vandalism (by its edit summary) and therefore shouldn't count. That, however, is a false claim. The main issue seems to be about a single word, which does make it a candidate for WP:LAME. So I fail to see how the block was made in error. At User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, Slim shows the same opinion. Radiant_>|< 07:50, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pigsonthewing and User:Leonig Mig

User:Leonig Mig tells me that he is leaving the project. In essence this is because he has been harrassed for months by User:Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett). He is particularly offended by the statement on Pigsonthewing's user page that "I feel that I'm entirely justified in concluding that User:Leonig Mig exhibits no good faith." He has tried to remove it repeatedly and asked for its removal. I have repeatedly asked Andy to be more civil to other editors and to stop making such aggressive use of reversion but he will not listen to me. Some months ago I asked for admin help with this without any response so please do not think "someone else will handle that". —Theo (Talk) 07:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gabrielsimon

Here are the findings and recommendations of the Arbitration Committee.

Successful editing of Wikipedia requires a minimum level of emotional and intellectual maturity as well as competence in adequately identifying sources of information and expressing the information found. Users who fail to meet minimum standards may be banned until they are able to demonstrate adequate maturity and competence.

Gabrielsimon (talk • contribs) and his sockpuppets Gavin_the_Chosen (talk • contribs) and others has engaged in a variety of immature behaviors [22], [23]. This immature behavior is accompanied by quarreling with other users, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2, inept POV editing [24] and scrambled syntax and spelling [25].

Gabrielsimon and his sockpuppets has frequently engaged in revert warring (see for example [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]) and has been blocked multiple times for breaking the WP:3RR (see block log for Gabrielsimon and block log for Gavin the Chosen

Gabrielsimon (under any username) is banned from editing Wikipedia for one month. When he returns he may chose another username if he wishes. If problems evidencing immaturity emerge with the new username he may be banned for up to an additional month by any three Wikipedia administrators who, based on his edits and behavior, identify him and feel an additional month's ban may aid him him in gaining maturity. This remedy shall continue until he has edited Wikipedia for 6 months without being banned. A log shall be maintained on the decision page of all bans. He is also is limited to one revert per day per article. In addition he is limited to three reverts in total per 24 hours. He is instructed not to revert war at all and instead engage in dialogue on the talk pages of articles.

Should Gabrielsimon (talk • contribs) return using any sockpuppet or anonymous ip during any one month ban, the sockpuppet shall be banned indefinitely and the ban shall be extended to two months. Should Gabrielsimon violate the revert limit imposed on him he may be banned for a short period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses.

Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

wow, a complicating verdict - but it's nice to see the arbcom doing its job. dab (ᛏ) 14:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

This remedy shall continue until he has edited Wikipedia for 6 months without being banned. - does this include potential 24 hour blocks for 3RR violations or other infractions? Zoe 21:32, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

He's not allowed 3 reverts. That's part of the provisions and he would have been blocked under this decision before that. So yes. Dmcdevit·t 21:40, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I read that as he's allowed 3 reverts/day across all Wikipedia, and no more. Still, I agree that the intent is to count any blocking as a reset of the probation timer. ~~ N (t/c) 21:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

That's what I meant. 3RR's only for the same article, and it says one per article per day, so he wouldn't be allowed three reverts in the same article. Dmcdevit·t 21:50, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Personally I'd say yes. But you might want to check with the other arbitrators via requests for clarification on WP:RFAr. It's not something we specifically discussed. My apologies to the community for not thinking of it ourselves. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Templates

I have created three new templates: Template:Vk, Template:Vd, and Template:Vn, for closing old Afds/VfDs. (By the way, is it officially AfD or VfD now?) These templates are a copy of Template:Vt, except that Vk has "keep", Vd has "delete", and Vn has "no consensus; kept.". Hopefully, these will save some time when closing the AfDs/VfDs. Of course, Template:Vt can still be used if additional comments are necessary. Let me know what you think! Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 17:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I would use it. We could also have transwiki, merge, redir, BJAODN, etc. Dmcdevit·t 18:24, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

What about redirects or merges? Zoe 21:34, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Buried in my User:Splash/monobook.js, I've made buttons that do this, too (though before these tl's were made). So I can close a VfD in one click, and then put a message on the talk page in another click. Some legwork is needed on the article, but I mean to get around to writing something for that, too. Not all the options are in the buttons, but they're easy enough to add. -Splash 21:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm somewhat concerned about these forks; they're three more places that any changes to Template:Afd top and Template:Afd bottom need to be made. Since the original templates are meant to be substed, they can't just transclude like {{db-bio}} and such can. —Cryptic (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

Interested users, please vote on Wikipedia:Bureaucrat consensus poll. Andre (talk) 19:27, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Interested users, please oppose all instances of voting on Wikipedia. Dmcdevit·t 21:10, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

And predictably, there are already people trying to disrupt it. Everyking 01:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

What'd that supposed to mean? Dmcdevit·t 04:29, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

My point is that the anti-vote lobby is always trying to disrupt efforts like this to reach a community decision about something. Everyking 07:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The anti-vote lobby? I guess I'm a member (if that's really how you want to phrase it). I happen to think votes are disruptive. But no, I think we just disagreed and voiced that amicably. You think there was anyone acting in bad faith? Dmcdevit·t 08:35, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

No, I just find it annoying that half the time anything like this gets aborted by people arguing that voting is evil, and then the community gets no voice in whatever matter is being considered. Everyking 09:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I find the comments section below the poll here to be both much more productive and more of an opportunity to make one's voice heard. Why do you disagree? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Hornung Article

User Talk: Felix Frederick Bruyns I think that my small piece on Joe Hornung isn't quite a stub since I added a little information. I also cited my sources. Thank you.

You don't need to be an administrator to remove or place {{stub}}, {{verify}}, etc., tags. El_C 00:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help me!!!!

The VfD... PfD... AfD... Whatever the hell... is so unbelievably out of date. I'm working on it, but I need help. We must bridge this gap of transition until everything is AfD. And to those who don't know how to close, edit the page, and above the heading type {{subst:vt}} '''Delete/Keep/Merge/Redirect/No Consensus'''. ~~~~ and at the bottom of the section write {{subst:vb}}. Even non admins can close VfD's, as long as the result isn't delete. Just make sure there's a 2/3 majority. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll do some today. Just as a reminder, you can use the new templates Template:Vd, Template:Vk, and Template:Vn. (see above) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 15:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll do some this evening too, where I can. But that backlog is about its usual size: it's just been unusually small lately, due in no small part to some remarkable efforts by Redwolf24 and others. -Splash 17:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm giving this a try for the first time, and August 27th is slowly but surely moving towards completion. --Canderson7 19:09, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Special characters

I can't find that I'm looking for in the MoS and I thought someone here may have come across this problem. Is / acceptable in a page name? --nixie 05:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Just guessing here, but if it creates the link at the to (like on WP:ANI) then you've created a subpage and the answer is no. If not, then yes. Dmcdevit·t 05:25, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's acceptable. See PL/I for instance. -- Curps 06:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

But note that, if there is an article PL, the Talk page for PL/I will have a link to PL at the top and not to PL/I. Zoe 19:50, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) for the full details. --cesarb 14:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Porsha Blaze

As with the Jordan Capri and Tawnee Stone complaints elsewhere, Porsha Blaze, an entirely unnotable pornography actress, has had a page written about her. The sole purpose of this page appears to be to give out her real name and link to a blog she maintains outside her professional life. Could someone with admin powers delete this information, please? Also, I'll repeat my request regarding a firm and binding policy on publishing the real names of porn stars. This is just wrong, surely? Vizjim 07:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Done. I've edited it to only mention her pseudonym and the link to her cumfiesta.com page, deleted the article and undeleted only my newest edit to it. — JIP | Talk 07:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • That's bad though, now it's a GFDL vio. I've added a comment about the original poster on the talk page, but I do think we need some policy on this fast. (Personally I don't see a problem with posting personal information as long as it's verifiable). --fvw* 07:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • • I agree we need a policy for this, seeing how many cases like this have popped up recently, but I don't see how handling the problem like JIP did creates a GFDL violation - surely the tiny bit of info now present in the article can be viewed as being entirely PD? -- Ferkelparade π 08:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Yeah, we could probably get away with calling that uncopyrightable. There'll be other articles in future where we can't though. --fvw* 08:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
          • And there has been in the past. I'm an admin who was some months ago contacted by a more famous porn star who wanted her recently added real name stricken from the article on her for the sake of her and her family's safty. Wikipedia was the only site on the net that had her real name (and it was obviously the right one since she was worried). I wasn't sure how to handle it, and decided that making a big fuss about it then would just make matters worse, so I just let her edit it out her self. It made most sense to me then, but I'm not sure how to handle cases like this. People will scream bloody censor and that wikipedia should simply state facts, but, well, maybe we shouldn't state every fact at all cost. (anon for the occation) 83.227.105.210 00:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
            • It's really not that complicated. Either it's verifiable, in which case leaving it in the article isn't going to make matters any worse, or it isn't, in which case WP:NOT says we should remove it. --fvw* 00:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a stupid idea even having the article porsha blaze. Not only does it give out little, if any, information, it gives an active link to a crude & disgusting porn site. If it doesn't get deleted altogether, it should be placed under a title such as: List of Mentionable Porn Stars, or List of Porn Stars. This way everyone goes away happy. Spawn Man 08:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:ISNOT censored, including in external links, and a porn star's article could reasonably expected to link to a porn site. Though it does sound like this article did deserve deletion for non-notability. ~~ N (t/c) 14:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Article has been deleted, thanks to Gamaliel. Vizjim 09:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Yay! Spawn Man

Even if something is verifiable, it does not nessesarily belong in an encyclopedia. Stalker-like edits are simply inappropriate at best, and can be life-threatening at worst. There are way too many weirdos in the world who would love to have an easy source of home address, etc, to porn stars. My 2 cents. Func( t, c, @, ) 14:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Too creepy. Wikipedia is not stalkepedia. El_C 22:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I also believe that if someone's life could be harmed (physically, like stalking) due to the posting the information should be deletable, and I am sure the GNU folks will not have a problem with that. Zach (Sound Off) 23:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The GNU folks have nothing to do with it though. The person who posted the material has agreed to licence it under the GFDL; if we violate that agreement we are violating the copyright of the original uploader.

Also, I think calling reposting material freely available on the web putting someone's life in danger is a little bit alarmist at best. --fvw* 23:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

True, but we also have to consider how the original poster obtained the information. If illegally, it would not be covered under GFDL to begin with. It is just safer not to include such personal information unless easily obtainable from verifiable sources. ∞Who?¿? 23:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

We have no reason to assume the poster got the information through illegal methods, not only WP:AGF but also just common sense. If you were going to break the law, would you really do it just to find out someone's real name and post it to wikipedia? Anyway, whether or not they aquired the information legally has no bearing on their copyright on the material they created. --fvw* 23:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The present version of the software allows any who visits a page to see the "X deleted versions" link in the history and follow it to see the page history log for those deleted edits. They can't see the content of those edits, but they are able to see who made them and the edit summaries. I am sure this was put in to minimize the GFDL problem associated with selective deletion. Dragons flight 00:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding me about this? In the US anyway, their names are already a matter of public record because of record keeping requirements. Are you really suggesting we should have a policy saying that we can have biographies of people and yet censor their actual name? It seems to me to be about the most fundamental thing a biography requires... Fawcett5 12:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Those records are not public. They are required to be kept and be presented to the attorney general or his agent upon request, but the rest of us have no access to them. In many cases the persona associated with these roles is an entire fabrication, and totally disconnected with their real life identities. Since their real life identity is both unverifiable and unconnected with what they are notable for then yes, an article on a notable porn role has no business discussing the life of the actress playing that role. The situation would of course be different for entertainers choosing to use their real name, but that is not the case here. Don't think of it as a biography, think of it as an article on a fictional character. Dragons flight 12:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't much of this breach the no original research requirement? The argument that "The person who posted the material has agreed to licence it under the GFDL; if we violate that agreement we are violating the copyright of the original uploader." would, if taken to its logical conclusion, preclude all editing of text once submitted, plus all page deletion, so it has no validity. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• They are not fictional characters. They are biographies, of people who are solely known by their stage names, a situation that exists for actors and actresses outside of the pornography industry as well as inside. fvw has it exactly right. We can verify Michael Caine's real name, Diana Dors' real name, and Cary Grant's real name. We cannot verify the real name of an actor or actress who keeps that information secret, and so our biographical articles cannot contain that information. Our normal verifiability policy in action is all that is required here. Uncle G 03:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, sure, everything must pass the verifiability test. But if the actual names were verifiable (and other standard biographical information such as date and place of birth), they should be included. The expectation of privacy in the case of porn stars is not in principal different from that of any other public figure. On the other hand, certain verifiable information, such as current address, etc. should not be included simply because it is unencyclopaedic. Fawcett5 13:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Nothing should be included simply because it's unencyclopaedic. Don't you mean "simply because it's encyclopaedic"? — JIP | Talk 21:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that Uncle G and Fawcett5 have it right. Adult performers should not be treated differently than any other notable entertainer who has a bio entry in Wikipedia. Those bios typically feature the subject's birth name or legal name, and details such as place of birth. Those facts are indisputably encyclopedic. I think that what Fawcett5 means by things like current address not being encyclopedic is that minor items like that are (1) changeable, and (2) are at a level of detail inappropriate for an encyclopedia (which is not a phone book or a directory) which summarizes facts. MCB 18:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bogdanov Affair

The subjects of this article have been editing from anonymous IPs to remove information critical of themselves. I've warned them to stop doing this, and will be blocking IPs to enforce this. They're staying on the same IP for periods of time, but can also clearly shift. In any case, anyone who wants to revert these on sight and also block the IPs will be appreciated. Snowspinner 18:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Update: Bogdanov Affair is eerily quiet just now, after a huge edit war. I removed one POV rant from each side, and everybody (that I've heard from) seems quite happy with the result. Igor Bogdanov has registered a name account, and declared that he doesn't feel any need to change the article any more. And hey, it's a good article, much better than before the wars! Admittedly, this may be the calm before another storm, as the talk page remains a horror story and I just had to threaten to ban two editors--acrimoniously discussing everything but Bogdanov Affair--from it. Bishonen | talk 01:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Howard Stern vandal

I've just blocked 71.100.85.190 (talk · contribs · block log) for 48 hours for continued vandalism to Howard Stern, (I tried 24hrs, 24.5 hours ago, but he was straight back at it - and that wasn't his first block). Have I acted correctly? 1) Sure as eggs are eggs, he'll be back at it in 48 hours. 2)the IP page (before blanking) states it has 'multiple users' - although there is no sign of any edits from it that aren't our vandal. PS. Is this the right place to ask this? --Doc (?) 23:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yes. Report this here. And yes also, you acted correctly in blocking him. Spawn Man 00:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • And the talk page for all IPs says that they may be multiple users. It's boilerplate - we don't have any reason to suppose this particular address is in fact used by more than one person. Yes, you were right, and if he comes back, the blocks will just get longer. - Nunh-huh 00:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michel Lafosse

Anon keeps reverting an accurate version of Lafosse's article to a partisan one. I've reverted 3 times, but won't do a fourth even though this seems to me to be clearcut vandalism. Feel free to keep an eye on Michel Lafosse, though, the rest of you<g>. - Nunh-huh 23:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Agriculture on West Virginia

This user is persistently inserting the following statement into the "Trivia" section of West Virginia:

"The state is often the butt of jokes with neighboring states due to it's reputation for inbreeding"

It isn't vandalism, but it isn't encyclopedic either. I find it hard to assume that this is a good faith edit. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It is a long-running joke, which actually turned into a real-life dispute where a shirt was made that said "It is all relative in West Virginia." See [35]. Zach (Sound Off) 01:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the inbreeding has led to the inability to distinguish "it's" from "its"? - Nunh-huh 01:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Zach (Sound Off) 03:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you think NPA applies in some way to the discussion, Zscout370, but I certainly can't see how it does. - Nunh-huh 06:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not vandalism.. the state does have that unfortunate reputation, but it's probably not appropriate for the article. Rhobite 03:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

While I think it is questionable for the article (although I think it could get a mention somewhere on Wikipedia, in some form, not sure where would be most appropriate), I don't have any trouble assuming good faith about it. Everyking 06:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Suugestion, create It's All Realtive in West Virginia and explain about the phrase, why it became popular, who started it and mention the issue from the BBC I posted above. Zach (Sound Off) 06:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Since we have a List of ethnic slurs, I can't see a problem with recording regional ones, even in the article, providing they are notorious and it is made clear that they are otherwise unfounded. --Doc (?) 10:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks like we've lost at least one new editor, User:Whitby Mark, who was adding new articles about coal towns, over this insistence on including a piece about the ethnic slur in the article. He has asked me to have all his contributions erased from the wiki.

I think this is a matter of perspective. We wouldn't put a note about the "Ugly American" stereotype into United States or sheep-fucking into Wales. This isn't because those slurs cannot be written about but because they're not significant enough to merit comment in those particular articles. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 11:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

But in my experience, inbreeding is one of the first things uninformed people think of when they hear West Virginia. It's certainly notable enough for the article. ~~ N (t/c) 15:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I like Doc's idea, create a List of regional slurs and just start piling on to it. I also heard about the sheep fornacating a lot in the States. Zach (Sound Off) 15:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Well the point is that this is what uninformed people may say about the state. Such folklore is probably not on the list the things about a US State that are significant enough to belong to the article on the state. Do we list under African American the common legend about male penis size? Under Poles do we have a list of Polish jokes? There's no reason in principle why not, but we don't. We don't do so, I would guess, mostly because giving such myths prominence would cause needless offence. They don't tell us anything useful about the subject of the article, so they're unnecessary. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Informed people often think of this as the second thing that the state is known for, right after skiing. When it comes down to it, major corporations don't make shirts about Black penis size, or pole jokes. The WV jabs have made it onto popular clothing lines, and are the reason why UVA no longer has a pep band (the Governor of WV was outraged by an inbreeding joke made by the pep band during a UVA vs. WV game). It's significant and notable and belongs there. Evidently Tony doesn't feel so strongly against the page on Wikipedia which lists slang terms for penis and masturbation, but then again as I wasn't the author of it, Tony isn't against it. Agriculture 18:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Tony may be right (or not), but ultimately, this is a content dispute - so take it to the talk page - and if it can't be settled there list the issue for an RfC. This is not a discussion about administration, so it doesn't belong here. --Doc (?) 19:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:83.132.240.187

I have blocked 83.132.240.187 for one year for vote stuffing on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Emmanuel de Cériz and for this threat. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

No complaints from here. Longer bans are better. --Golbez 05:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Ummm, not that I object to stopping harmful editors, but do you have any reason to believe this person will still have the same IP address tomorrow? Dragons flight 05:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

One year is entirely too long except for major offenses, and even then only if you know it's a static IP. User:83.132.240.187 appears to be a Portuguese cable modem account. I've reduced the block to 48 hours - the two edits in question are the only two from this IP. --Carnildo 06:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Not much point in having a No threats policy, is there? Not much point in blocking him at all, then, is there? User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a DHCP address for a TVCABO-Portugal cable modem user. I think blocking a dynamic IP for one year is a bad idea. Jonathunder 06:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

How do you know it's dynamic? User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

If it's dynamic, then tomorrow's owner can ask us for a reprieve. --Golbez 06:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It's definately DHCP, per SORBS:

Dynamic IP Space (LAN, Cable, DSL & Dial Ups)

Netblock: 83.132.0.0/16 (83.132.0.0-83.132.255.255)

Jonathunder 06:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, fine, you have a point. --Golbez 17:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting tactics

User:Ted Wilkes has repeatedly deleted paragraphs from talk and article pages. See [36], [37], [38], [39]. He even falsely claimed to have moved content from another page to the Talk:Elvis Presley/Sexuality page, but the content has been totally deleted. See [40].

There are similar deleting tactics by User:Wyss. See [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.141.206.236 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 24 September 2005.

I've copied this from my Talk page. If I get time (which might not be for while) I'll look at it myself, but there'd be little point my approaching Ted Wilkes (talk • contribs) about it, as his knee-jerk response to me (well, to most people) is a snap and a snarl — and that's on a good day. If the accusation proves to be correct (and Ted Wilkes has gone in for this sort of thing before), what would be the best response? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

One last warning and then a 24 hour block, scaling upwards for each violation, would be appropriate. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ann Heneghan's stalker

Please be on the lookout for sockpuppet accounts of SarahPhelpsjr (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). This individual has been involved in user page vandalism, and has been creating attack pages via a blog site:

• http://byebyeann.blogspot.com/ (attack against User:Ann Heneghan, now removed by the site)
• http://sexygordy.blogspot.com/ (attack against User:GordonWatts)

I would suggest performing google searches of blogspot.com for the word "Wikipedia", in case any more of these pop up.

• SarahPhelpsjr (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• TheStalker (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Dannyrodgers45 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Richardharrison (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Johnnopryce (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• GordenWatts (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) (note the "e")
• 203.147.0.44 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 202.142.214.52 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Eh...there are more details to fill in about this situation, but I'm late for a family thing. Thanks, Func( t, c, @, ) 16:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Func, I'll just add one more:

• 58.11.10.91 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I tried an apnic search for the three anonymous ones. I'm not very well up in tracking IP addresses, but they seemed to be based in Thailand. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 16:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the majority seem to be proxies in Thailand. And it seems that Thailand has legitimate uses for proxies, so we can't indefinitely block. Ral315 01:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Ral and Ann. I've removed a tiny bit of sensative information from my user page; Whether the user is crazy or not, she (or he?) seems to have a good point: If someone really wants to find me, they have to work a little bit. I've ignored the vanity blog. Interesting...--GordonWatts 17:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Fisher

Scottfisher (talk · contribs · block log) seems to have gone on a rampage due to some edit dispute. He's been deleting his own useful contributions from all over the wiki. I've temporary blocked him, and left a note on his page. I will be gone for a hour or so, if anyone wants to pik this up. Some rollback may also be required. --Doc (?) 16:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, he went insane. --Golbez 17:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, back. I've now indefinitely blocked him to stop further damage (I think his last spree has now been undone). He may be gone anyway. If he calms down, and wishes to return, he can be unblocked. It look like he was a useful editor. I've still no idea what or who pushed him over the edge.--Doc (?) 17:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'll reiterate: deleting your own valid edits cannot be undone once made because you're angry or you've decided to leave for some other reason. Once submitted, you release your edits under the GFDL which cannot be retracted as further edits on the article are based on the assumption it stays that way. Exceptions can be made for people who added their own copyrighted material without this knowledge and reconsider. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Got that. I wasn't undoing his valid edits - I was undoing his deletions of his valid edits. --Doc (?) 12:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

By e-mail Scott has indicated a desire to return, and behave. I think I've unblocked him, but not sure I've done it right - he wasn't showing up on my block log. Can someone check this and complete if I've messed up. --Doc (?) 16:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

From your log it looks like you unblocked his autoblock #, but not his username. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Which is strange, because his username doesn't come up as blocked [48]. -Splash^talk 16:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, strange :0 the reason I unblocked the autoblock is I found nothing else to unblock - and yet the original block does show up in my register - but not in his. I don't get this - and as I say I have to go. Much obliged if someone can ensure he is currently unblocked. --Doc (?) 16:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ironbrew and User:IMNOTEMICO

Anyone know anything about these two users? They keep posting sockpuppet notices on each others userpages, mini edit war at this point. ∞Who?¿? 20:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The name of the second one seems to read like "I'm not Emico". --cesarb 20:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh yea, so it does. I didn't notice that, I was looking at both of their histories and just saw the constant addition/removals of the banner. It is quite odd for them to create a username like that, think I will have to look at the user histories of Emico and IMNOTEMICO. ∞Who?¿? 20:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

You may want to look further up in this page for a clear explaination for this edit war. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 21:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that explains that user somewhat, I have also requested that Theo look in on it. I still am not sure whether Ironbrew is a sock of Onlytofind. I went through the "evidence" listed on the notice Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo#Evidence_of_Onlytofind.2FIronbrew_sockpuppet, and although they are editing the same article and one stopped soon before the other began, its not clear-cut to me. I would appreciate an admin posting the sock notices on the userpages, and not a user that is only 2 days old. ∞Who?¿? 21:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that User:AypeeESME (IP is me????) had a series of edits similar in view and style to Emico's. When asked about being Emico, he denied it, but was determined to be a sockpuppet of Emico's and banned by TheoClarke.--Ironbrew 23:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

What the... IMNOTEMICO gets an indef block. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Adrigo

The user user:Adrigo is Donald Alford (AKA DotSix) who has been injoined by the Arb Committee from editing any page except the evidence page for his Arb Hearing [49] and his own user pages. He has been disrupting [Theism], [Atheism], and [Agnosticism]. Please block him until the Arb action is completed. Thank you. --Nate Ladd 01:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. If appropriate, the block can be lifted once the ArbCom has deliberated. Yes, I know this prevents this username from editing RfArb, but he shows no signs of abiding by the injuction, and has plenty of other usernames to choose from. -Splash^talk 01:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• Could someone please enlighten me and link the evidence these users are the same? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, User:Adrigo is specifically mentioned in the RfArb, though admittedly only by the 'accusers'. The username does not deny it. It edits the same pages in the same style as Dot6, and established editors have reverted its edits with comments along the lines of "revert Dot6". -Splash^talk 15:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I've looked at Adrigo's edits, either it's him, or it's someone who should be blocked for the exact same reasons as Dot6, (it's him, though). Func( t, c, @, ) 15:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I think these edits are telling: [50], [51]. Also Adrigo uses many of the same mannerisms and tactics as DotSix: Insistence on pointing out "logical fallacies" in articles, adding the {{dispute-resolution}} template to discussions, etc. [52] [53]. I'm convinced that Adrigo = DotSix, and he should be blocked per the injunction. However I'm still not sure about this "Donald Alford" business - I think that the user who edited under that name was an impostor and it shouldn't be held against DotSix. Nate, I think you've been too hasty in assuming that Donald Alford is DotSix. Rhobite 16:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help-desk spammers

This user, 24.210.167.42 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), blanked WP:HD to add a single (presumably spam) link earlier today, and yesterday spammed a set of links at the top of that page (though without blanking). I'm not sure if this is inherently a bannable offence (though if it was up to me, it would be); could someone keep an eye on it? 67.80.21.33 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) also hit the helpdesk, twice yesterday and once this morning. Thanks for any assistance. Shimgray 11:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Checking recent page history, we also have 81.250.52.153 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), 70.81.198.74 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), and 70.250.70.100 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). 69.199.194.74 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 80.58.9.45 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), too; these last two seem to be competing, which is kinda cute but also bloody annoying. And another: 68.59.156.243 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), 70.245.186.103 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), 24.210.58.240 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), 218.229.249.140 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)... that's the last two days sorted; it only seems to have started recently. Some of these are blankers or otherwise deleting text; some are simply spamming in links (sometimes vandalising previous spam). My ability to assume good faith from anon.'s is rapidly going out of the window this afternoon... Shimgray 12:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It's seriously disruptive, given the nature of that page. I say block for 12 hours each. If they come back again, double it. [[Sam Korn]] 12:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Given the vandal edits, for the ones that spammed repeatedly, were over 12 hours apart but under 24, I'd recommend starting at 24 hours - on this pattern 12 wouldn't be noticed, but I reckon it's good on principle. Since you have the blocking button & I don't, would you be so kind? Shimgray 12:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I could have sworn... We'll have to do something about that. I'll do the blocks now. [[Sam Korn]] 12:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

All gone for 24 hours. I could be wrong, but I think they are open proxies, as (of those I tested) one was from Texas and the other Montevideo. I'm not up-to-date with WP's actions on open-proxies, nor how to verify them, so I'll leave this to someone else. [[Sam Korn]] 12:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. Wikipedia:Blocking policy suggests shoot-on-sight for anonymous proxies, but I'm not sure how to determine precisely what these are. Ho hum. Shimgray 13:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Another one, just now: 201.132.12.64 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Shimgray 12:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The only one I can verify as an open proxy is 68.59.156.243, which I've blocked. The others may be open proxies too, though if they're chained through non-open proxies there's often no way to tell. --fvw* 15:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

There is of course one solution, the preemptive open proxy blocker bot which scours the web for open proxies and blocks them. Act quick on this limited time offer to resurrect it: Go and gush about how wonderful it is at Wikipedia talk:Bots#Open_proxy_blocker

Hmm. They don't seem to have returned as yet, a few hours after the block expired; will keep a close eye on the helpdesk history, though. Shimgray | talk | 15:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

They're back. 80.92.7.66 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) - 70.244.34.244 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) - 64.53.254.56 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 24.161.95.172 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for getting those - I hadn't been able to get WP:HD to load up any diffs to confirm they were spam, system running slow today. Shimgray | talk | 14:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Diffs were tooo slow. I resorted to using the history view. Most of them have been easy to spot as they blank the rest of the page when they insert their spam. I did miss one of the above that just inserted the link somewhere in the top of the page. Somebody else caught and fixed that. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Add 82.199.190.89 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) to the list. Doesn't appear on any RBLs that I checked. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:JimmyCrackedCorn

Edit-warring and repeated personal attacks and incivility, using multiple sockpuppets to avoid 3RR violations, refusal to comply with NPOV policy. Pages affected include (Talk pages are not listed, but should be assumed to be affected as well):

• Ray Nagin
• First responder
• First responders
• Nagin (disambiguation)
• Mayor Nagin and the Evacuation By School Buses Controversy and associated AfD page

Accounts presumed to be sockpupppets of this user:

• Roger Ramjett (talk • contribs)
• DKorn (talk • contribs)
• Kirby Morgan (talk • contribs) -- see Talk page link below for evidence

"Long John Silver" (never created an account, AFAICT, but signed several anon edits with that handle before registering, and accused at least three editors of being sockpuppets of each other under said handle)

• 66.43.173.74 (talk • contribs) -- anonymous user with identical editing style and editing targets
• 166.73.21.146 (talk • contribs) -- anonymous user with very similar abrasive attack style, vehemently right-wing, many similar editing targets

More information on the sockpuppetry can be found at Talk:Ray_Nagin#Sockpuppets.--chris.lawson 17:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted Nagin (disambiguation), as there was nothing to disambiguate. Func( t, c, @, ) 17:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The user has now created two more redirect pages to point to this article Nagin Buses and Nagin Busses. He also keeps reverting First responder to a version that is worded to support the POV theory that FEMA is not really responsible for responding to emergencies. --Gorgonzilla 04:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to do anything about those right now. If the page they point to is deleted (which it very much looks like it will be, going by the AfD), then they can be speedied as redirects pointing to a non-existant page. Most admins, I think, check for redirects and deal with them as necessary every time they close a deletion anyway. If you do want to delete redirects directly, you don't nominate them on AfD; there is a special Redirects for Deletion page specifically for redirects. That's not needed here, though. --Aquillion 04:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Incidently, as Long John Silver, they would sign anonymously from the IP ranges 209.247.222.** [54] and 12.74.187.** [55]. These should perhaps be added to the above list for completeness. --Aquillion 04:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been trying to work with him to develop an Rfc on the issues he contests and with little luck. I haven't given up hope as I think he may realize that the only way to get his way is to follow procedure. The editor is no dummy, he's just new to the way things are done here...we need to try to give him a chance ...maybe a day or two longer unless he 3RR's or continues to make personal attacks.--MONGO 05:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:216.175.112.9

Someone at this IP has three times removed a suspected sock puppet tag on the user page, first placed there by Derex, then reverted back by Hoary, then by me. This page and the user page has been blanked in the past. Please advise. paul klenk ^talk 05:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Sock puppet tags are pointless and an endless source of conflict. Just leave the tag off; if the user is a sock puppet of a user that has been blocked or banned and there is concensus that they're a sock puppet the same counts for them; if the user they're a sock puppet of isn't blocked or banned, just mentally substitute the name when you're reading their signatures. --fvw* 05:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll leave it alone. paul klenk ^talk 05:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Does EarthLink give their IPs out dynamically, statically, or something in between? Func( t, c, @, ) 15:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The web suggests that static IPs are a premium service on earthlink. On the bright side, the user in question doesn't appear to have figured out how to change his IP yet. --fvw* 15:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Washington, D.C.

I'd appreciate it if an admin or two could take a look at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion#Dbenbenn Violations of CfD and express an opinion there. Thanks! dbenbenn | talk 20:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Not an admin, but I left a comment. I was about to move the contents of Category:Washington, District of Columbia back to Category:Washington, D.C. per Cfd decision as well as prior deletion. I also left a note on Category talk:Washington, District of Columbia. ∞Who?¿? 20:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I have moved the contents back to the other category following this cfd discussion. I will not place a speedy tag on the category however. But think Category:Washington, District of Columbia should be deleted under WP:CSD general rule #4. ∞Who?¿? 21:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sher Khan

Can someone look over the situation here? Sher Khan is a probable hoax article that I marked for deletion, believing it connected to another hoax perpetrated around this time last year. Someone using South African IP addresses has removed the AfD and dispute tags, and altered my signed comments to remove reference to the original hoax, remove information about an IP address used to edit the article, remove a request not to edit my comments, and to again remove information about the IP address. He says he "cannot and will not leave personal indiscretions on this site which are of no concern to the matter discussed"; for reasons which I've explained there, I believe information about the IP address is highly relevant to the discussion. I'd appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could have a word with this guy about discussion etiquette, as I don't seem to be getting through to him. I'd also rather not block him over a dispute in which I'm involved, but I don't want my relevant comments deleted from the page either. Thanks. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Warned and I put the page on my watchlist. If it happens again, I'll block him. · Katefan0^(scribble) 01:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Santorum

70.19.72.158 is repeatedly adding some very POV material to Rick Santorum. I've used up my 3; could someone else take a look please? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverted his edits and blocked for 3 hours for inserting ridiculous, bloggish opinion bordering on vandalism. · Katefan0^(scribble) 01:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jocker City

Can we have a vprotect on this page please - it's vandalized at a high rate. --Hornlock 09:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Also needs vprotect for Obesta too - vandalized a lot. --Hornlock 09:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Both these articles are complete hoaxes, deleted many times before, please stop adding them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

They're not hoaxes at all. --Hornlock 09:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and stop deleting Jocker City, admins - if you doubt that it's genuine use the article's talk page. --Gala50 09:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC

For the 2 users above: please provide checkable sources :) Lectonar 09:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you vprotect the article and discuss it on the talk page instead please rather than deleting it entirely. --Gala50 09:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

At the moment, I see no need for that; remember: provide sources, and make it into a nice article. Cheers Lectonar 09:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

To any admins reading this: Both user accounts (Hornlock and Gala50) above are sock puppets, their only contributions being to this noticeboard page. The entire article Jocker City is a hoax contributed by a vandal, and I think these users are sock puppets of that vandal. — JIP | Talk 21:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I blocked them long ago. :) No worries. --Golbez 21:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling and subtle vandalism at Encyclopaedia Dramatica

Take a look at this diff [[56]] and the history [[57]] and you will see that a number of users from ED and the GNAA have been trolling the article. Administrator intervention and blocking of the offenders requested. Erwin

Indefintely blocked User:Jacknstock, as the account was created for the sole purpose of vandalism. Fawcett5 12:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bloodsport (film) and commandofans

A group of editors from a message board at "commandofans.com" have recently teamed up to continuously revert a copyright violation at Bloodsport (film). Although I've messaged all of them about this with {{nothanks}} and pointed them to the talk page, which explains the issue, they seem dedicated to pasting re-pasting the copyvio (which is the description from the back of the DVD, also rather unencyclopedic in style) and totally non-responsive to my explanations. (On their message board they have even suggested a "war on wikis" and threatened to mail-bomb me [58]!) They have also introduced copyvio text to Vernon Wells and perhaps other related articles. So, my question is, what is the right way to deal with it? Page protection? My reverts get re-reverted in a matter of minutes, and WP:CP seems wrong because both pages have useful history. — brighterorange (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that the reverse of a DVD is probably fair use, being promotional material, but not when used in whole since we must use the minimum necessary. I think it would be ok to edit it down, to meet copyright and NPOV etc. I left a message to that effect on the talk page already. -Splash^talk 17:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Note that repeated and persistent reinsertion of copyvio material–particularly after a warning has been issued–would fall under our vandalism policy. The editors involved can be blocked and the article protected, should it become necessary. I would suggest that we can't reprint the promotional text from a DVD under fair use unless we're actually commenting on the promotional blurb itself. Speaking as an editor rather than an admin, I would have to say that we should all be ashamed and embarrassed if we're so desperate for content that we'll accept a trimmed-down box blurb as an article.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A gentle note to -Ril-

Ril is now unblocked, but Jimbo has left him a gentle note to cool it [59] - one hopes this will be sufficient - David Gerard 18:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• snort* Gentle. I like that. --Deathphoenix 21:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

What was Ril accused of doing in the first place? All I remember is he had an unusual sig. Everyking 22:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe you'll find all the accusations you're looking for in a certain WP:RfAr. -Splash^talk 22:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know there was an RfAr...can somebody link it, then? Everyking 22:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It's here. You'll also find information on his talk page about his constant attempts to insert porn images into Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

So there hasn't actually been a decision, just an injunction? Everyking 23:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't link it because, as with all current RfArs it is linked directly off the page I did link. -Splash^talk 22:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

He seems to have gone anyway - in the week after his blocking six socks appeared, but all quiet for a month now. You know, life just isn't the same withour -Ril-...--Doc (?) 22:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I know... it's better! Dmcdevit·t 23:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User Gorgonzilla Continually Making Repeated Personal Attacks

I've been subjected to non-stop unprovoked calumny from this guy including on Admin pages. Here is but one example:

"The article is neither out of date or disputed as POV with the exception of one individual who insists on editing it to insert his own personal theories. The same user has also taken to re-routing redirect pages to publicize his own POV theories. If the protect is not quickly replaced then we are going to see a return to 9 or more reverts each day from JimmyCrackedCorn and his sockpuppets. --Gorgonzilla 03:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)" From: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=24047358#Ray_Nagin

His problem seems to be his POV based zeal to suppress facts surrounding what Mayor Nagin's responsibilities were during Hurricane Katrina under the State of Louisiana's Evacuation Plan. Please have an admin type talk to him about his non-stop personal attacks. Thanks. --JimmyCrackedCorn 04:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

That isn't a personal attack. this is though, so I suggest you read WP:NPA. I've left an admin type talk on your talk page just to make sure the message got across. --fvw* 04:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

He's being deliberately obtuse. I've attempted to give him a clue. See his Talk page, please.

Since Jimmy brought up his own revert warring, perhaps an admin would like to take a look at all the sockpuppets he keeps using, and at his baseless accusations of sockpuppetry against others.--chris.lawson 04:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Is this a sockpuppet of his? I'm not all that familiar with the people in the conflict, but my instincts point to yes. They've been wrong before though. --fvw* 05:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

My gut says no. No edit summaries, no accusations of sockpuppetry, no revert-warring. The M.O. isn't remotely similar, although the subject matter is. Worth keeping an eye on for now, though.--chris.lawson 11:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --fvw* 14:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

This looks pretty suspicious, though.--chris.lawson 23:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

If he is not a sock of LJS it is kinda strange that he is the only other person to introduce a stealth article into the 'First responder' redirect page LJS version history

The not very subtle objective here is to redefine first responder to absolve federal officials from blame in the Katrina matter. That is why he created the page on Mayor Nabin and the Katrina School Buses Controversy - a controversy only he sees.

This is not merely POV it is an attempt to bend wikipedia into a propaganda platform. If you look at the work of his other sockpuppets you will find similar schemes under way on [ANWR oil reserves] and [Ronnie Earle]. Its the same MO, ridiculous claims from extreme partisan organizations are introduced as unbiased fact. Anyone who objects to them is accused of bias, sockpuppetry etc. The astroturfing of the VFD on nagin buses is yet another example. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Fox News

Finally, I have been regularly accused of being a sock of Aquilon by this individual. I don't know where Acquilon is but anyone who looks at our IP addresses will quickly see that most of my posts come from one IP address (my house) and unless by some strange chance he lives close his IP address is entirely different. --Gorgonzilla 19:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rainbowwarrior1977

Redwolf24 has indefinitely blocked this user. Somehow I can see this one standing. In the meantime, I've blocked two of his socks as well: PaulKlenk and TheDeletator. He's coming in from Level3 dialups in Orlando, so I expect we'll see him again and again and again - David Gerard 16:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Larsoner and sockpuppets

Per the page-top provision that "any messages that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be paraphrased and, if reinserted, will be deleted" (which I freely admit I wrote myself), I have removed most of this item, as well as all of the other two larsoner sockdrawer threads on this page, plus removed a couple of derogatory remarks against, uh, all these users by David Gerard. Here is the information extracted from all the threads:

A neo-Nazi. Jayjg and I have blocked Larsoner and his socks: Okcaw BottomLine, Provost, Asdfasdfasdfasdf, Mainpage519 and DannyZz. Ameritech dynamic DSL addresses from Chicago, if you spot this sort of activity again - David Gerard 16:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I saw you using the multiple names to "support" yourself. Go away. - David Gerard 23:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

For more information about this editor, see User:Jayjg/Disruptive Apartheid editor. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I hereby insert a short summary of the messages posted by Larsoner, Larsoner2, Larsoner3, Larsoner5, Larsoner6, Larsoner7, Larsoner8, Larsoner9, Larsoner10: they all deny that Larsoner has used any sockpuppets, and claim that there is no way of proving sockpuppetry anyway.

Any further messages from any Larsoner should be inserted in this thread, but if they fail to add anything substantive or are rude, they will be promptly deleted. Please remove any Larsoner threads started elsewhere on sight. Multiple and repetitious threads should not be created for one subject. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked his IP addresses for 24 hours, so he can get some rest from creating new sockpuppets. Not that there's any evidence that he's ever created any sockpuppets, of course. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is used to deceive, break Wikirules and influence voting, etc.. There is simply no evidence of it from Larsoner. Please stop deleting my account. Thanks.

Also: RESTORE TALK EDIT:

• 1) Larsoner's edits at Charles Lindbergh can all be sourced directly from "Lindbergh" by A. Scott Berg (ISBN0425170411). The book was winner of the Pulitzer Prize. The reverts by contoversial editor Jayjg are pure POV, done without any sources or discussion.

• 2) Wikipedia has a no personal attack policy. David Gerard you should speak for yourself. Your disgraceful actions speak louder than words.

• 3) No fly-by comments without knowledge. Have you researched this issue?(no) Can you prove an edit that has broken Wikpedia's rules? Prove it. Show all the Admns. the rules violation with Larsoner's edits.

• 4) Sockpupperty cannot be proved. And I repeat, as per Wikipedia polcy, show where sockpuppetry was used in any article to violate Wikipedia policy. When is the last time David Gerard that you read that page? You may need to refresh yourself with what it actually says. You are not applying it correctly.

• 5) Controversial editor Jayjg should be removed from being an Admn. He abuses his position, and works in a clique. David Gerard, your actions speak to this. You know absolutely nothing about the situation, but are willing to act based on no information.

• Prove Wikipedia rules have been broken, before you make abusive moves. How can I even reply? Could someone look into Charles Lindbergh remove Jayjg's POV edits and unblock Larsoner? I'd be glad to note the exact pages from what is considered the best source ever written about Charles Lindbergh. Berg writes: "Grateful acknowledgement is made to Anne Morrow Lndbergh for permission to quote extensively from the unpublished papers of Charles and Anne Morrow Lindbergh." Yes, Jayjg knows better? but provides no source? Not unusual for an editor that rarely provides sources and has many edits but little time spent in between them. Larsoner1 22:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 209.91.172.131

I have just blocked Special:Contributions/209.91.172.131 for 24 hours. This person has made legal threats regarding use of a name or material at the Help Desk before, and has been warned. They have just (completed) a vandalism spree e.g [60] regarding the same issue. Given the message in that diff, we might need to offer them the chance to take a break in future, too. They do, however, appear to change IP address so I don't know if the block will stick. -Splash^talk 17:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, her again. Yeah, I'd say go for it. Maybe limit the blocks to twelve hours though, it doesn't look like she's sticking around on a single IP that long anyway. --fvw* 17:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

She needs to go to the Foundation or something, but I can barely decipher the request she's making, to be honest, but it seems that in making it, she's adding her name(s?) to our archives! I thought about a shorter block, but this particular IP has never edited Wiki before, so there shouldn't be any collateral damage. -Splash^talk 17:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

You don't know that, you can only tell that that IP hasn't edited wikipedia without logging in before. Sometimes I wish we just published IPs along with usernames. --fvw* 17:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Oooh, good point. I'll go reblock to 12 hours. -Splash^talk 17:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I have never had any intention of using that Romulan woman's name anywhere on Wikipedia, and now I have even less so. Why does she keep telling people not to do something that they wouldn't do anyway? It seems that she was the one who first used her name on Wikipedia, to be able to claim Wikipedia had user her name without permission. This makes her a troll. — JIP | Talk 20:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe she refers to Alt.romath. She still has absolutely no legal ground. ~~ N (t/c) 22:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lucky 6.9

I was recently blocked by the administrator Lucky 6.9. The reasons he stated was that I violated the 3RR rule. He also said I had a history of questionable edits. I believe he was mistaken, and I emailed him twice about these happening and have got no response. I then looked at his user profile. He said he was going on vacation and I think he may be gone for a long time. I was wondering if someone else could unblock me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MJMyers2 (talk • contribs) 16:55 ET, 28 September 2005.

I'm assuming this isn't the account he blocked. It would really help if we knew which one WAS blocked. --Golbez 22:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be the only recent block by Lucky 6.9 that mentions both 3RR and questionable edits [61]. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flower album

Shouldn't this be on commons or something?Geni 23:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is really the page for this, but I can't tell you what page is better. :-/ None-the-less--the problem with this and everything else descending from Wikipedia:List of images is that currently someone has to download the image to their local system and reupload it to commons and then retype the text from the original image. Most people don't really want to spend time doing that, although some do gradually make their way over there. Elf | Talk 23:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:KennyWILLY and User:WILLOBIE

• KennyWILLY (talk • contribs • block • block log)
• WILLOBIE (talk • contribs • block • block log)

I might be paranoid or something, but these two accounts were recently registered and neither of them have made an edit yet. So I am thinking of blocking them for being a suspected sock of our "friend" WILLY on WHEELS. Is my feeling warranted? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, absolutely not. They could be Willy, but it's more likely they're not. If they actually are Willy and start vandalizing, Curps's bot will get them. ~~ N (t/c) 23:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Do we still have the "new accounts can't move until they've been around for a bit" rule? If so, I'd block if they don't edit within a week, and leave a message on the talk page explaining the fear and asking them to just drop you an e-mail if they're not Willy. Snowspinner 00:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, no page moves while in the most recent 1% of accounts. Which with the rate of growth of Wikipedia amounts to about 4 days. Dragons flight 00:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom Hearts II

There's an edit war breaking out here. There's s been over 70 edits wihtin the past hour. Most of the people are coming in through anons. Toffile 23:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Forsworth

Forsworth (talk • contribs) Registered today and has since been making rapid edits to the Sandbox which consist of replacing the word 'cool' with 'wow' and then vice-versa. There are many of these a minute. I blocked him for 15 minutes to try to work out why he's doing this. Does seem to be a strange thing to do. David | Talk 23:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Just give him progressively longer blocks, this clearly falls in the disruption category. --fvw* 00:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds more like "Wow, does this thing really work?" to me. --Calton | Talk 00:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Njyoder

I've blocked User:Njyoder for 48 hours because of this edit: [62]. Snowspinner 00:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. --fvw* 00:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dudtz userpage

An admin want to rollback this page to get the phone number out of the history left by this anon 152.163.100.195 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). ∞Who?¿? 00:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, rollbacking does NOT remove it from the history. Thats just the one click thing... Redwolf24 (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 01:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted the respective edit from the edit history of that page. -- Francs2000 01:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Not important, merely a privacy issue. ∞Who?¿? 01:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Francesco Crispi and the Swedish editors

Three editors who have apparently been banned on Swedish Wikipedia over an issue of Albanian nationalism have taken to arguing with each other over the last 24 hours on my talk page. Quite why they chose me I don't know but I'm in the middle of a big project at work at the moment and need to focus my energy there, not here. From what I can tell it boils down to whether Francesco Crispi is Albanian or not. Each is warning of an impending edit war if the other two aren't banned sometime soon. The three editors in question are L'Houngan (talk • contribs), Albanau (talk • contribs) and Probert (talk • contribs). I have left messages for them asking them not to involve me and to come here if they require admin assistance. -- Francs2000 01:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:L'Houngan & User:Albanau

Users L'Houngan and Albanau have been engaged in recent edit wars, e.g. Francesco Crispi. User:L'Houngan, who is identical with sv:Användare:L'Houngan, is widely considered to be a sock puppet of User:Albanau, also known as sv:Användare:Albanau, who BTW is banned indefinitely on Swedish Wikipedia, see his sv:RfC. On September 28, 2005 at 01.50 PM (local time) sv:Användare:L'Houngan was blocked for 1 day by sv:Användare:Grillo, see sv:Block log and his sv:RfC. L'Houngan, who is an extreme Albanian nationalist, has been a real nuisance on Swedish Wikipedia, and he is now agitating on English Wikipedia! Probert 01:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ed_Poor

seems to be slipping off the deep end, doesn't seem to have many constructive eidts, mostly a POV warrior, who seems quite determined to save wikipedia from "evolutionists", I doubt much will come of this, I mean he's the guy who usually makes most of the administrative descions around here, so it's not like he'll warn himself off..--64.12.116.5 03:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

What has he done specifically that you're complaining about? Everyking 03:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Well, for one thing, he keeps copy/pasting things directly out of the whashington times, then making them into their own articles, when people VfD them, he declares the vote invalid, and un-deletes them, on the ground that he's being persecuted by evolutionists..

..so pretty much.. most of this--64.12.116.5 03:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, once Ed got the clear message that he was above the rules a few weeks back, this was bound to happen. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

64.12.116.5, that last link of yours lists 5000 items per page. It will crash or freeze some users' computers. I hope you will not mind my taking the liberty of reducing it to 100.—encephalon 08:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ed doesn't appear to have undeleted anything[63] of relivance. He is so heavily outnumbered that even a highly skilled edit warriour (and Ed poor itn't) would have significant difficulty in wining through. If he starts abusing his admin powers we might start to worry. There is nothing in the rules against admins have a point of view. We would be in serious trouble if there was.Geni 18:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Now, obviously, you're using a shared IP, but your accusations would have more value if you provided specific examples, and your talk page didn't look like this. Physician, heal thyself.--Scimitar ^parley 21:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Well, my talk page looks like that because AOL routes 50 or 60 thousand people through the same subnet at the same time, and rotates them from server to server at complete random..
  • And you don't register a user name because why, exactly? That's a pretty trivial solution. You don't have to provide any personal information, and you'll be taken vastly more seriously. MCB 18:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oh good, now instead of an AOL anon, I'm a one post user... *crickets* ..now I'm waiting for someone to call me a sockpuppet--Biochemist 1 02:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

All I'm saying, is if he was an anon editor instead of an admin, he'd probably have a 24 hour block by now, so there is somewhat of a double standard--152.163.100.5 03:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:24.54.208.177

24.54.208.177 (talk • contribs)
I've managed this badly. Open to the floor: Is this disruption? Also changes to guidelines and contribtutions to DoYouDo AfD.
brenneman^(t)(c) 04:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I've removed that "preserve information" nonsense from the page history of anonymous matching since it's an admitted attempt to circumvent the AfD. And yes, for what it's worth, I consider that disruption. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

after edit conflictI personally would consider that first diff highly disruptive, and I have blocked that IP for 48 hours, while we work out what to do. I will accept another admin unblocking (or shortening) if they disagree with me on this, however.

And the anon is wrong of course, we can simply delete the relevant revision from the page history — no developer needed. I wonder what the GFDL issues are, but I suspect they don't matter since the whole content was removed by the same editor who made it with no intervening contributions by any other user. The following and preceding articles are in no way derived from it. -Splash^talk 04:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I was on RC patrol the day the anon created doyoudo. Literally saw it being created. It was immediately apparent to me that he was likely a very experienced user, and had some familiarity with WP policies. The article was pretty NPOV, the language balanced, the text wikied, the sources cited—he was careful to put in references to independent sources (eg. the patent, some magazine reports etc). None of the usual hallmarks of crude spamming. I debated whether to AfD, but decided not to because it met guidelines—and I've seen business articles with far less clear AfD. Of course, since Aaron's AfD we've seen what else he has been up to: he's placed links and bits of text about this company and the concept all over the place, even when they were quite inappropriate or only peripherally related. And the relevations on AfD and elsewhere have been quite disquieting: he was even making article edits and AfD comments driven by personal financial considerations. I agree with Splash and khaosworks on that diff, and the block. Good call in my book.—encephalon 09:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the anon's shenanigans on the AFD page have been extremely frustrating. In either case, Encephalon, if you definitely think that the article should be deleted, can you vote on the AFD page? At 6 Keep:9 Delete right now, the case for consensus is not as clear as I'd like it to be before the debate is closed once and for all. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I call for the question. It's been on there beyond seven days, and with the tally at 10-7 (counting both the nominator and the article's principal author), rough consensus to delete has clearly not been achieved. 205.217.105.2 15:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I continue to be quite taken aback at the actions of 205.217.105.2 (talk • contribs) AKA 24.54.208.177 (talk • contribs). He edited the AfD page after the above disruptive actions, ostensibly to wikify a comment. In doing so he also removed a post—the one where he'd admitted that his editing and creating articles and voting on AfD were driven by commercial self-interest. This removal was done under the edit summary "wfy". There were no other contributors making edits at that time to that AfD, so it seems unlikely that some sort of edit glitch related to another user's editing caused removal of the comment, as is known to occur on occasion. The "admission" was posted one hour prior to its removal, and in the meantime User:24.54.208.177 continued to work on the AfD, making 5 separate edits without any problems. I try very, very hard to always assume good faith, and I'm willing to take it on faith that this was some sort of mistake. I hope User:24.54.208.177 will replace the deleted text.—encephalon 07:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

He (as in 205.217.105.2 (talk · contribs · block log) has also inserted the DoyouDo information into the history at User:Tparker393/DoYouDo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), which leads me to believe that Tparker393 is another sock. --07:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, khaosworks, thank you for that. However, he seems to have denied it on the AfD, claiming that they are different users who "have been working in close concert." I would like to believe that is the truth. Incidentally Calton, bless him, has gone ahead and replaced 24.54.208.177's deleted comments admitting to the use of Wikipedia for personal commercial gain.—encephalon 07:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] George W. Bush vandalism

George W. Bush has lately been vandalised a lot by newly registered users. I have blocked one of them for 24 hours. I suspect they are sock puppets of a known vandal. — JIP | Talk 07:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• George W. Bush is a common vandal target for people who dislike him. Whether they're sockpuppets is hard if not impossible to tell. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush is an article I've edited quite a lot. My recollection is that the article was vandalized all the time, but that the watchlist fairies did such an excellent job of reverting the vandalism that we could just edit through all the crap. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photosynthesis Vandal

This vandal has attacked Wayne Rooney, George W. Bush and Tony Blair all saying that they are capable of photosynthesis. Complete nonsense. --Blackrunner 08:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• He has done the same to Jordan Capri. Incidentally, Jordan Capri's AfD is coming close to ending, but because of its size and my own involvement in the debate (I voted keep) I don't want to close it myself. — JIP | Talk 09:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The vandal was at it again on Nadine Coyle and other articles. Repeatedly adding nonsense saying that person is capable of photosynthesis. As bad as the Female Cyclist Vandal and Willy on Wheels. See block log for current usernames of this vandal. --HotQuantum1000 11:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, easy to spot, easy to block. A real Dodo... Lupo 11:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Advice on use of user space sought

Please take a look at the various subpages of User:Manfred_Riebe. Riebe has been banned on the de: Wikipedia on April 4, 2005 and is using his "user space" here to present German-language forks of articles in the German Wikipedia (e.g. User:Manfred_Riebe/Theodor_Ickler vs. de:Theodor Ickler) he does not agree with, essentially publishing his own little encyclopedia in German here. Other pages are attack pages on the German Wikipedia (e.g. User:Manfred Riebe/SPERRVERFAHREN), or outright propaganda (User:Manfred_Riebe/OSTERMARSCH 2005). The user has very few edits in our article space—I found only one on Karin Stoiber, plus a few on Talk:German spelling reform of 1996. Obviously, he's not interested in participating here in the English Wikipedia but is just abusing our hospitality. I feel that this contradicts both Wikipedia:User_page and that Wikipedia is not a free web space provider. Mr. Riebe is free to publish his rants on his own web site, but they're inappropriate here. The Italian Wikipedia apparently had banned him, too, and deleted all his German pages: see it:Discussioni_utente:Manfred_Riebe and it:Discussioni Wikipedia:Politiche di blocco degli utenti#it.wiki - terra di asilo politico?. Comments, anyone? Lupo 16:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I say delete the lot and warn him if he continues he'll be blocked; but it is probably best to get a few opinions here first in such cases, as you've wisely done. --fvw* 16:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, we have WP:MD... Lupo 16:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

There are lots of different language WPs, so he's got lots to choose from even if we kick him out here. Ideally there'd be an agreement whereby he could put this stuff back on de:. Otherwise I guess put it to a deletion vote. Everyking 16:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Falkland Islands

There has been a dispute over whether the article should report both sets of names used by the two countries which claim the islands, or only the British names. Duncharris, who was involved in the dispute, rolled back to go to his preferred version, then protected on that version, but continued editing the protected page. Jonathunder 16:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Obviously he shouldn't do that. As an aside it looks like the dispute is not over whether to report the Argentine name but whether to give it equal time, or something close to that, alongside the English name (obviously failing to report it altogether would be unacceptable). Everyking 16:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The version rolled back to and protected on deletes the other set of names entirely. How to report both sets is something being discussed, and could be edited if the page were not inappropriately protected. It wasn't even listed on protected pages. Jonathunder 16:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it does say: "Argentina is the only country to still maintain a claim over the islands, which they call Islas Malvinas and other territories, in the South Atlantic currently under British dominion." Everyking 16:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It is wrong that the article claims to being protected against vandalism. Duncharris' post protection edit, while strictly not by the books, doesn't affect the dispute, was minor and including spelling centre correctly. I think he shouldn't have reverted just before protecting but if it is unprotected right now I would guess further warring may break out, and maybe it should be frozen till tomorrow (it doesn't matter to whicvh version, but do change the template. BTW the whole Spanish speaking world and not just Argentina calls them the Malvinas, SqueakBox 16:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Jeez. As someone completely uninvolved in the dispute (and having no particular opinion on the matter) I find it pretty unsettling that an administrator would use their access to lock others out of an article and push their own opinion on something as petty as a naming dispute. Isn't it time for Wikipedia to demonstrate that admins who blatantly abuse their privileges don't get to stay admins? --FOo 16:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

De-sysopping him over one incident is insane, but yes, we should desysop admins who repeatedly blatantly abuse their privileges. The arbitration committee has done this in the past, to my knowledge. Anyway, what was Duncharris thinking? He should know better. :( Anyway, I think we should just let him know that we don't approve of this behaviour, and remind him that admin powers are intended to be used to uphold what the community wants. They are not editorial privileges. Also, edit wars are silly. I've never reverted more then once in my entire wikipedia career. --Phroziac^(talk) 17:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, he has edited the page in the immediate past prior to the current dispute so he's obviously been involved in the page. I don't know enough about the dispute to know whether he's been involved or not in what could substantially be called a content dispute, but he obviously thinks whatever is going on is vandalism or he wouldn't have used the vprotect tag. I'd say protecting the page and then editing it is fairly irregular from what I've seen so far (which is a cursory look), but let's let him defend himself here before we pillory him. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

As a participant of that dispute, I can safely say that the protection was unnecessary and somebody should investigate the matter. Oddly enough, I agree with Duncharris' views on this matter but I think that reverting-protecting-editing is something that goes against Wiki-spirit and maybe desysoping him is too extreme but a very stern warning is surely warranted. The sad part is that by doing this he makes the argument he was defending weaker, not stronger. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

He didn't make any argument: unlike the other participants in this content dispute, he has not commented on the article's talk page at all. He did imply, by his use of rollback and by the page protection caption, that the edits he opposed were vandalism. This is something I very much object to, as I have never vandalised Wikipedia. Ever. Jonathunder 18:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Having started the problem by inluding the Argentine names, I am suprised how aggressivly such a name issue is handled in the English Wikipedia. I only wanted to do the same as in the German Wikipedia: To give both side (the British and the Argentine) the same amount of space because both have a valid claim on these islands. Besides of that I find it quite silly to dispute on a couple of rocks in the Southern Atlantic and go to war for that. --ALE! 19:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This page was unprotected by Duncharris 5 minutes ago. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

To claim Argentina and the UK both have an equally valid claim to the islands is very POV, wrong (the UK are the actual rulers) and should be dealt with at Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, SqueakBox 19:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It is really not my business to defend the Argentine point of view, but only so much: Look at a world map. To which country are these islands closer? And if you read Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands I think there are enough arguments as valid for the Argentine claim as there are for the British claim. Current rule does not make the point. With the same argument all of Africa would be still under European rule. --ALE! 20:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Guys, this discussion exceeds the WP:ANI purview. I am sure that our admins will gladly see this discussion move to the proper place: Talk:Falkland Islands or Talk:Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I admit that I acted hastily and did not explain my actions properly. I should have used the two versions tag not the vandalism one. However, those changes went against what the established consensus has been on that page to use the English, with the Spanish mentioned quite soon afterwards. The addition of the name Puerto Argentino which was a name applied by the Argentines to the capital in 1982, and has no basis for its use (unlike the name Las Malvinas which has a proper origin in the French Iles Malouines, Puerto Argentino has its origins in Argentine nationalism). He may not have realised this and so the "vandalism" was unintentional rather than deliberate. I unprotected it a few hours afterwards after I returned. As for the other language Wikipedias, they can and do have NPOV problems too. Dunc|☺ 20:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

&&&&

[edit] New users log

Take a look: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Newuserlog. --cesarb 22:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I think Special:Log/newusers is an excellent idea, but could we take it out of Recent changes? Zoe 23:22, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with putting it there. All you have to do is make an option that allows for it to not be in there. By the way, # (User creation log); 19:22 . . Dysphenctional (Talk) (newusers: Created the user "Dysphenctional" (Talk; Contributions)) is a bit wordy, don't you think? — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 23:25, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer it on recent changes, just in case a long term vandal shows up, so you can block right away. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I love it! Thank you devs. And I think having it on recent changes is a good idea; swat the baddies as they go by. (I suppose it could be visible to admins only, or toggled on/off; many options possible) Antandrus (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

That's awesome, but can we get block links right there too? Is that possible? - Taxman ^Talk 21:27, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Bah, all of my links have a block link :-) Lupin 21:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Ahhyes, I found your popups tool after I asked the above. I suppose that relives a developer from adding a block to the log. Not everyone is going to find that tool though. Anyway, thanks for working on it. I like it so far. - Taxman ^Talk 23:58, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I've created a monobook.js script that adds additional links to the Newusers log: User:Func/wpfunc/nupatrol.js, including a block link. Func( t, c, @, ) 16:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I also monitor New user log on my bot in #en.wikipedia.vandalism I flag the rather more suspicious ones. --Cool Cat ^Talk 11:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The MilkMan situation

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive13#Willy has now got Milk

The MilkMan promises to be nice. He claims that he is not Willy after all, and that he has seen the error of his ways. So I unblocked his last account MilkMan_New_And_Improved (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) (which didn't turn out to be uncontroversial, as might be expected), and hope that assuming good faith works. However, obviously we should keep an eye on him. If he vandalizes again, feel free to come down upon him like a ton of bricks, but that would probably only mean hunting his socks again, and I hope that everyone agrees we have better things to do. We can avoid that if he really wants to be a good editor. -- grm_wnr Esc 01:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Update: He has now chosen a less controversial name for himself, Milky Way (talk • contribs). Of course above caveats still apply. -- grm_wnr Esc 02:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

He basically made that same statement on User talk:MilkMan Has A New Route. And I basically reminded him of the famous quote, "Heav'n hath no rage like love to hatred turn'd, nor Hell a fury, like a woman scorn'd" Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

why do some people think the world must be so terribly interested in them? dab (ᛏ) 10:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to assume good faith on in terms Milky Way turning over a new leaf, so on the assumption that he is being a good user we need to start dealing with all the people trying to impersonate him and sully his reputation even before he has a chance to build up a good reputation. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kurdish people

People are keeping on restoring baseless statistics. Can you interfere? --Cool Cat ^Talk 00:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I just interfered by adding a lot of references for these statistics. Could you on the other hand, stop deleting important information, just because they doesn't suite you personal PoV, Coolcat? -- Karl Meier 09:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Thats false not one mentions numbers you posted regarding at least europe. It is baseless and unsourced. --Cool Cat ^Talk 16:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Statistics should be discussed on the article's talk page. I have half the mind of zapping it there right now. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 00:12, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I agree but Karl Meier prefers senseless reverting and avoids all discussion. --Cool Cat ^Talk 02:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AfD for 3 September seems messed up.

Anyone know what's gone wrong on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 3. Maybe it's just me but there are scores through everything (including page controls). I don't get this on any other wikipedia page that I have tried. JeremyA (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's just you. It looks ok to me at the moment. -Splash 18:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, you're probably right because it looks fine to me now too. I think that maybe one of my AfD closures messed it up for some reason, because after I closed another one it was fixed. JeremyA (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please help!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acharya_S

Acharya S is subject to repeated harassment and threats from religious fanatics. Wikipedia is being used to disseminate personal information about the author. I doubt the creators of Wikipedia envisioned that it would be used in such a way. It is akin to publishing the whereabouts of Salmon Rushdie, or abortion doctors, then feigning innocence as to the implications.

Please help!

24.64.223.203 21:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

This sound like Tawana Brawley to anyone? How about some evidence? I hate to break it to anyone but there have been far more persuasive and damaging critics of Christianity than her tired and derivative stuff. You can find similar books claiming Christianity is a fraud or a rehash of other myths remaindered every day at Barnes & Noble. Even Pat Robertson can do more damage to Christianity in a single speech than you have in a lifetime. Find another hobby. alteripse 22:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I'd like to complain about the behaviour of the above admin Alteripse. He has not helped in resolving the issue, instead choosing to inflame it even more. It should be obvious that the author in question does not want her name published, otherwise she would not have published under a pen name. In addition, in one of the articles linked to on the page, she notes that her name was originally published without her permission.

The author does not limit her subject matter to Christianity; she writes about religion in general, including Islam. It is a very controversial subject, and her privacy should be respected! She has received threatening emails along the lines of 'we know who you are' which link to the Wikipedia article in question. It's disgusting that Wikipedia would be used this way. When I point this out, his response is along the lines of a dismissive 'I don't believe you.'

In addition, besides refusing to remove her name, (and in fact, inserting it back in after it was deleted... in bold no less!), the above admin Alteripse has acted (I believe) inappropriately in his (or her?) capacity as an admin in other ways. For instance, he replaced a list of the authors credentials:

Acharya S was classically educated receiving an undergraduate degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, and received her Masters Degree from Franklin & Marshall College. She is a member of an institute for the study of Ancient Greek Civilization, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece. She has served as a trench master on archaeological excavations in Corinth, Greece, and Connecticut, USA, as well as a teacher's assistant on the island of Crete. Acharya S has traveled extensively around Europe, and speaks, reads and/or writes English, Greek, French, Spanish, Italian, German, and Portuguese.

with:

Acharya S is... an American critic of Christianity, and amateur "historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist, and archeologist".

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acharya_S&diff=23158313&oldid=23156577

When confronted with the above not-so-subtle attempt to smear the author, he says:

"I am curious as to why you think calling her an amateur is a "smear" or is inaccurate. It means she doesn't work as a professional religious studies scholar or academic classicist. It changes the standards by which we judge an author's work. Why is that a smear?"

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acharya_S

Oh phuleease! That's not what my dictionary says...

All this leads me to suspect that Alteripse is biased and has an axe to grind. However, that's not for me to decide. I am just writing to alert you to his behaviour. As it stands, he has agreed not to repost her name, for which I am thankful.

Thank you for your attention.

James, BC Canada

24.64.223.203 20:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

you have an odd dictionary. I'm an amateur admin (we all are).Geni 22:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You will have to make allowances: lots of words seem to mean something different to James than to the rest of us and he has a little trouble with accuracy. I did not replace the paragraph but moved it one paragraph further down because it was less important than the one he put it front of. alteripse 22:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Acharya S is not an 'amateur'. She is a professional. Consider her credentials. She is highly trained, and gets paid for researching and writing books. I realize you are amateurs; this is wikipedia after all. I just expected that efforts would be made to help protect the privacy of living authors who are routinely threatened by religious fanatics, from different denominations, due to the controversial nature of her work. BTW, I hear that Natalie Portmans privacy was protected here on Wikipedia. Please extend the same courtesy to this author!

24.64.223.203 22:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious, if her name is publicly available, not something somebody dug up, what is wrong with having the name (in the current initialized form) in the article? As for Natalie Portman, her article DOES provide her real name. --Ragib 23:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm asking as a courtesy. Her name was originally published without her permission and against her wishes. She receives a steady stream of hate mail and threats due to the controversial nature of her work. While her name is disseminated on fringe Christian websites and message boards such as 'RisenJesus.com', I was hoping that the admins here would not allow Wikipedia to be used for that distasteful purpose.

(Also, I understand that Natalie Portmans privacy was respected for some time, but I wasn't there.) 24.64.223.203 00:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Your requests are unreasonable. We can't "remove" information, because it's still stored in the page history. Thus, we'd have to delete it. However, the person in the article appears not to fit into deletion criteria: she seems to be notable, no one has nominated the article for deletion yet, so it would against the goals of Wikipedia to remove the article. Publishing a persons last name, books they have written, and a brief background of academic endeavours is not an unreasonable look into someone's life for any Encyclopedia article. And last and foremost of all, this belongs on the pertinent article's talk page. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 01:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Can admins delete words from edit summaries?

Hi admins, I was just wondering if any of you can delete an edit summary, I mean in this one [64] (it might be an insignificant thing, but I'm really proud of this article :) and I don't like vandals :( Alensha 22:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Short answer, no. Long answer, no, because we don't have the technical capabilities to do it, and the developers (if they have the capabilities, which I'm not sure they do) are unwilling/unable to do it because edit summaries are supposed to be a permanent record and may be important in GFDL citations, etc. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Alensha 22:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

A partial solution is to delete the article, and then undelete all revisions other than the vandalised one (and perhaps the reversion of that vandalism). This will stop it showing in the page history, but it will still be visible at Special:Undelete. Angela. 22:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please fix forked talk page

For what seem to me transparently disruptive reasons, the rejected policy proposal WP:TOBY now has two forked talk pages. Although one claims to be a version of the other with images removed, this is in fact not the case; discussion has forked, with people replying on one page or the other.

This state of affairs is disruptive.

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, J. Random User like me can't fix it with a couple of page moves, because of the (perfectly reasonable) restrictions on page moves. (I actually haven't tried, for fear of breaking it worse.) So it needs administrative attention.

The current state of affairs is likely to lead to or worsen a dispute, since there currently is starting to be a bit of Bad Reverting Behavior on the proposal page itself, over whether the page is a {{proposal}} or a {{rejected}}. In order to resolve disputes we need to have a working talk page without anyone bozoing it up with "censorship".

The idea of a "censored talk page" is contrary to Wikipedia policy anyway.

So would some fair-minded administrator please move the "uncensored" page to Wikipedia talk:Toby and the "censored" one to something like Wikipedia talk:Toby/"Censored" Archive? Or something? Anything?

Thanks much. --FOo 23:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

If anything, do it the other way around, because the censored page has more (and more recent) discussion. Also, if one page is "transparently disruptive", it's the uncensored one; I don't want useless images of syphilitic genitals staring me in the face while I debate a policy. ~~ N (t/c) 00:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't give a damn, honestly, just as long as there is one (1) -- eine, un, odin, uno -- talk page. Not two. --FOo 01:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in having two, seeing as the uncensored one hasn't gotten any edits in days. ~~ N (t/c) 22:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sam999

Looks like User:Sam999 is back as User:RememberOctober29. Vandalising pages with the same Apple employment racism allegations. AlistairMcMillan 19:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

User has been blocked. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Uriah923 SEO block

Hi, I've blocked this user from editing, and I am quite sure he is going to complain loudly. I believe I was very justified in making the block based on the user's continued and very clear history of SEO and linkspamming. It is clear his only intention is to get as many links to Omni Nerd as possible, in fact promotion is one of his roles at that site. Please read through User:Uriah923/ON (the bottom is pretty easy to start with and follow the user's contributions. I very clearly warned the user that I would block him if he kept up spreading his links all over, and that is exactly what he did [65] [66] [67] [68], for the most part on userpages of editors less likely to be familiar with our linkspam policies. So, if someone doesn't like that I did the blocking, go ahead and unblock but only if you've reviewed the situation and are prepared to block him yourself. I also reverted the linkspam from those four edits, which in hindsight wasn't the best idea, so I'll fix that in a minute, but still remove the link. - Taxman ^Talk 17:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

To add a bit more, I was the one that unblocked this user when Dmcdevit blocked him for similar behaviour. Since then the very clear consensus emerged against the user's actions and I left a very clear warning on the user's page. Based on that I feel involvement in the situation was not a big enough problem to avoid making the block. - Taxman ^Talk 17:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry Taxman, anyone familiar with the preceding events and discussions knows that Uriah was pretty much just a role account, and deserved to be blocked on that score anyway. If the consensus on the ON discussion page was any indicator, you have the general support of the editors who were involved. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I just want to add a comment to express the consent from this non-admin's point of view that Uriah definitely needed to be banned. The promise on his talk page that the bans will get longer and longer until they are permanent must be carried out unless he spontaneously decides to edit Wikipedia for purposes of creating an encyclopedia rather than adding links. Uriah doesn't respect Wikipedia policies at all, so complaints from him or anyone else that Taxman was too "involved" with the situation to ban him are laughable or uninformed, and certainly disingenuous coming from Uriah. Taxman's "involvement" has been only that of an admin enforcing Wikipedia policies. We need quicker and swifter action like this against linkspammers. Jdavidb 20:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

After a subsequent 72 hour block by Happycamper, Uriah has agreed not to promote ON at all. In return I've agreed not to post to his talk page. But some of his recent contributions look like they could be copyvio's also, but simply from better sources. Or it could just be more ON material. Anyone mind taking a look? In one case it just seems like too much added material from one source to not be a copyvio. - Taxman ^Talk 17:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Who is the "taxman posse" he refers to on his talk page archive? Am I considered part of your "posse" because I signed the ON log? I certainly did not agree not to post on Uriah's talk page, and I will definitely do so if he continues to vandalize wikipedia, as should any other editor on that list. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe the so-called "Taxman Sophist Posse" refers to Taxman, me, and Jdavidb. Posse or not, any user who knowingly inserts copyrighted material into Wikipedia repeatedly constitutes a liability for Wikipedia. Not to mention spamming.

Consider this scenario: A user inserts copyrighted material into a whole bunch of articles from various sources. Say, a paragraph or two, snug in an article somewhere. Let's say, they do this, knowingly or not. A few weeks later, someone (possibly the same person) claims "copyright infringement". How are we going to handle this?

The reason why we have this situation here today, is because we have here a perfectly grey area, and an extremely messy beehive to tame. Notice how my posts to the user were constructed to reflect this. The fact that the semantics were not lost indicates that these vandals are extremely keen - and they are quite aware of it. It will be a tremendous mess to clean up, and I indeed consider this a form of vandalism that is exceptionally chronic and extremely malicious. I can see no reason for it other than to hurt Wikipedia, or for selfish promotion.

My suggestion? Lay low, don't do anything, and just observe. The first edit that crosses the line, we'll ban the user indefinitely. Then, most certainly due to the controversy of it, there will be copious discusson on the user's talk page. We can only do this, provided that we are prepared to devote time and energy to to explaining the block. Regardless of whether the user understands the ramifications, once we have explained Wikipedia's position, there is no need to further negotiate or listen to the non-compliant user. In this case, this user has had plenty of chances to do this, and I am inclined to feel that we should not prolong this situation any further by allowing compromises. Take a look at his talk page right now for example. Links to that site everywhere. Does that constitute enough of a violation for a ban? I'd be willing to bet you that they were posted deliberately to test the boundaries of permissible activities on Wikipedia. Their defense will be as follows: "You dare do this to me, you'd better do this to everyone else! Hah!". To counter this, essentially, we need to explain the interpretive difference between equity and equality, and how it has been applied specifically for this user.

Now, we don't need to do things the way I have outlined them here. It's only one of many alternatives I'm considering at the moment. Right now, our priority is to put on our super-sleuthing hats and track down whether these edits are copyvivos or not. If they are, we'll take quick action. Sound good? --HappyCamper 18:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

As I think he has removed all pretenses of good faith now, I blocked him for 2 more weeks for linking to ON on his user page. It becomes clearer each time that his only goal is to get links to that site, and he is just brainstorming different ways to try to get away with it. I didn't have time to confirm, but it looks like some of his recent contributions are copyvios too. I suggest we extend the block because he hasn't shown any desire to contribute according to our policies, but I'll leave that to someone else. - Taxman ^Talk 12:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

That may be more on the edge. Generally I think we pretty much allow anyone to link to any websites they want from their user page, right? As long as he's not linking to ON from articles or wasting time campaigning for ON links in articles on talk pages, I think we should've let him keep going (and see if he wants to play by the rules or not). Jdavidb 16:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I support Taxman's decision to ban for 2 weeks. In fact, I think we should stop babysitting the user's contributions and ban permanently. Not because of the recent insertion of links to the userpage, but due to the premeditative nature of using Wikipedia as a launching platform for that site. I will elaborate. Give me 24 hours. There is a lot of work ahead... --HappyCamper 03:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what the significance is, but this user threw in a link to ON today. Jdavidb 19:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• I think you made a mistake in checking the diffs. The link was replaced with this edit by Variant that was supposedly fixing other past vandalism. I didn't look through the rest of the diff to sort it all out. It wouldn't surprise me if Uriah goes and adds ON links from IP's but that doesn't seem to have happened here. We should probably see if there is a reliable way to list any places in Wikipedia that do link to ON in order to be able to watch for more spam. - Taxman ^Talk 20:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Oops; never mind. I think I got confused and assumed the last editor had added the link. My bad ... I'm on cold medicine today. :)

In the past I have simply googled for "site:wikipedia.org badurl.example.com" to hunt down link spam, or maybe occasionally "site:wikipedia.org link:badurl.example.com" . Not perfect, but it works. Jdavidb 23:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You are on cold medication today too? Same here! (And what a coincidence...) Anyway, if you browse around on that site, you will realise that it is an emerging one that has explictly stated that they are trying to gain more prominence. Many of the threads on that site talk about this explicity. See for example this. Also, in here, MarkMcB says "...let me be the first to encourage all of our readers to promote the site....Little things like dropping our link on other sites,...will help us tremendously....So if opportunity knocks and you get a chance to promote <our site>, please don't hesitate. We'll definitely appreciate all the help we can get."

Our fellow user seems very likely to be this person, and if you browse through the "who's who" on that site, this person plays apparently plays a role in generating publicity for it. Here we see that "...crusaders may want to keep their eyes out for valid and justified places to link to <that site> WP page from other WP pages." "WP" here meaning "Wikipedia".

As far as I'm concerned, we need to express the sentiment clearly that Wikipedia is not open to be used for promotional purposes. There are other venues for it - using the encyclopedia and its associated resources for this is simply not acceptable.

It is not a coincidence that MarkMcB edited on the 26th, during Uriah's block. What I think we should do is block these two users indefinitely, and place a template on their pages identifying them as using Wikipedia in an unacceptable manner. If they wish to talk about this further, they can always do so on their talk pages, or on the mailing list. However, the fact is that their contributions on Wikipedia were not intended to further Wikipedia - they were premeditative and intended for promotional purposes.

Finally, Wikipedia is not a babysitting service. It is exceptionally draining having to monitor a user's contributions for extended periods of time to ensure that they are in compliance. The amount of leniency shown has been more than adequate over this 3 month period, and I feel very comfortable in enforcing a ban here. --HappyCamper 00:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow:

I've been described on more than one occasion as a 'last-word man' in response to my argument style. I like arguing - and I like to keep arguing until every possibility has been explored and every reason examined.

Yep; that's our Uriah, all right.

Do we already have such a template for users who have misused Wikipedia? I'd been thinking as part of my linkspam project that a category for such users (perhaps as part of a template) might be appropriate, although it might also be offensive to some people. If we don't have such a template, maybe we should go ahead and make one for future use.

Also, I support adding "Wikipedia is not a babysitting service" to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 16:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC).

Seems to me, though, that he should have latitude with his own user page. I will readily admit that part of why I link to my own personal web site from my user page is to publicize it, and I imagine that is true of hundreds, if not thousands, of Wikipedia users. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

He had an email to me where he seemed sincere, thus I have unblocked him and I will be watching over him closely. I know this failed with Adamwankenobi and his promising to be good, but we can still try this. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

That's part of his pattern, but ok if you're willing to watch him closely enough. If you follow his contributions more closely it would have been obvious why I could no longer assume good faith with him. Not sure why you'd want to waste more of yours and other's time giving him yet another chance though. He is going to continue to find ways to exploit Wikipedia, and I still haven't had a chance to see if his recent contributions are copyvios like his previous ones have been. There is a difference in how long standing positive contributors should be treated vs repeat offenders. - Taxman ^Talk 23:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

First, I apologize if you feel I've wasted anyone's time. Really, I think this all could have been accomplished much more quickly if someone had been willing to have a decent and straightforward conversation with me instead of screaming 'spam!' and erasing everything. I was doing what I thought would be a win-win for WP and ON. In my mind, WP needed content that ON had and ON could use the links. However, it is now clear that ON articles aren't wanted, so I will (according to the agreement) not promote them.

Next, the recent edits I've made are from an established philosophy textbook. All of the information I added has been reworded to avoid copyright violations and I've included the book as a reference. As far as I know, that's how WP is supposed to grow. But, it wouldn't be the first time that I've done something that I thought was within policy and found out later it wasn't. If that is the case here, just drop me a note and I'm open to discussing it.

Lastly, two admins (Jmabel and Jdavidb) both are at least not opposed to me including links on my home page to articles that I've written. I have authored three articles that I'd like to include on my user page: The Soy Switch, A Talk on Latter-Day Saints' View of Modern Day Revelation, and Cheap and Effective DIY Underground Sprinkler System Installation. I also have oil paintings displayed in two different articles that I'd like to include: Three Oil Paintings and Second Round of Oils. I really don't think there should be a problem with this (as Jmabel said, hundreds if not thousands of users do this), but if it's going to cause another big raucous, then I'll refrain. Uriah923 01:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I feel the problem is you have acted in such an irresponsible and actively unhelpful manner in promoting your site at all costs that you now give up the right to link to it. There were many straighforward conversations, you simply ignored all of them. You had many many chances to have let this end in a better way, but you chose again and again to waste everyone's time instead. As for contributions, if you take too much material that is not fact from a single text it is still a copyright violation. This has also been explained a number of times to you. - Taxman ^Talk 12:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It would be irresponsible of me to unblock someone and not watch over them, and so watch over them I will. NO linking to ON, not even on your user page. Kthxbai Redwolf24 (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

That sounds good. --HappyCamper 02:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Avengers (comics)

This is so lame that I hesitate to mention it. But here's a basic history. Avengers_fan (talk • contribs) created the New Avengers article, which is based on a comic that is a continuation of the old Avengers book. I proposed that it be merged with Avengers (comics), and despite vocal opposition from him, the consensus was that the articles should be merged, and it was done. In the process, a large portion of the writing in New Avengers was removed, because it was already summarized in Avengers (comics) in a paragraph or two which, as far as I'm concerned, retains all the essential information.

Now, Avengers_fan (talk • contribs) is insisting on reinserting his expanded edits, even though I and another editor have broken down his edits and explained why they should be condensed, are redundant, etc. Tempers are fraying because of this, but there's no 3RR because the edits are being inserted and revered about one every 24-48 hours or so. My question is: how do we deal with this? And can someone else objective have a look at it and offer an opinion on this? The Talk:Avengers (comics) page contains the arguments that have been going on. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please weigh in on this or suggest a course of action? I don't want to take any admin action myself because I'm one of those involved, but having to revert this guy's edits every 12 hours or so is getting ridiculous. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Take New Avengers to WP:AFD, if need be. The deletion or merging of the information through WP:AFD should be sufficient enough, presuming community consensus backing on your support, for an Administrator to take appropriate action should the article be recreated. You can try mediation as well. --AllyUnion (talk) 05:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] policy vote

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Blatant copyvio material. If you saw the backlog on WP:CP you would have to admit that we need this.Geni 11:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New speedy deletion criterion

A reminder: Jimbo recently set a new speedy deletion criterion:

Images in category "Images with unknown source" or "Images with unknown copyright status" which have been on the site for more than 7 days, regardless of when uploaded. [69]

So he is asking us to go ahead and clear out those cats as soon as possible. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• Important: Remember to change all of the pages listed in "File links" before deleting the image. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the more important perogative was to delete them to alleviate Wikipedia's potential exposure to legal problems? --HappyCamper 02:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

no need to mess up articles if it can be avoided though.

Plus the fewer annoyed users you need to explain the action to the more images you can get deleted. :) If anyone needs someone to go discuss the matter with an irate user whos pet images have been deleted, please drop me a line on my talk page or on IRC. --Gmaxwell 03:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Is there any semi-automated way to get a list of images in the suspect category that are orphaned? Nandesuka 16:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I would also like a nice generated list with all the orphan images in those categories. That would be fun. In the meantime, there's Special:Unusedimages, and I have a generated list of orphan images by user at User:TheCoffee/Orphan_images. Coffee 16:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• Images that would now fall under the new CSD criteria but which are currently listed at WP:PUI or WP:IFD should be left to complete under those processes. It would seem only fair to the uploaders in these case since they would have been previously notified and given their last chance to provide source/copyright info. Otherwise, I'm in full agreement with the new CSD criteria. RedWolf 18:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:JarlaxleArtemis indefinitely banned

JarlaxleArtemis has been banned indefinitely. If he emails you asking to be unbanned, do not allow him. Look at User:Linuxbeak/Admin_stuff/JarlaxleArtemis for more information.

Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 03:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Indopedia

I don't know if this article is even notable, but I had added it to give recognition to that website. Is it legally able to do what it is doing? Does anyone know about this - which even the former deletion edits did not show me that anyone was aware. Please look at their homepage [70] here. Tell me of anything going on on my talk page please, Molotov (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You haven't explained what illegal thing you think that site may be doing. They're largely a wikipedia mirror; they don't properly comply with the GFDL, but they're no worse than many of those listed in Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. They don't seem to be abusing the wikipedia trademark (in that they're not claiming to be wikipedia). Wikipedia has no monopoly on the -pedia suffix. The article, however, makes no assertion of why it's a notable website, so it's quite likely someone will nominate it for deletion. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Indopedia is a particulary bad mirror in that they they aren't really compliant and their "About" page is the same as ours with a find and replace on "Wikipedia," resulting in botched statements like "Indopedia was founded by Jimmy Wales and is a trademark of Wikimedia". However, this was brought up to Angela and I think the legal mailing list and it doesn't seem to be a big priority, at least not that website in particular. As to the article, there was a Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Indopedia where it was deleted. While it is different content, would this be speedyable? Dmcdevit·t 22:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GordonWatts

I usually ignore all this crap but the early closure and the page protection of this nomination smack of censorship. Wikipedia's purpose is to create a trusted encyclopedia, with these Wikipedia namespace pages mostly only existing to provide structure to the wiki and some order to the chaotic creation process. However, despite disagreeing strongly with Gordon on his pet issue - i.e. Terry Shiavo's guardian (her husband) should make decisions on her behalf and if the parents had any proof they should have brought it before the judge ruling on whether he could remain guardian instead of pulling all the political shenanigans etc - his nomination deserved to run the normal time - and the comments on it (as well as ending it early) show that idealogy is an important deciding factor for some. Now I don't have time to know all the things he did - but the early closure and protection speak volumes about some within wikipedia's desire to control debate. I find it completely unwiki. Back to editing anonymously-Abeo 20:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

It is standard on RFA to prematurely close discussions which have overwhelming oppose votes. --cesarb 21:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, there's no point in wasting time on nominations when it's very clear that there will be no consensus for adminship. Tuf-Kat 21:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with Cesar and Tuf-Kat. Holding a nomination open, when the overwhelming majority votes to oppose, has no useful effect on the community, and only serves to spread poison and ill-will. I fully support early close of these affairs. When there's a huge negative pile-on it only hurts us. Antandrus (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I know that ending the debate early is the standard - and I hadn't followed or voted because I assumed it would end quickly. However, he seems to want to hear the criticism - hopefully to be influenced by it. And doesn't seem to be phased by the vitriolic nature of some of it - a better man than me. If one purpose is to protect the nominee, and the nominee vehmenently opposes it, I see no reason to force it closed with a page protect - let it run its course - and let Gordon waste his time responding - I doubt many of those opposed would bother to read his stuff - then it will whimper out of existence. I see no logical reason for not letting him use the page to respond to the accusations, and ending it early just makes everything more suspect and supports the cabel accusations - when it is 4/100 it will be clear that there are not untapped masses waiting to support his adminship. And if socks gather - those will be easily discovered.

In other words what purpose does it serve to not just let it run its course? Whose time does it waste? Abeo 21:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Quoting from the RfA page: Nominations that will clearly fail may be removed earlier to prevent discussions that generate ill will. Paul August ☎ 21:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty clear that continuing with a request for adminship is not going to succeed at this point. Hm. An RfC seems to be the proper forum for general criticism—perhaps an informal one similar to the one Bmicomp has set up? I don't know. But it has ceased to be a viable request for adminship, and if Gordon just wants a community forum for criticism, he can set one up somewhere else. RfA is not the place for general discussion of a user's editing behavior or philosophical debate. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

(Quoting selected statements from above -and commenting)

• "this nomination smack of censorship" Yes, it does, and you follow John 13:15 in having followed your namesake's example and role model.
• "despite disagreeing strongly with Gordon on his pet issue...i.e. Terry Schiavo’s guardian (her husband) should make decisions on her behalf" Incorrect: I opposed his appointment as guardian because he went above and beyond the (questionable) removal of the feeding tube and denied regular food and water, which is a class II felony where the crime of denial of food and medical treatment was committed: 825.102(3):"Neglect of an elderly person or disabled adult" means: A caregiver's failure or omission to provide an elderly person or disabled adult with the care...including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services..." --and also Matthew 25:31-46, which says in relevant part that: "for I {King Jesus} was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink;...And these {who denied the least of the brethren and sisters food and WATER, like Terri Schiavo hello} will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
• "when the overwhelming majority votes to oppose, has no useful effect on the community" Yes, it does: It can prevent others from having to endure this: "If the rights of one are violated, the rights of all are at risk" --Thomas Paine [71]
• "and only serves to spread poison and ill-will." No one is forcing editors to read the page; If they do and have ill will, it can only mean they have a guilty conscience; A clean conscience would not be bothered: The RfA page is for the uneducated, and -since it is not the "main page" in Wikipedia, it won't disrupt anything; you are unnecessarily superstitious and uncertain of your case if this little page will rock your world; Are you sure you're not feeling guilty for not supporting me?
• Updates here: User_talk:GordonWatts/RfA -if you can handle seeing massive policy violations.--GordonWatts 00:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that any of the people you quote have at any time edited wikipedia.Geni 00:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"I can't find any evidence that any of the people you quote have at any time edited wikipedia." Are you talking to me, Geni? The quotes appear in the paragraphs immediately above my post. Do you not see them? I boldfaced the excerpts and put quote marks around them -just like I did your quote. Look at the top where it says: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts|GordonWatts and then scroll down to see who I quoted and what I had to say.

PS: I tried to post this last night, but Wiki was down.--GordonWatts 10:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

J.O.K.E. I'm pretty sure whoever wrote the gosple of of john never edited wikipedia. Dto Thomas Paine (Ths is wikipedia. You have no "rights"). The people who make the descission that a vote should end eary (basicaly buracrats and admins) belong to a group large enough to make sure that anyone who they don't want as admin doesn't become one (well unless jimbo or the comitte intervens). Your RF was going to fail (at an absolute minium you would have needed 68 support votes). Complaints about it being removed atchive nothing other than provideing cover for someone who really did want to abbuse the system by removeing one (and for that the cabul thanks you). Your Editcountitis bit is odd since your data shows that people with far less edits than rejected candidates can get through (to mess up your claim even further I had only 1200 edits). The raw number of admins thing ignores the role that non admins can play in looking after pages. FWIW Jimbo can pretty much do what he likes. Live with it or try and get elected to the comitte.Geni 12:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

'J.O.K.E.' OK, I missed that -I must have been too logical, like Mr. Spock, lol. "Your Editcountitis bit is odd since your data shows that people with far less edits than rejected candidates can get through..." You miss the point about how I have only edited 200 or so pages, and have about 11.7 edits per page; That is what I mean: People criticize an editor if he or she has "concentrated" on a few pages, but that does not make one a bad editor: 200 is still quite a large number, even if it is not as much as some people have edited (some people have edited around a thousand pages -wow -get a life people!)--GordonWatts 13:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I was going to avoid commenting on this whole sordid affair, but I can't let this pass. Get a life? You're doing yourself no favors here. android79 13:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"Get a life? You're doing yourself no favors here."I am actually quite busy cleaning my room, looking for a job, but also trying to help people get straight on some lingering Wikipedia abuses; No, Wikipedia is not evil, but it have major problems, but I think my advice to them "super-editors" (get a life) is good advice for me too; Thx for weighing in; I hope to take your advice.--GordonWatts 14:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Doing the stuff admins powers are useful in helping in will as a matter of course mean that you edit a large number of pages rather than sticking around on a relitivly small number. We hve no use for more paper admins.Geni 14:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• I just hope that no court judges what is a felony and what isn't based on what the Bible says. — JIP | Talk 12:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • — JIP, I was directing my commentary about the Bible to the original poster, because he believes in the Bible like me; You don't have to believe like we do, but I think it would be good --even for the judges, because the way this World is getting evil, maybe they need to make some changes, and "Thous shalt not kill, tell lies, commit adultury, cheat, or otherwise be bad," would probably help this evil, crime-ridden world.--GordonWatts 13:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I did not notice you were directing your comments to a fellow believer. I mistook them to apply generally. "Thou shalt not kill, tell lies, commit adultery, cheat, or otherwise be bad" are all good ideas and I wish judges would hold them as ideals. However, this is because they're good ideas on their own right, not because they're in the Bible. "It's in the Bible" should never be used as a blanket statement in verifying or proving anything. — JIP | Talk 13:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
      • No big deal, — JIP, and you're right: It's correct because it's correct, not because it's in the Bible. But that old book does have a good track record for having good advice in many cases, even if some of it's hard to understand in modern culture. Thanks again for your feedback; You all have a good one.--GordonWatts 14:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Imitation of user on Expansion theory

Someone, who has been engaging on a single-handed revert war, has imitated my username on Expansion theory. In particular there are four reversions: [72], [73] [74] [75], by somone who has a user name that appears identical to mine, but who is not in fact me. Clicking on the imitator's talk and user page lead to an empty talk and user page, yet I can't tell the difference between our usernames. Salsb 12:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

That's User:SaIsb, with a capital I (eye) as the third letter. You are User:Salsb, with a small l (ell) as the third letter. I will temporarily block him for now, other admins might investigate whether he should be blocked permanently for impersonation. — JIP | Talk 12:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Imitating another username with the intention to impersonate is clearly prohibited by the username policy. I have blocked indefinitely. Carbonite | Talk 12:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I blocked him for 24 hours 4 minutes after you blocked him indefinitely, because I had not yet seen your comment. Is there any harm in this? — JIP | Talk 12:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Probably not. I'm not 100% sure about the way blocks interact with each other (especially with MediaWiki 1.5), but I believe the first block takes precedent. If this isn't the case, any admin can reblock should they see the fake account editing again. Carbonite | Talk 13:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Unless this has been fixed very recently (say the last month), then it is a quirk of blocking that the shortest block takes precedence. Hence it is necessary to clear the short block before adding an infinite block. I have now done this for this case. Dragons flight 14:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I added the {{impostor}} template and protected the user page. Not even that creative an impostor – he didn't even bother to copy your user page text! android79 13:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Salsb 15:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked the following additional impostor accounts:

• SaIsb_( (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Salsb_( (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Salsb: (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Note that the last one fits the following pattern:

• Phroziac: (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Wikibofh: (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Sasquatch: (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Tony_Sidaway: (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Any idea which user(s) recently interacted with any/all of them? There may be a bigger pattern here; watch out for further activity. --MarkSweep✍ 14:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

A partial pattern appears to be that the people impersonated have all edited Talk:Expansion theory, except Phroziac (talk • contribs). Because Phroziac was targetted, I suspect this could be a disguised Marmot incident.--Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, I noticed I am a potential target for impersonation myself. So I thought, since I'm an admin, why don't I create the obvious impersonator user myself, then log in to my real account, and immediately block the fake impersonator indefinitely? AFAIK you cannot create a user with the same name as an already existing one, even if it's been blocked indefinitely. — JIP | Talk 09:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Why woild you need to block it? If you have a sleeper account, nobody can create it, so you should be OK with a good password. I only ask because I also have a lowercase l (ell) in my username, too. Filiocht | Talk 10:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as new user patrol is concerned, any accounts that are not supposed to be used (whether created by impostors or to prevent impostors) should be blocked so that they don't show up as suspicious accounts on anyone's radar. Better yet, don't create any doppelganger accounts: it's unlikely that you'll cover all the bases (with Unicode, there are just way too many options), and it just creates more work for everyone. Impostors are usually quickly spotted and blocked, so there's no reason for any preemptive strikes, IMHO. --MarkSweep✍ 18:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Doppelganger accounts. --cesarb 19:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

So it is not a bad idea, and no need to block? Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] image deletion

Per an exchange at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#User_talk:Zscout370.23Photos, the new image deletion policy is seriously annoying at least some users. One such user has proposed what I think is a great solution to the image copyright problem that may help avoid more hard feelings about it. Can we please make sure users are warned before deleting images they've contributed? And if an aggrieved user lashes out at you can you please respond in a sympathetic manner? Copyright violations are serious business, and we need to fix it, but let's try very hard to fix it in a way that is least annoying to our many, many, many good users. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

There are 12,000 images in one of those cats and uncounted many thousands in the other. Giving out messages is wildly unfeasible. As it is we have to check the images history to see that it was tagge >7days ago and then remove it from the article and then delete it, and give a delete summary for why. Adding more to the process is just too much. -Splash^talk 03:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The proposal is to sort them by user, and deal with them user-by-user rather than as a massive clump of unsorted images. user:Beland is quite adept at making lists of things - I've asked if he can do this. The request is to pause a bit to let this proposal play out. If we can achieve the goal (eliminate unsourced images) without alienating more users, I think it's worth a little inconvenience on our part in the interim. We may even be able to create lists sorted by user, showing the date of the user's last contribution. I'm unwilling to say "wildly unfeasible" until we've thought about it a bit. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think users should necessarily be notified, but these images should be deleted manually, I've already found and tagged a number of PD images (and reuploaded 1 that was deleted). For maximum awareness this project should be announced on the header of recent changes, maybe that will also get some people who know they have uploaded unsourced images to go back and check and tag.--nixie 04:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't do the grouping by user, but meta:DynamicPageList might be a better way to sweep. See, for a non-working example, User:Bovlb/no source which would display no-source images by last edit, oldest first, displaying the date they were added to the category. Bovlb 07:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

This sounds like a perfect use of a bot for me. Bot gets list of images, sorts by user, gives user a notice, and a few days later checks and if necessary deletes the image. -- Chris 73 Talk 10:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Two suggested tweaks: 1) bot checks uploaders contribs - if user hasn't edited in a long time, there's no point in warning them, and deletion can proceed immediately. 2) it's probably better for the bot to generate an "images to be deleted today" list (perhaps divvied up into handy blocks, so labour can be efficiently divided), as people might be squeamish about such an extensive deletion bot. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The deletions should not be done by a bot. Firstly, the images have to removed from articles, and I wonder if we have bot that is capable of searching the code reliably for a particular image and removing it without causing carnage. Secondly, just occasionally, there is some sort of info in/around the image that does indicate its license status (or likely status) and we wouldn't want to discard those. -Splash^talk 14:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I posted sample lists, linked from the above-mentioned Village Pump page. I also agree that user notification (but not irreversable image deletion) would be a good job for a bot. The upload form could also be better designed to prevent this sort of problem. Really, the thing to ask most people is whether or not they 1.) took the picture or made the drawing themselves, 2.) downloaded it from the web, or 3.) got it from an offline source. If 1, then we can presume GFDL based on a click-through license, unless they specify something different. If 2, we can ask for the URL, and then someone can find the copyright holder's original license, or at least e-mail their webmaster. If 3, we can ask for the name of the copyright holder, and whether or not the uploader has personal knowledge that the copyright holder has declared that the image may be used by anyone, for any purpose, without fee or restriction. I really don't think just tagging an image "CC" or "PD" or "GFDL" really gives enough information, especially if there's a dispute. I think due diligence would include at least trying to gather some evidence that the claimed license is correct, or having some way to verify that. There's absolutely no guarantee that the uploader will be around a month or a year or even a day from now to answer questions. -- Beland 05:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

To notify folks about this, how about if rather than a talk page message we include a note in one of the "trim" messages displayed with a user's watchlist (e.g. MediaWiki:Watchlistsub) or something similar to the "please donate" messages? Something like "NOTICE: Any images that do not have verifiable source and copyright information will be deleted on <date>. Please make sure this information is provided for any images you've uploaded. See <somewhere> for details about this." Where <date> is perhaps October 1 and <somewhere> is a page including at least a link to the upload log for the user. Seems like either of these would be noticed by pretty much anyone still actively editing. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea. We could edit MediaWiki:Watchlistsub or MediaWiki:Watchdetails. Coffee 16:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's the text I'm thinking about adding to MediaWiki:Watchdetails:

NOTICE: All images that do not have verifiable source and copyright information are being irreversibly deleted in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Please make sure this information is provided for any images you've uploaded (images you've uploaded can be found using this log - enter your username in the "User:" box). Also see Wikipedia's image use policy.

Any suggestions (in particular, anyone know how to get the current username so the upload log link can be the log for the individual user)? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

If we only do a blanket watchlist notification, I'm sure a lot of people won't get it. I certainly wouldn't - my watchlist is too large to check regularly. I'm sure many people who are unaware of proper procedure for image uploading don't regularly use their watchlists, either. Putting a message on the user talk page also has the benefit that you get the message even if you are doing casual reading and not intending on editing. The blanket notification is perhaps useful in the near term, but unidentified image deletion will be an ongoing issue, so I think a bot would still be useful. Having one would allow admins who want to clean these categories to just delete images that have been sitting there the requisite length of time without comment, knowing the uploader has been duly notified without having to check. -- Beland 03:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. - I've added a Wikipedia:Bot requests, though I don't know if I'll be able to implement it myself in the near future. -- Beland 03:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if we have bot that is capable of searching the code reliably for a particular image and removing it without causing carnage

Well, actually, all the bot would need to do is use the "What links here" and remove the image appropriately off the page. Such a bot can be programmed reasonably using the Python Wikipedia Framework, although it's a fair daunting piece of code work that would need to be done for it to do so properly. I whole hardly agree on the fact that the bot should not be deleting the image, but I think a proper solution is for the bot to post the list of images, what pages it is being used on, confirm the notification to the user, and indication of when it can be deleted assuming no response at a certain page. I am also in agreement here with Beland on the implementation of the bot, as there are several unresolved issues that need to be addressed before the bot can be properly programmed.

Although... I do have a thought for two separate scripts:

1. A script for the assistance of notification of unverified or unfree images
2. A script that removes the image from all linked pages where it is being used and generates a link for the deletion of the image.

Anyway... some food for thought. --AllyUnion (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Improve this article about Wikipedia

As I just posted on the Village Pump, there's a journalist doing a story about Wikipedia, and is inviting Wikipedians to help edit part of his story (and I would encourage everyone to take a look).

Which means we should probably expect a steady influx of vandalism—so this is a heads-up to admins to be on the lookout for vandalism on Wikipedia:Improve this article about Wikipedia of both the obvious and sneaky varieties. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

This has recently ended. -- user:zanimum

[edit] Cheese Dreams sockpuppet?

I've received notification (via a private email) that 132.241.245.49) looks suspiciously like a sockpuppet of banned user CheeseDreams (to the point where the IP is even signing as 'CD'). Could someone look into this? →Raul654 23:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

California State University? Not all comments signed CD I don't know.Geni 23:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem with witchhunting is that you start seeing witches everywhere. There's no way this is CheeseDreams. CD is a woman, literate and, so far as I know, English. That should narrow it down for you, Mark. Grace Note 23:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Literate? That's debatable. - 211.30.187.224 03:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RM

There is now a three week backlog of requests at WP:RM. I've not been around to do the process much, and it seems that nobody else has either. violet/riga (t) 09:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Anittas

I wasn't going to bring this up here (or anywhere), but it might be worth forewarning people. I corrected some edits made by Anittas (talk • contribs), and copy-edited an article that (it turned out) he though that he owned (Battle of Vaslui). He reacted extremely aggressively and insultingly ([76]), and reverted my edits wholesale([77]). So far, so depressingly familiar. He's also gone on to try to enlist other editors and admins against my appalling behaviour in editing his articles (e.g., [78]),with little success, and then went in for a bit of stalking, leaving messages full of hysterical vitriol against me for editors with whom I was in disagreement (e.g., [79], etc. He's been trawling through edit histories, trying to find anyone with whom I've been in disagreement (mostly banned vandals such as Enviroknot (talk • contribs) and his sockpuppets), and leaving messages on their Talk pages trying to enlist their help against me. A number of editors have tried to reason with him, but to no avail. At the moment he's just a nuisance, even mildly amusing, but it might escalate, so I'm explaining here in advance. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Where I come from being called a "nihilistic snob" is quite a compliment and his confusion over your rouge admin status bordered on vaudevillian... Or is it vaude-villain? FeloniousMonk 23:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey FM, was rouge deliberate? ):- Moriori 23:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a pun on Mel and a few others having been labled "rogue admins" some time ago by an editor with a history of misspellings. It's evolved into a running joke with it's own award... see my talk page for an example. FeloniousMonk 00:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sollog

Could someone remind me, is sollog banned or not? --fvw* 01:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

If you're referring to User:Sollog Fan, he's pretty blatently a troll/impostor of User:Sollogfan. --Carnildo 03:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked him indefinitely. --MarkSweep✍ 04:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. --fvw* 04:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I think anybody who has relations to sollog is banned for vandalising Wikipedia... not sure if it's written anywhere but that's my general impression. Sasquatcht|c 04:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

That might be a bit too radical, but I certainly don't see any problems with considering sollog and those who can reasonably be assumed to be sollog banned, which in effect is pretty close to that. --fvw* 04:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, pretty much if a user has "Sollog" as his/her name and likes to edit the Sollog article... you should watch them very very carefully... Sasquatcht|c 02:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

How can it be Sollog? Isn't he in jail? Everyking 04:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iasson

Iasson (talk • contribs), who is under a constantly reset 1-year block (currently set to expire on 20 September 2006), created a couple of obvious sockpuppets (one admitted (Hermodike (talk • contribs)) and the other obvious (Demodike (talk • contribs)). As per his usual practice, he used the user names as the passwords, so I have taken the liberty of changing the passwords. If this action was inappropriate, please let me know. And if the person behind either name or an administrator wants the new password, I will gladly send it along if they send me an e-mail. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

That action is fine.Geni 10:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The same old mistake and misunderstanding! Demodike is Faethon. Iasson never used his user name as his password! I just wanted to check, after such a long long time, whats happenig with Iasson's case, and I realized that some people are having an enormous obsession with him. They are patroling his rfc 24 hours per day! I added a comment in Iasson's RFC pretending that I am supporting Iasson's POV (which in reality I dont), and it has been reverted in a few seconds. FaethonAgain 11:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked FaethonAgain (talk • contribs) [80] for being either a sock or an imposter of Iasson/Faethon. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User SPUI

I personally find User:SPUI talk page offensive. Can anything be done? 207.69.139.149 09:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Probably not. --SPUI (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You go girrl. keep up the baiting and they will come. and don't ever let anyone tell you that your attention seeking is pitifull, just keep telling yourself that you're right and the rest of the world is wrong, over and over again. I love you just the way you are SPUI. don't ever grow up. ...Can anything be done?. Hee hee, Nice touch baby!! (although you could have picked a more creative ip). ROLFFLMAO.

[edit] User:MutterErde

This user appears to be using Wikipedia to store pornographic images. Check especially User:MutterErde/Nudity2; this page is a gallery of various softcore porn images (all apparent copyvios). I can't investigate this further right now; it would be good if someone went through his contributions and checked to see if he does anything OTHER than upload porn. If not, I recommend that he be banned. Note: I've been told on IRC that this user is banned from dewiki; might be an idea to find out why. Kelly Martin 14:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

See de:Wikipedia:Benutzersperrung/Archiv/Mutter Erde and de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Benutzersperrung/Archiv/Mutter Erde, also de:Spezial:Contributions/Mutter_Erde. The user was apparently banned for forging a signature and uploading porno. Lupo 14:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

MutterErde on de seems to be a hot topic. There's tons of stuff to read, a lot of nastiness, and I don't want to dig through all that. It might make sense to get a summary from User:Elian, she seems to have been involved. -- grm_wnr Esc 14:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I weeded trough the stuff in the German wikipedia (and it took me quite a while) and it's a little bit more than the offenses mentioned above (I would say it includes WP:POINT to a certain extent, amongst others), and will contact Elian right afterwards (although her wikistress level seems to be quite high at the moment, so let's hope she won't explode :) ). Let's see what she has to say. Lectonar 06:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo added an indefinite block on MutterErde last night. Ral315 21:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal on Hurrican Rita page

Somebody is adding comments aboutthe hurricane being vengance on the infidel at the end of the first paragraph. However, this text does not appear on the edit page!!213.202.147.160 14:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infinite block of an IP

I have indefinitely blocked this IP address, 70.88.129.205 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log).

It has three edits on Sept 22, all vandalisms. This is apparently because it was blocked 48 hours on Sept 19. And possibly again on Sept 16.

Before September, it's quiet - two edits in August, then nothing til May. But in May, it has the exact same kind of vandalism - racism, with a dash of antisemitism.

January? Same thing. Same article. Same vandalisms. Its first edits were made in November 2004; I'm sure you can guess what they were.

This is nine months of constant vandalism from an IP address, and I really see no reason why we should put up with it. --Golbez 16:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

because IP's can be reasighned. Unless it is an open proxy don't block for more than a year.Geni 16:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

When it's reassigned, the new innocent person can contact us. However, a year is probably sufficient. --Golbez 16:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Wait. Waitwait. LOOK AT THE BLOCK LOG.

# 15:37, May 24, 2005 Phils blocked "User:70.88.129.205" with an expiry time of 1 month (repeated vandalism, ignored warnings)
# 15:35, May 24, 2005 Phils unblocked User:70.88.129.205 (block period longer than allowed maximum, blocking for a month (see ANN/I))
# 10:33, May 24, 2005 Geni blocked "User:70.88.129.205" with an expiry time of 1 year (Repeated vanalism ignorded warnings) 

# 10:10, February 2, 2005 Rdsmith4 blocked "User:70.88.129.205" with an expiry time of 6 months (IP has done nothing but vandalism for months)
# 10:09, February 2, 2005 Rdsmith4 blocked "User:70.88.129.205" with an expiry time of 6 months (Account has done nothing but vandalism for months)

My recommendation of an indefinite block remains. 6 months didn't stop him, why the hell would a year? I've dropped it to a 24 month block; I'd like to be notified if anyone considers this too long. --Golbez 16:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course, he never actually got a 6 months block since it collided with a 1 week block and our quirky software is such that shorter blocks always win. I agree with the others here though. IP blocks for persistent vandals can be long but not forever. Dragons flight 16:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I saw you reblocked for 24 months.. I think that's better than indefinite. At least it'll expire at some point. There's a vandal on a Comcast IP who I've been blocking for month-long periods for a while.. his IP changed recently, so I'm glad that I've only been doing month blocks. Rhobite 16:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I figure just block for a month and if he comes back at the end of the month, block for another month. That's easy enough without going out on a limb making an excessively lengthy block. Everyking 22:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:John Henry DeJong

The following has just been left on my Talk page:

Mel -

I am the real, legitimate John Henry DeJong. Apparently, one of the losers who was jerking around with Chad Bryant's entries here a while back decided to use my name - among many others - to do it. I notice that you have placed a lock on this username. I would like to register with Wiki and perhaps contribute across a wide range of subjects including MS Access programming, web design, graphic design, web development, and most facets of popular culture, and I think it'd be real cool if I could do so under my own name (also thereby eliminating the various google hits containing my name which turn up in a search, all of which are tied to the insipid nonsense with the anti-Chads).

You may feel free to contact me by telephone at (919) 691-5425 at your leisure, or via e-mail at any one of the following addresses to verify my identity:

john at lowgenius dot com (this is the domain of my web design business; a quick look at www.lowgenius.com will show you the same phone number in the page footer)

webdesign at lowgenius dot com

domainregs at lowgenius dot com

john at roadlesstraveledtheatre dot com

lowgenius at gmail dot com

johnhdejong at hotmail dot com

lazaruslong.geo at yahoo dot com

You can also reach me via instant message: Yahoo! and MSN using the last two addresses above, AIM under the name 'jhdalg', or ICQ UIN 18076883.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

65.190.213.86 15:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

John Henry DeJong

Owner, Lead Designer

LowGenius Web Design

Information Director,

The Road Less Traveled Theatre, Inc.

Any thoughts/advice? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

He's perfectly able to use a variant of it, I see no reason why he has to use that particular name. --Golbez 17:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Registering as your exact real name helps increase your credibility on the wiki. It is one of the primary reasons why account renames are performed. I'm thinking about moving to my real name someday. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 20:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought the same as Golbez (I also wondered why a vandal chose to use this person's name...). Anyway, Curps has suggested that I ask a bureacrat to perform a bit of technical wizardry that only a bureaucrat can, and that's what I've done. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexuality in Singapore

Someone please end the nonsense going on this article. There is a revert war going on that shouldnt. --Cool Cat ^Talk 01:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Urdu language, Bollywood, Bhangra

All three articles are under intermittent attack by a user whom I believe, on the evidence of shared obsession and shared anon IP and sock usage, to be Harprit/70.177.166.200/69.175.46.66/JusticeLaw/205.188.117.14. The IPs may be shared IPs at a large ISP, since not all the anonIP edits match Harprit/JusticeLaw's editing pattern, just some of them.

Problem at Urdu language and Bollywood -- Harprit seems to believe, contra ALL linguistic evidence, that Urdu and Hindi are two completely different languages. He shows no inclination to discuss, just reverts. In Bhangra, he's insisting on ranking Bhangra artists into categories based on whether he thinks they're great, good, or so-so.

Urdu language was protected once, and as soon as it was unprotected, Harprit resumed the attack. It may be time to protect it again. So far, I've been able to hold him off at Bollywood and Bhangra. Zora 07:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I protected the page, but that's not really the solution. How about opening an RfC on this? I agree with your point on the changes from 70.* being vandalism, but opening an RfC might help resolve this dispute. Thanks. --Ragib 07:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I've seen the same behavior. He does it to Hindi sometimes too. Each time no effort is made to substantiate his position. Posts the to his talk page go pretty much ignored. - Taxman ^Talk 17:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Joseph108 on Vishwa Nirmala Dharma

Would anybody care to step in? Joseph108 keeps removing sections from the article without so much as an edit summary. I have left a couple notes on his talk page which have gone unanswered so far. I have already used up my three reverts, so any help would be appreciated -- Ferkelparade π 10:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

On it, though I'm out of here in 5 minutes. But let's see if a word from someone else has helped. --fvw* 10:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AOL IP Ranges

I'm beginning to question the wisdom of the 15 minute limit on blocks to AOL IP addresses. I don't know if this has already been discussed, but the lack of effective blocking on AOL IPs in general makes AOL vandals pretty much untouchable from an admin perspective. I'm also concerned that this limit may not be totally necessary. The idea, of course, is that AOL-dialup users can change IP addresses on every page load. However, the growing class of AOL-DSL users should presumably be the same as any other broadband users, and probably retain the same IP address until they manually renew it. Can we isolate out the block ranges for dialup users, and just list those on Special:Blockip rather than extending the block protection to all AOL users? If there is a more specific place for this discussion, please let me know. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that while individual AOL users may retain the same local IP address for their entire session (for DSL users, that may well be days or weeks) all of the AOL connections are passed through a limited number of proxy servers. It is the IP address of those proxies that we see on Wikipedia. Two problems seem to arise.

1. A large number of AOL users will pass through a particular proxy, making collateral damage due to AOL IP blocks severe.
2. In some cases, AOL will route a particular user through several different proxies on successive edits, making an IP block even less effective.

Correct me if I am mistaken in my understanding of AOL's network architecture.... :I'd love to be able to block certain IP ranges from anonymous editing; that would solve both problems. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

This may not be popular, but what I'd like to see is a block of all the AOL proxies with instructions on how to disable proxies in your browser. For the few people still using the AOL branded browser which allegedly forces you to use the proxies, either find some technical fix or educate them on how to use a different browser. It might deviate a little from the basic anyone anywhere anytime can edit, but it would at least force vandals to redial/re-dhcp/repptp/whatever and put a serious dent in AOL's unblockability. If they have any sensible IP assignment structure it might even be possible to block certain vandals by area, at least for the DSL customers, meaning they really have to find a different ISP or open proxy to continue vandalising. --fvw* 14:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

whenever I use AOL I go through firefox. My IP still changes a lot. The only way people could stop this from happening is to change provider.Geni 14:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not editing through a proxy? I haven't actually used AOL dialup, but my experiences with other people using it suggest they do assign you a routable IP address and don't use transparant proxies. --fvw* 00:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I really like TenOfTrade's suggestion, that we allow AOL editors, but they may not edit anonymously. Is that even possible in MediaWiki? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've created a monobook.js script that indicates on the Special:Blockip page if an IP address is in the AOL range: User:Func/wpfunc/blockiphelp.js. Func( t, c, @, ) 17:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you could just revert them and not worry so much about excluding users? Just a thought. Yes, I know it's aggravating but it has to be a better solution than discriminating against AOL users. Grace Note 00:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:FlashAmI

The majority of edits by User:FlashAmI are needless links advertising a site (interviews with band members, not really consequential to their wikipedia articles at all). Is there a fast way to remove these without reverting (which would remove any work done since his edits)? If not, I can go through and remove them all manually later today, but an easier solution would be great too. Kertrats | Talk 13:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, if the article in question has been edited by someone else since the particular edit you wanted to remove, it is not possible to revert (or roll back) without loosing the changes done by other editors. I'm afraid you'd have to edit out the links concerned. Regards, Redux 03:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Porn star articles

Lately we've seen three articles about former porn stars publishing their real names and links to their personal (non-porn) blogs. I suggest that if this happens in the future, we remove the personal information both from the article and from its history on sight, and if all that remains is the porn star's pseudonym and a link to a porn site, delete the entire article. This would avoid discussions on this noticeboard and in WP:AFD. — JIP | Talk 14:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

No. I've every sympathy with the sentiment that we should remove personal info from article where that information isn't generally in the public domain (or where it's published in some very minor venue, such as a chatroom or non-notable blog). But where such information is in general circulation (which is really another way of saying that it's verifiable) we should include it. This was the test we applied to the name of Kobe Bryant's accuser. It's a policy consistent with our mission to collect published information (rather than publishing new facts). I don't think an actor's real name is merely trivial - we publish the real names of Cary Grant, Rock Hudson, and Marilyn Monroe, for example. On looking at our pornstar cats, we publish the real names of Tera Patrick, Silvia Saint, and Linda Lovelace. These are all generally well known (although there are spelling variances on Saint's real name). IMDb publishes them all, as do plenty of other sources. I think the real name of a person notable enough to have a wikipedia article is itself a notable fact (generally their address and where they work now and stuff like that clearly isn't). This test (the test of verifyiability) wouldn't have prevented us from removing the material from Jordan Capri et al (as they weren't from reliable sources). JIP's test (if taken literally, as some would be wont to do) would result in our removing perfectly encyclopedic information that's widely available from respectable sources. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Finlay. An encyclopedia shouldn't be trying to reveal well-kept secrets (e.g. Jordan's real name), but it also shouldn't hide from information that is already well-established in the public sphere. It is WP:V and WP:NOR that protect the real identities of these women, which is something that has to be looked at on a case by case basis. Dragons flight 16:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

To clarify my point, I'm certainly not in favour of publishing stuff like actresses' addresses or present occupations. That's a general policy we seem to have arrived at by (mostly unspoken) consensus over the years - we don't publish the same details about politicians, actors, movie stars, sportsmen, or anyone else. There's a few exceptions to that, where the information is itself notable - our article on The Dakota being such an example. I'm really saying that porn performers aren't a special case, and the same criteria for inclusion and exclusion should apply to them as to everyone else. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, furthermore, on looking at Capri's realname blog, she says "I became the second most popular softcore ameture gal on the internet". As I said, I'm not in favour of exposing someone's secret identity, but it doesn't look like she's trying terribly hard to keep the correlation between her old life and her new one much of a secret. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

To clarify my point, I am only suggesting removal of real names of those porn stars who haven't revealed it themselves. If we are the primary source of a porn star's real name, it must be deleted. But if another notable online source has already revealed it, it's not so important. I too have looked at Jordan Capri's personal blog. She blatantly admits to having been a famous porn star. However, as far as I have seen, her blog never mentions either her real name or her porn pseudonym. What I disagree with her in, is the "amateur" status. She had a full-time contract with a porn studio, and was earning more on a single photoshoot than I earn in a year. That makes her a professional, like it or not. — JIP | Talk 17:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

JiP's right. There's absolutely no way we should publish someone's real name if it's not available elsewhere. That would be a breach of the policy on original research and would make Wikipedia a primary source, which is something I hope we can all agree should be avoided. Grace Note 00:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. A verifiable source that predates the inclusion of the particular piece of information on Wikipedia is required. If there's none, it must be axed out. Regards, Redux 02:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Anybody think it would be appropriate to contact the girls in question and let them know what happened? If they weren't "out" before, Wikipedia is a very public venue, and the mirrors will be around for a while regardless of what we've done, so a heads-up might be in order. Isomorphic 07:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought of doing so by adding a comment on Jordan Capri's blog, but then I found out it required joining some sort of community and couldn't be bothered. Besides, by the looks of it, Jordan Capri has contributed to her own AfD, and thus is possibly reading this right now. — JIP | Talk 21:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

True. What about the other girl? Isomorphic 04:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Sarfatti dispute

There's been a dispute at Jack Sarfatti. The article was nominated for deletion by JIP, and then was closed also by JIP as a keep, saying to "keep as rewritten by User:Hillman". User:JackSarfatti, who claims to be the person Jack Sarfatti, and other editors, mainly User:Hillman and User:Chan-Ho Suh, seem to be engaged in an edit war. User:JackSarfatti has made numerous legal threats, claiming that Hillman is someone attempting to slander and libel him. Please see User talk:JackSarfatti, Talk:Jack Sarfatti, and Jack Sarfatti for more information.

The reason I'm posting here is to have another administrator look over the dispute and my actions. After leaving a note with User:JackSarfatti, warning him about legal threats and informing him of the WP:3RR rule (which he did violate, but I felt there was no good reason to block), I proceeded to protect the Jack Sarfatti page. I would appreciate any input on this matter, especially since involves a (seemingly) geniune legal threat against a Wikipedia user. Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 00:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Immediate input would be appreciated, as User:JackSarfatti seems to be logged in right now. He appears to be sincere about his legal threats: "On Sep 23, 2005, at 5:39 PM, Jack Sarfatti (sarfatti@pacbell.net) wrote to Tony Smith physicist/attorney:

OK Tony they locked me out. I will inquire with the Attorney General of Florida on Monday and if Wiki is incorporated there I fill file a formal complaint that, if successful, can result in the loss of their tax exemption with the IRS." (posted to my talk page, apparently referring to the protection of the page) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 00:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, the policy is to block (not ban!) people doing things like this indefinitely. --Phroziac ^(talk) 01:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

After asking on IRC, this was confirmed as true, and I have blocked the user. --Phroziac ^(talk) 01:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Good call, for what it's worth I agree with this block entirely. --fvw* 01:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, he's got to be kidding about the Attorney General of Florida, right? After reading the article and his rantings on the talk page, I refuse to believe anyone would take him seriously. Um, this laywer of his...is he from the future? ;-) Func( t, c, @, ) 01:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• Folks -- I've been seeing Sarfatti come and go for years. Do not bother trying to reason with him; he is immune. Do not try to make sense out of him either. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I can confirm what jpgordon says. Just be grateful he hasn't responded with thousand-word screeds. --Calton | Talk 11:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

New development: [81]. Sockpuppet? --cesarb 13:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think it's really one of his "lawyer" friends. This diff convinces me he's really copying those emails from somewhere, not making them up from scratch. Still nothing to worry about though. Superm401 | Talk 17:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yellowikis

Once again, I'm objecting to "transwikiing" to yellowikis. See Wikipedia:Transwiki log/Articles moved from here/yellowikis. this is the only non-Wikimedia project which has its own "transwiki" page. Again, this gives the impression that yellowikis is a sister project. And Uncle G, there is no point in you making any attacks on me here. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Why does it matter that it is non-Wikimedia? It just means that they are mirroring our content. And considering that it is also MediaWiki and GFDL, it is just a mirror site with more documentation and compliance than most. You object to listing it on the TL? That's not a big deal at all, though I don't really mind. I also have a hard time believing Uncle G has attacked anyone, so what is that supposed to mean? 134.10.44.224 08:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Heh it means we know what has been coppied. What's the problem?Geni 15:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

So why do we care? If I copy an article to another wiki, I should let the world know about it at Wikipedia:Transwiki log/Articles moved from here? As I mentioned above, only yellowiki gets the privilege of having its own page, among non-Wikimedia properties. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

(That anon was me, btw). I have to admit this is the first time I've ever seen the transwiki log referred to as a privilege. Take a look at some of the horribly unencyclopedic articles that have languished there for months. The transwiki log exists for two purposes. To aid in the transparency of the traanswiki process, which is good ofr GFDL compliance as well. And to (in my dreams) serve as a place where such unencyclopedic articles that needed transwiki could be combed through and deleted/merged/fixed somehow. Neither of those are concerns that are only for Wikimedia projects, as they both apply to that wiki as well. Try to do some cleanup at the TL and you'll see that it isn't a privilege. Again, I simply don't see why it would even matter. Dmcdevit·t 00:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Because nothing has yet been transwikied to other non-Wikimedia properties. If you can find another GFDL wiki, feel free to start suggesting appropriate things be sent there. I doubt there was an official decision that Yellowikis is special. ~~ N (t/c) 00:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I find it somewhat disturbing to be literally handfeeding our competitors content. They can go collect their own editors, or take a copy of the next database dump. -Splash^talk 00:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Yellowikis doesn't really strike me as a potential "competitor" of WP, and in any case we encourage "competition" by using the GFDL and producing database dumps. The idea of "competing" against other wikis seems so against the WP ethos to me. ~~ N (t/c) 00:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Why should another GFDL wiki be seen as a competitor? Seems to me that we would inherently be friends with any other source of GFDL content. Which is not to say that I plan to expend energy helping them, but I don't see any reason to complain about people that do so. Dragons flight 00:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd say to be considered friends in this sense wikis should not only be GFDL but also once they reached a nontrivial size they should provide bulk content dumps. Otherwise any content placed there is effectively locked into only being availible in small peices not en-mass for re-use. Plugwash 00:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It's irrelvant. Dumping large amounts of stuff on a wiki is quite an effective way to kill it. Wikinfo hasn't really taken off has it? Beyond a certian size you run into the problem that you don't have enough people to handle the size so all the imported article become a deadweight.Geni 01:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Just to make my concerns clear: I have no problem with people copying GFDL content from Wikipedia to any other GFDL site in the world. My objections are to the use of the term "transwiki", which implies an official relationship, and the setup of an official page to indicate the copies. Just do it and don't mention it, why should anybody care? User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Well since "transwiki" seems literally to mean just moved from one wiki to another, I've never assummed the word was limited to just Wikimedia wikis. Is there some reason for thinking the word does imply an official or priviledged relationship, cause I've never read it that way. Dragons flight 04:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Come on. Did you read what I wrote above? I gave two good reasons. There is no implication of officiality. Indeed, I am highly suspicious that only I and two or three other editors ever look at the TL. And I don't see why this is even on the AN in the first place. It should have been brought up on the TL talk page, on individual editors' talk pages, or even the village pump or something. Bu it hasn't got a thing to do with administrators, and is not really important at all anyway. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Version deletion

I added a brief section on deleting revisions from the page history to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. I couldn't find any documentation on this ability, so I added some. It's very rough, and others should look over it, approve, and edit. Thanks! Isomorphic 08:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation, Nablus and Shechem

User:Guy_Montag has been repeatedly and belligerantly posted material that User:Jebro has painstakingly documented as having come from copyrighted sources. I have not reviewed Jebro's evidence carefully, but Guy Montag has not in any way denied it. If this matter is not dealt with swiftly, I will contact the owners of the violated copyrights, and their lawyers can address it. Marsden 13:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I think all the heated middle east articles need is lawyers in the mix. Are the normal procedures for copyvios being followed? Secretlondon 14:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The only normal procedures I know of for copyright violations involve lawyers. As you allude, it might be better to try address the problem otherwise. Marsden 14:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

You'd probably get better results if you didn't start threatening legal action against people who you're approaching for assistance. I'm just saying. I've left a warning on Guy's page. Do let us know if he does this again. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I was never asking anyone for assistance. Please be very clear about that. If anything, I was helping Wikipedia avoid being involved in a crime. And someone ought especially to thank User:Jebro for all of his effort on this. Marsden 14:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The copyvio'ed material must be removed, which you did. Since he was edit warring to put it back, coming to us was the right thing to do. Based on his statements, and an assumption of good faith, I am going to assume he thought using that material was okay, but it clearly does not look that way. If he continues to readd it without some substantive proof that it is some how free content, then he should be blocked for a reasonable amount of time. If after that he still doesn't get the point, well Jimbo considers intentionally violating the copyrights of others to be grounds for a permanent ban, so admins have quite a lot of discretion in dealing with an issue such as this. Dragons flight 14:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merging page histories

User:Coolcat moved the page on the Valkyrie and Norn Skuld to Skuld (Oh My Goddess!) some while ago and made Skuld into a disambiguation page. In accordance with the vote at Talk:Valkyrie, where a requested move by Coolcat was rejected, I have tried to restore the page Skuld as an article on the mythological Skuld. However, most of the edit history of the mythological Skuld is now at Skuld (Oh My Goddess!), and it should be moved to Skuld. I am not familiar with how to merge page histories and I wonder how to proceed.--Wiglaf 16:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

There are two mythological Skulds aside from the anime character. There is a very serious need for a disambig there. --Cool Cat ^Talk 16:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

As for the princess Skuld, she is quite obscure, and does not warrant Skuld to be a disambiguation page.--Wiglaf 16:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Wiglaf. When one of the Skulds is clearly more notable than the other, perhaps you can just provide a short disambig sentence on top of the article, like at Barak. If there are several disambig articles for the same subject, it's much better to just create a seperate disambiguationarticle, like at John Doe (which provides a link to John Doe (disambiguation)). --Deathphoenix 16:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC) forgot to sign

Apparently, User:Phroziac agrees with Coolcat's old move. I have asked him for an explanation and reverted the move.--Wiglaf 17:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wells Fargo Center

There is a senseless revert war going on this article. There are apperantly two Wells Fargo Center buildings in two different states, hence prompting the page Wells Fargo Center be a disambig page. Thanks. --Cool Cat ^Talk 16:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

That looks really senseless. Is one of them the Wells Fargo Center? Secretlondon 16:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, what about the ones in LA, Sacremento and Seattle? I think they just call all their buildings the Wells Fargo Center. Dragons flight 16:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Are they all notable? Secretlondon 17:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Not as far as I care. But if every high school in the world is notable, it wouldn't surprise me if someone wants to make that argument. Dragons flight 17:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

We've also got one here in Spokane, but the most notable thing about it is that the middle section of their lit sign on the top of the building was out for a few weeks, leaving a very large "WELL GO" quite visible from the northern half of the city. --Carnildo 20:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

On looking on the history of Wells Fargo Center, it looks like an anon did a cut and paste move to make room for the disambig. That needs to be reversed, the page moved, and a new disambig written. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I have reversed the cut&paste move. I have not re-protected the page, as I assume that the "cut" part of the move was the reason for the reverts. Unfortunately, no-one has actually explained why they were reverting, so I cannot be sure about that; if the revert war starts again, someone should protect the page again. Eugene van der Pijll 17:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Sarfatti/Talk:Jack Sarfatti

Hi, I very, very foolishly got involved in a content dispute with Jack Sarfatti (the person) about his wikibiography, and this "dispute" has gotten waaaaay too crazy for me (legal threats, veiled death threats, mailbombing). So I cave. Or at least, I am trying to, but (more or less at my own request, a few days ago), User:Flcelloguy protected the version of the biography written (mostly) by me, so Jackhorner (apparently JS's latest sock puppet) can't change it back to the one JS wrote. I left a message on his talk page asking him to unlock the article so JS can change it back to whatever he pleases, but so far no response. Can someone please unlock the article? If that would violate the page protection policy, can someone at least revert the article back to Jack Sarfatti's latest version? I just want Sarfatti to stop bullying me, but he clearly won't do that until the biography is changed back to some version he approves of. Can someone help get him off my back? TIA---CH (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a wiki. Even if it were changed back it's clearly not going to be protected forever. Other users will clearly edit the article and change its content. Secretlondon 20:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand that, of course. The point is, Sarfatti is threatening me because he cannot make the changes he wants. For all I care, you can revert to his 'approved version' and keep it locked. I just want to get him to stop harrassing me.---CH (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Legal threats? Mailbombing? Gimme a diff and I'll block him. No reason that should be tolerated at all. Or was it done in email? --Golbez 20:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hillman left me a request that the page be unprotected; I'm going to go ahead and fulfill his request. There's a huge mess at Talk:Jack Sarfatti, if anyone wishes to comb throught it. User:JackSarfatti was blocked indefinitely for making (numerous) legal threats. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought this name sounded familiar. No problem with unprotecting it now that the kook is gone. PS, here's a legal threat: [82] --Golbez 21:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

oh, wait, you say JackHorner is a Sarfatti sock or ally? Let's see here.. --Golbez 21:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

User:JackSarfatti has already been blocked for making multiple legal threats, both in Wikipedia and via email. User:Jack Horner may or may not be a sock. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and JackHorner is communicating his words and, vaguely, a legal threat by proxy. I say we treat JackHorner as a meatpuppet of Sarfatti and block him accordingly. Every single edit has been to parrot Sarfatti's words. --Golbez 21:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Jackhorner has only edited on JackSarfatti topics. He says his name is Jack Horner and his email address is woodymarble@mac.com. I think block as a sock unless proven otherwise. He's certainly acting as a mouth piece. Secretlondon 21:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

That email address has 2 hits on google - one is this which is on a posting from Sarfatti to an unknown other. Secretlondon 21:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the talk page and there seemed to be two factual matters that needed to be fixed. I did that without unprotecting and I've asked them to confirm or to give further instructions. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page per Hillman's request. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that Jackhorner is a sock, but I don't care about that. I just want him to stop threatening me with lawsuits, death, etc. He's just way to crazy for me to deal with. And yes, he has apparently been mailbombing a whole bunch of people using his Pac Bell account with angry complaints and threats against me. You guys can't do anything about that.

Hmmm, actually, can you please yourself revert the page to Jack's 'approved' version and immediately relock it? Otherwise, someone else who took the opposite side in this dispute will revert it to my last version, and Jack will accuse me of having done that and continue to harrass me. I think what he wants is the ability to modify the page to his version and then protect it from what he calls 'vandalism' by people who dispute his account of his astounding activities/achievements. I am asking you to give him what he wants, in hope that he'll stop harrassing me. ---CH (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you nor jack get to choose to have a non-community-supported version of an article, no matter what your motivations are. Note jack is currently blocked (by me, and I have yet to receive a single piece of mail from him. Some people have all the luck). --fvw* 21:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Giving up is no fun. I'll block him. Keep us posted if another one pops up. --Golbez 21:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

And if he's harassing you outside of Wikipedia, you might have legal options open to you. But if all he's doing is sending emails through Wiki, then change your Wiki email address. Let us know what he's doing, please. --Golbez 21:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't even know the details, but yes, I know he has mailbombed a whole buncha people in regard to the content dispute, and yes, he is apparently threatening me with lawsuits and other penalties outside of the Wikipedia. You guys can't do anything about that, and I don't want to deal with a lawsuit, however ludicrous it might be, so I am caving. Yes, it is not nice that I am caving under bullying, but that's the beauty of the law I guess---- bullying is effective, because at some point, to any reasonable person, so much trouble over one silly Wikipedia article just doesn't seem worthwhile.---CH (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked Horner. --Golbez 21:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, can someone please revert the entire article to his 'approved version'? Sorry, you'll have to search through the messy history or the messy talk page to find that. I don't want to touch it. Can some admin then temporarily lock the article to Jack's approved version? He seems to blame me for everything no going his way, plus some weird hate mail he claims to be getting (needless to say I have nothing to do with that, if he is indeed getting nasty emails and not just making that part up), so I am concerned some other user will revert the page to some version he doesn't like and he will blame me and keep harrassing me. I just want him to stop bullying me.---CH (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. and please explain very very slowly and clearly on the talk page that an admin has reverted the article to his approved version and reprotected it.---CH (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a matter to be taken to Jimbo or the foundation's lawyers; someone harassing an editor off-site so much that he wants it put back to a non-consensus version? --Golbez 21:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, he is way too scary for me (death threats, lawsuits). That is why I am asking am admin to revert to Jacks' 'approved version' (sic) and to lock it at least until he is convinced that I have indeed caved and stops harrassing me (and all those people he has apparently been mailbombing). He is way too scary for me.---CH (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake, if he's sending you inappropriate emails just drop his email address into your idiot filter. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Or just change your Special:Emailuser address. I can understand your caving to this obvious lunatic, but that shouldn't mean we have to. ~~ N (t/c) 22:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Tony and Nickptar, you both misunderstood the off-wiki harrassment, but never mind. Tony, thanks for making the factual corrections Sarfatti had demanded (you probably do understand why I don't want to edit teh article any more!). And Flcelloguy, thanks for unprotecting the article. I'll report back if I think I need help with anything else, but at least for now, AFAIK this episode has blown over, sheesh. Thanks again, you guys.---CH (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rattlesnake Island

This valid stub seems to have had a load of tinfoilhat stuff added to it - and then what appears to be a request from a lawyer demanding deletion, stating that the garbage was added from a IP in his client's office and his cliant has been getting legal threats. I've reverted to the stub - and suspect the letter may be bogus, but perhaps others should check it out. The version before my revert is here [83] --Doc (?) 21:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Lawyers generally don't send cease&desists by editing articles, just ignore it. --fvw* 21:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Yup, that's probably right. --Doc (?) 21:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd be careful about this: the law firm exists and Jeffrey J. Weber apparently does work there. His e-mail address is available on their website if anyone wants to contact him to confirm that he made the edit in question and, if he did, to tell him where to send his notices. —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Latest developement [84] - a request that the offending parts of the edit history are removed. I take it we don't do that? --Doc (?) 17:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think that is a question for us to address. Even if we assume the situation is what it claims to be: i.e. an anon editor is being threatened with libel for statements he wrote in Wikipedia and now wants those statements expunged, then I don't think the answer of what to do is obvious. On the one hand, I doubt we really need that rant and removing it from the history may help the guy out. On the other hand, it is an ugly precedent (allowing people to withdraw their contribution is certainly not okay in general) and we might even be regarded as complicit in trying to hide evidence from the agrieved party. Since, we do not seem to be under any present legal obligation to act in this situation, I would suggest we do nothing except direct them to contact the Wikimedia Foundation. Dragons flight 17:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I made that suggestion on the IP's talk page (after he left a strange message on my user page) --Doc (?) 17:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)