Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive35

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 User:Spawn_Man and talk page spam 2 User:67.71.142.187 3 www.DetoxIY.com spamming 4 Attention admins re:User:Rgulerdem 5 Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates 6 Closing an AFD 7 Wesley Snowhill 8 CSD Backlog 9 Display Change? 10 Huge Blocks 11 Block and Lenny Bruce article... 12 Email from blocked user 13 Sockpuppet 14 User:Rick lay95 15 User:203.185.214.42 16 172 17 Did you know? 18 70.231.170.160 block 19 Suspected sockpuppet of banned User:Lightbringer 20 Double-check required 21 ABF Userbox 22 BlueGoose (talk • contribs) 23 Block in error 24 "End Notes" style of links reduces readability 25 Privacy Harassment from 67.160.251.14 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 26 Request for review 27 Are Sock Puppets A Policy Violation 28 Offensive user page 29 Dealing with WP:PAIN backlogs. 30 User needs some intervention 31 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- 2 32 indef block of User:Licorne 33 Deleting attacks in edit summaries 34 sockpuppets 35 User:Jimmy Jones 36 Which vandalism board? 37 Delete request for user subpage 38 This is a new one... 39 Blocking on request? 40 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway 41 Lock Kosovo 42 MrMister 43 Proliferating PoolGuy (talk • contribs) sockpuppets 44 Roitr 45 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker 46 Temporary undeletion 47 Neonazi edit war 48 User 12.35.165.82 49 Payson High School 50 Jonathanbender 51 College hockey 52 User Account hacked by Vandal 53 ScienceApologist and Plasma cosmology 54 ScienceApologist and Galaxy rotation problem 55 Personal attacks on a AfD? 56 Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2006 57 April Fools RFAs 58 Blocked User:Nrcprm2026 for 3RR violation 59 User adding bigoted POV to many pages 60 APRIL FOOLS DAY SECTION 60.1 April's Fools 60.2 April Fools Day ALERT 60.3 Dealing with blatant April Fools articles 60.4 April Fools Day Mayhem..... 60.5 Stalked pages? 60.6 April Fool's 61 Profanity Clarification 62 User:Earl Andrew and images 63 Suspected sockpuppetry by blocked user 64 Lolicon images 65 Blu Aardvark 66 Dutch and Sandertje 67 Personal Rapid Transit 68 Spellcheck? 69 Regained account control 70 Possible name issue: The Editor in Chief (talk • contribs) 71 Remove autoblock: 207.200.116.10 72 John Christopher Hepesus 73 User not removing fair use images from userspace 74 WP:CFD 75 Delete request for user subpage 76 Massive WP:SPAM by Serbian Genealogical Society 77 Overenthusiastic use of warning templates 78 Would you like Tawkerbot2 to report repeat vandals here 79 User:Lindosland 80 Help needed to merge edit history of redir with main article 81 Troll at large? 82 Seeking clarification 83 monobook.js pages appearing in Category:Articles that need to be wikified 84 probable linkspam 85 Spliting articles and the GFDL 86 J. Robinson 87 Zephram Stark indefinitely blocked 88 User:TrumpetPower!/Jesus as Mythical Creation 89 PaulinSaudi unblock request 90 Speedy deletion of duplicate images 91 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist 92 regarding User:68.219.87.13 93 Regarding Vkasdg

[edit] User:Spawn_Man and talk page spam

Spawn Man (talk • contribs) has created several blatantly unencyclopediac templates, all of which I've deleted, (Template:Film review, Template:Book review, Template:Song review, Template:Show review, Template:Game review and Template:Site review) and added them to several talk pages to spam his "reviews" subpage. I've rolled back his last set of edits to assorted talk pages. I leave this note here as an indication to other administrators of my actions, and thus invite any criticism and.or comments. Thanks.--Sean Black ^(talk) 07:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Support deletion and reversion, unless any were to user talk pages (haven't looked through myself) - I've come under serious flak for reverting spam off usertalks (including being accused of vandalism) before. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:35 UTC (2006-03-20)

No worries there, these are only for articles... for instance he's reviewed Half-Life 2 and so puts the template on Talk:Half-Life 2. Garrett^Talk 07:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I was on IRC when this madness happened, but for the record I support Sean's actions wholeheartedly. I would have helped myself if my ISP wasn't so slow to react... Garrett^Talk 07:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't like this. There was nothing wrong with unceremoniously removing the templates. However, they didn't need to be deleted out of process; there was no hurry. Superm401 - Talk 15:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not. But they serve no purpose whatsoever, especially after being orphaned, and a nomination at WP:TFD would surely be a unanimous delete. So there's really no reason not to delete them other than dragging our feet and wasting time and space at TfD that is best filled with more important things.--Sean Black ^(talk) 20:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but TFD's not particularly busy and deleting things out of process has been known to cause certain problems around here. Superm401 - Talk 03:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:67.71.142.187

67.71.142.187 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) - Firstly, the user vandalized my page.

Secondly, I went to his talk page and did the standard warning, told him/her that personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy and the user attacked back (so I warned again).

I don't know who this user is, I don't know why he/she seems to be bent on harassing me, but I'm asking two things:

1) I request that my userpage and talk page be semi-protected for a while to curtail vandalism
2) Please block this user.

Thank you. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 02:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Taken care of by Sceptre here. Thanks. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 23:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• I still wouldn't mind if my first request was fulfilled. Thank you. — natha(?)nrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 08:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] www.DetoxIY.com spamming

I'm seeing links to this commercial website being added to a lot of articles in the last couple of hours (at least). Each one seems to come from a different but simialr anon IP, for example 195.93.21.8 added it to Kashrut, 195.93.21.33 added it to Hemorrhoid, 195.93.21.38 added it to Amino acid etc. I'm guessing there's a block of dynamically-allocated IPs that someone is using to spam, given that they share a block and don't have previous histories of spamming these pages with this link. I'm reverting them as I find them, but maybe there is more systematic action that should be taken? Gwernol 00:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a bunch of these too, delightfully coming from AOL addresses: Sildenafil by 195.93.21.105 , Drink and Sex by 195.93.21.68, Weight loss by 195.93.21.74 . FreplySpang (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears the 195.93.0.0–195.93.63.255 range is registed to AOL and is located in Europe. — TheKMan^talk 00:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

GraemeL suggested on my talk page that we add it to the Mediawiki blacklist for spam, but I'm afraid I don't know how to go about doing that. Hopefully he suggested it to someone else who has more of a clue than myself...and I just noticed his notice from around midnight server time (4 hours ago) after being offline for a bit. :/ --Syrthiss 04:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

See meta:Spam blacklist. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, now I have that bookmarked. Mindspillage also has already added the above URL to the list. --Syrthiss 13:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attention admins re:User:Rgulerdem

See also above #Tiger loose.

Rgulerdem's block expires in just under 7 hours, and his talk page is currently protected (used to make personal attacks against blocking admins). He has a past history of this, and I'd like to request as many uninvolved admins as possible pleasew atch his talk page for possible further personal attacks. If possible, please also keep a look out for possible further talk page spamming. NSLE _(T+C) at 04:57 UTC (2006-03-26)

I won't be online when his block expires, so I am unprotecting his talk page early, please, uninvolved admins, if possible add User talk:Rgulerdem to your watchlists (if you took the time to read it, you'd know why I'm asking this). NSLE _(T+C) at 08:38 UTC (2006-03-26)

I just saw this, I would prefer not to see it. If the admins look at my block log they will realize that you are a dominant figure in the list. It looks to me that you are taking it so personal and forgetting that you are an admin here. I did not attack anybody including admins, it is against my personality. I did defend myself however especially against you simply because you are misusing your previliges. Resid Gulerdem 01:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates

Please update the 2006 Commonwealth games template, I have a relevant suggestion about Netball. --Hamedog^Talk|@ 12:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closing an AFD

Hi, could someone please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Re-Romanization of English? I can't because I'm the nominator, but it's been open for eight days already. Thanks! Angr (talk • contribs) 13:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wesley Snowhill

Based on this and this I am assuming that User:Wesley Snowhill is a WoW. He also claims that "Whiskey" something is another. Blocked indefinitely please review. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Wikiversity:Translation practice course (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) new user vandalising after final warning Antonrojo 15:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CSD Backlog

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion looks rather backlogged at the moment. Anyone want to look into this? =) — TheKMan^talk 17:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've taken care of most of it. --maru (talk) contribs 20:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks! — TheKMan^talk 20:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Display Change?

What happened to the sidebar and top bar? They are displaying as Image:Displaychange.JPG. Note the large spacing on the left of the sidebar, and the gap below the top bar's history, edit, talk ect tabs. What happened? The only suspicious Mediawiki change([1]) made was to add a featured articles link to the nav bar, could that cause this, or was this supposed to happen? Prodego ^talk 20:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My userpage changed too, The barnstars I have received are stacked vertically, instead of horizontally as they used to be(no one has edited the page). Could a change have occurred at the developer level? Prodego ^talk 20:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What ever the problem was, it just fixed itself, so disregard. Prodego ^talk 20:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC) Wholesale UKWholeslae ukwholsale uk

[edit] Huge Blocks

I am a little concerned about the huge blocks being applied by Raul654. He has blocked a /16, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Raul654&page=, and has tried to unblock a few as well. I don't think that 65000 IP address should ever have week long blocks applied for vandalism. Opinions or am I nuts? Mike _{(T C)} 22:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block and Lenny Bruce article...

I have just blockedUser:Flannel for 24 hours for violating WP:NPA with this edit, among others. I've been monitoring the Lenny Bruce article, and would appreciate some other experienced eyes on the death section. I'm unwilling to revert it back to the previous version, that Flannel re-wrote, since I just blocked him. Wouldn't seem quite kosher. There has been some discussion in Talk:Lenny Bruce that is relevant. Thanks. Wikibofh_(talk) 22:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email from blocked user

I just got this email:

Hi,

This is regarding some robot-deleted pictures.

Sorry I can't contact you by the talk page since I've been permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia, because I reverted some vandalism by one Antaeus Feldspar.

I don't know what the problem with the pictures you deleted was; they look like mobile phone camera pictures judging from the file name. Anyway, I logged in too late to see the files get deleted and so I have no idea what to do about it or even what the pictures were.

My user name is DannyWilde, but I don't often log into Wikipedia anymore since I was blocked permanently (for reverting vandalism, in case I didn't make that clear), so sorry about that.

There's nothing I can do about this, however. I don't think I've deleted any of his images (and I'm sure OrphanBot hasn't). His userpage was deleted, so I can't look at it to see what images he's referring to, why they were deleted, or even if it was OrphanBot and not Roomba that was doing the notification. --Carnildo 02:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It would appear to have been Image:DCF_0025.JPG and Image:DCF_0027.JPG. Whilst the filenames do indeed suggest they are digicam photos, they did indeed have no source and were notified by OrphanBot. Both images were first deleted by Cryptic on 4 March and again by JesseW on the 19th, in both cases as an unsourced image for more than 7 days. What he needs to do, clearly, is find an appropriate means for providing the source of the image and choose an appropriate licensing tag, bearing in mind the restrictions on the incorporation of fair-ues material, but you know that anyway. -Splash^talk 02:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[2] was edited by your bot twice, but I have not checked the block log yet, or the delete log. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, DannyWilde (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely for a stated lack of interest in making further contributions to the encyclopedia, attempting to delete all of his contributions up to that point in time, attempting to publicize the real names and locations of at least two other editors, and a breathtaking degree of rudeness in his interactions with other editors. (Admins can view the month or so of his talk page history to see what I'm talking about.)

Given the effort he went to to erase all traces of himself from Wikipedia, he should be pleased that his personal images are no longer hosted on our servers. That he decided to take one more dig at Antaeus Feldspar while asking us to try to find his pictures for him does not encourage me to view his request charitably. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet

I'm not sure if there is a better place to report this. Based on edits at USAA it seems highly likely that User:Randonnne is a sock puppet of User:Philosophenweg. The later user seems to have sprung up to continue the same vandalism from the first user. Antonrojo 03:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You can request a check user to confirm WP:RFCU Mike _{(T C)} 17:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rick lay95

Further to my message above re the above user, no-one has responded to my message, blocked the user or left a message on my talk page (or his), so I've therefore blocked him for another month - if anyone disagrees with this action, please feel free to reduce or lift the block. CLW 07:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:203.185.214.42

This user has vandalised the Michael Witt page several times now with vulgar messages and I was wondering if they could be please be blocked from the updating the page. Many thanks. Markrad 8:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a warning to the IP's talk page. Thue | talk 08:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 172

Although User:172 is no longer on the parole that was mandated by Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/172#Enforcement, he has resumed the behavior which gave rise to that ArbCom case: incessant reverting [3] and incessant violations of WP:CIVIL (see Talk:Privatization.) Perhaps someone could have a word with him. --HK 16:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I see zero incivility by 172 on that talk page. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Me neither. Please read the page instructions, this post breaches practically all of them. Bishonen talk 20:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Did you know?

Per a discussion on the talk page for North Berwick Harbour, it has been pointed out that "Pagan lore" and "Satan" are mutually exclusive, as the creator of the article this was a mix up on my part. If any interested admin could reword the text in the entry on the current DYK? template to "..while legend holds that..." rather than "..while Pagans believe that..." it would better reflect the facts. Thanks, Deizio 17:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 70.231.170.160 block

I blocked 70.231.170.160 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) for 12 hours for being uncivil and making personal attacks (see contrib history). Id like to hear your thoughts on whether I handled this correctly. Thanks.Gator (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppet of banned User:Lightbringer

I have reason to suspect that User:Fossick is a sock of the banned Lightbringer.My reasons to believe so is based on his edits, in particular this one, which is a carbon copy of edits done by previous encountered socks (it is contained within this edit by the sock 40 Days of Lent, this edit by the sock Basil Rathbone and other edits by his socks). Could this user be checked out and if nececary banned? At the same time, could we have the main freemasonry article semi-protected again, since socks of this banned user keeps popping up all the time? Thanks, WegianWarrior 07:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

NSLE has blocked him as a sockpuppet (besides the edits you mentioned, he removed this section and the one at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser). Superm401 - Talk 04:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Double-check required

Hi folks. Please would people review my recent action in giving User:Sodomiser an indef block for having an offensive user name. Thanks. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely the right thing to do, IMO. CLW 19:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup, and no need to ask for a review of something so obvious. --Doc ^ask? 20:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but no harm either. Just zis Guy you know? 20:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, Redvers is kind of new to the admin thing so I'm sure he was just being careful. I know I was paralyzed for a few days after getting sysop for fear of doing something bad accidentally. --Syrthiss 21:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, what Syrthiss said. First indef block, just wanted to be sure. Am now, with much thanks for people's time! :o) ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and please do this whenever you're uncertain. Of course, re-read the policy first if need be so you don't go overboard, but if more admins checked first things would run a little smoother. - Taxman ^Talk 13:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment: it's interesting to see how differently things work here and at de:. There, there has to be consensus gathered by community discussion before anyone is blocked for anything other than blatant vandalism (sort of like AFD but for users), which means offensive user names are usually just ignored, because of the suspicion that people are picking offensive usernames for no other reason than to enjoy the spectacle of people debating whether or not to block them for it. Angr (talk • contribs) 13:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my comments above were not intended as a ctiticism of a new admin wanting reassurance, but to assure him that his action was clearly correct, and to encourage him to be more self-confident in his own instincts. If unsure, then always best to ask for comment, but over time admins should learn to recognise what's obvious. --Doc ^ask? 13:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ABF Userbox

18:45, 27 March 2006 MarkSweep deleted "User:Nathanrdotcom/Userboxes/ABF" (don't)

This is not even remotely an offensive userbox. If certain admins don't know what a parody is, they should learn it. There's a process to deleting userboxes and I suggest you follow them. If a user posts something you don't agree with, don't just arbitrarily delete their work, there's a wonderful place called my talk page where we can discuss these things like adults. I suggest you use it.

You know, the creator of the paedophile userbox claimed that was a parody and it wasn't (it was instead way out of line). I don't appreciate being put in the same category. I'm not even remotely in that same category. I even linked to WP:ABF (which is a parody) in that userbox. Read it again if you don't believe me -> here's another link.

Find a reason other than 'don't' to delete other users' hard work. — natha(?)nrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 04:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As always, bring it up to WP:DRV. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, discussion has been moved. — natha(?)nrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 05:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BlueGoose (talk • contribs)

someone mind reverting George W. Bush before it's flooded with {{OMGtehLIBERALbias}} templates? I can't do it for obvious reasons--152.163.100.200 05:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• reasons such as, the page is sprotected so I can't actually do anything about this, type of reasons--205.188.116.200 15:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block in error

GoldToeMarionette was blocked in error without any violation of Wikipedia policy. After being blocked the blocking Admin has since failed to respond to emails and the User Talk page was protected prohibiting any communication by the user. Despite this, the user strove to comply with Wikipedia Guidelines as evidenced here.

This user is a good Wikipedian and strives to comply with Wikipedia Policy. Please unblock this account. If a policy violation has actually taken place, please cite the violation on GoldToeMarionette's Talk Page. PunchingBag 06:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Taken a look, there is no error Hall Monitor fully intended to block. The user was using sock puppets (confirmed via Check user) for disruption and hence blocked all the sockpuppets inviting the user to select one which he would then unblock. The user has steadfastly refused to do so and so remains block. --pgk^(talk) 07:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. Would you please cite the disruption and what policy was violated. It is claimed that this is a lousy Wikipedian, however despite their being a legitimate use of a sockpuppet, which some users do not like, there appears to be no violation. In reviewing Wikipedia Policies it appears users must assume good faith, which no one has done in regard to that sockpuppet. It has been blocked punitively for an indefinite period. That appears harsh for an instance of disruption no one can cite. Thank you for your time. PunchingBag 07:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the detail, but it has been blocked for disruptive behaviour, but this has all been gone through on the users talk page, rehashing it here seems silly. The user has been invited to resolve the situation by picking one name and stopping the disruption, I can see from the talk page that they have refused to do so, disuptive behaviour is not permitted on wikipedia, see the blocking policy WP:BLOCK. Policy is a means to an end, not an end itself, the basis of the policy is to enable wikipedia to develop a free encyclopaedia, behaviour disruptive to that goal is simply unacceptable... --pgk^(talk) 08:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the exact issue. There has not been disruptive bevavior. I am simply trying to have a block removed that should never have been put there in the first place. One user identified the account as a sockpuppet and put it up for a Check User, that was completed despite the fact that there was no basis to complete it. I tried to demonstrate that policy had not been violated, and other users piled on attacking the sockpuppet with none taking time to see if there was a violation.

The account was called disruptive and was even asked what the harm was in being 'outed' as a sockpuppet. Hall Monitor then blocked simply for being listed in WP:RFCU. After trying to request an unblock, one Admin protected the page, preventing the account from having any means to communicate since Admin emails were not returned. An account can not freely assist in developing a free encyclopaedia if it is unjustly blocked, and the sockpuppet treated with impugnity. A mere user should not be compelled to succumb to oppressive administrative action when its administrators have, to date, failed to cite the violation for which the punitive action has occurred.

If standing up for actual Wikipedia Policy for users to cite the source for their action or comment, and fail to assume good faith is the only action that this account has engaged in that is disruptive, then an indefinite block is truly punitive and without merit. The effort is simply resulting in development of cynicism in a longtime Wikipedian.

I ask again that the block be removed to show good faith, and if there is a basis for an indefinite block, that it be cited. This is not meant to be obstinance or disruption, simply in line with Wikipedia Policy and Guideline. The account can then be used to improve Wikipedia. Thank you. PunchingBag 13:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And what is your interest in the matter, prey tell? I'm assuming you're just a concerned wiki-citizen, of course. PunchingBag (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) --kingboyk 13:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am concerned. Your concern is apprciated as well. Thank you. PunchingBag 14:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "End Notes" style of links reduces readability

As per this message left for Jimbo, I am deeply troubled by the "end notes" style of links in certain articles. I am convinced that this style of external links is degrading the quality of the wiki. See Rationale to impeach George W. Bush and Killian documents for example pages with this problem. Merecat 08:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's called Cite.php, it might be clearer if you use that terminology mate :)--Commander Keane 11:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see citations in general, or this citation style, as degrading the quality of Wikipedia. Merely another way to show that the information is correct. I will say, though, that the citations work better if they are made at a slightly smaller font than the regular text so they don't take up too much room. The reason we use the citation style is that not all citations in articles are to external web links. In addition, web links can go dead; with the citation style we still have the means to know what the link once was.--Alabamaboy 19:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What if we made the references section collapsible, similar to how the TOC works? It would be nice to be able to create collapsible sections in MediaWiki. ~MDD4696 01:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Privacy Harassment from 67.160.251.14 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I received this on my talk page last night. I warned the user not to harass and threatened a block if he did it again. Thoughts?Gator (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's none of their business...it has nothing to do with this website.--MONGO 14:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to see this sort of thing - you could report any further abuse via his provider Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 15:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for review

Hello again! I have just blocked 84.9.211.143 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) for 24 hours for personal attacks and incivil language. Since these attacks and language were against me, please can people review the decision for me? Evidence [here] and [here], plus dotted around in edit summaries of this, this, this and this. Thanks. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 17:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did put a "seconded" note on the users's talk page after I saw their second comment to you and before your block. Whether or not they had a valid complaint, I didn't see anything that you said on their talk page that would have been considered incivil...so their response was out of proportion. --Syrthiss 17:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The user in question is most likely User:Irate=User:IanDavies=... , given the page in question (Merseyside related), the IP range see here and here and the language used - he's indefinitely banned by Jimbo [4] and shouldn't be editing anyway. Aquilina 17:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are Sock Puppets A Policy Violation

There is a discussion taking place on this topic at this page.

Are sockpuppets (without violation of Wikipedia Policy) a violation of wikipedia policy? Let's thouroughly discuss this because there are many admins who submit sock puppet users for a Check User without a policy violations. Further, there are admins with Check User priveleges that perform a Check User without a policy violation. Further more, there are admins who block sock puppets without stating a violation, and simply state the block was because the account was a sock puppet. Let's get some concensus on this. LetsSettleIt 01:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Per se, sockpuppetry while discouraged, is not illegal. However, using them to vote-stack, circumvent blocks or otherwise violate any policy on Wikipedia, NPA, 3RR, mass-spam, that is illegal. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:31 UTC (2006-03-29)

[edit] Offensive user page

I'd like to point out that the content of User:Fenian Swine's userpage is blatantly offensive and borders on incitement. It clearly contravenes WP:NOT. I have not contacted the editor in question about this. Instead, I sought the advise of a couple of administrators, and was directed to this page. I do not want the user blocked - I would merely suggest that he be strongly advised to tone down the content of his user page, and to not use Wikipedia as a soapbox/sounding board. --Mal 11:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have too, and got an earful for it. This has been discussed on WikiEN-l, both Jimbo and Angela have expressed disquiet. If action is to be taken it will need to be tactful but firm. Just zis Guy you know? 12:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember some discussion of the user name last year; I don't remember what the outcome of the discussion was, but it seems to me that while it's highly offensive for a Unionist or Briton to call an Irish Republican a "Fenian swine", for an Irish Republican to call himself that is acceptable. (I similarly wouldn't have a problem with a user whose user page made it clear that he was a gay rights activist calling himself User:Faggot, for example.) As for the content on FS's user page, the only thing that looks a little questionable is his suggestion that the Welsh have an armed insurrection against the British if they're considered a province rather than a country. (This seems to be a false premise, though, as Northern Ireland is called a province but is nevertheless regarded as one of the Constituent Countries/Home Nations of the UK.) He does say he does not hate English people. Angr/talk 13:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, let me tell to you that "English people should get over themselves" is offensive. His rant is particularly offensive to appeasers like myself who would happily "give back the counties" (of Northern Ireland) if the people living there wanted it. He's tarring the silent millions like myself with the empire-builder brush and it just isn't on. This kind of partisan politics is something we don't need at Wikipedia. --kingboyk 13:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have had some limited interaction with Fenian. I don't find the name particulary offensive, but this post seems to be about the content of his user page. Yes, it is a rant and a soapbox in the early parts. Could it be toned down a bit? No doubt. Need it be toned down? I don't think so, it's not that offensive and is instructive in informing other editors where his POV edits may be coming from. There are no direct attacks on individual users, just POV political grandstanding. Let the page stand I say. The username debate is another matter. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You are correct Cactusman, in pointing out that this complaint is about his user page, and not his name. His name is self-referential, and he can call himself whatever he wants as long as he's not offending others. But you also state that his userpage is "it's not that offensive". I beg to differ: I find it extremely offensive. --Mal 17:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I would add that as an Englishman I wouldn't have complained about it myself. I understand his historical perspective and don't want to add fuel to the flames. I was just pointing out in my post above that as currently worded it is a bit offensive, and the "I don't hate the English" just looks like an excuse to rant on about how he does dislike us. I'm happy to sit back and let others judge this one - I think it's best decided by people external to the British Isles (the island group of which Great Britain is the largest, lest anyone think it's a political term, which it isn't). --kingboyk 13:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If you think that "English people should get over themselves" is offensive. you probably get offended by quite a number of rude users around here. ROGNNTUDJUU! 00:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I get offended by people telling me I'm not allowed to have an opinion! As an Englishman, that statement is mildly offensive to me - what right have you to tell me what should or should not offend me?! I don't find it offensive enough to make me request action (indeed I'm one of the admins mentioned by Mal - a Northern Irishman - who declined to take any action on the matter), but I do question it's helpfulness towards our stated goal of writing a neutral encyclopedia. That's my last contribution on the matter - unless somebody challenges my right to my own opinion on what is offensive to me - because, as JzG stated on his talk page this is a matter best dealt with by non-English admins (if it needs to be dealt with at all). --kingboyk 10:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking at User:ROGNNTUDJUU! (I knew that name from somewhere!), his statement is probably more to do with his personal grievances about what he sees as "rude people" (vis a vis the crossing out of flags) not a denial of my right to take offence :-) So, I retract that part of my statement but the rest still stands. --kingboyk 11:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The views are similar to those that motivated the creation of the term Islands of the North Atlantic, just a tad less diplomatic. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A "tad less diplomatic"? "people living in it [Wales] really need some kind of armed rebellion against the British" --Mal 12:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• I can't see that anything has been done about this userpage. Would an admin please tell me what the procedure generally is regarding complaints of this nature. The userpage remains as it was when I first posted on this board. --Mal 15:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The world is a big place, and there are billions of people with opinions that you could find offensive. I found nothing offensive on the page, and found it quite tame compared to many statements American Presidents have made about the British or that many around the world make about Americans. WAS 4.250 17:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, YOU may not have found it offensive (although you claim that, and go on to say that it is "quite tame" in comparison to XYZ). The userpage is full of snide remarks and also incites terrorism. I don't care if the world is big, small or medium - that has nothing to do with Wikipedia in this context.

By the way, I've never heard any American President suggesting that the Welsh people should commit acts of terrorism to get what they want. I'm not even sure that most Welsh people are unhappy with the current political situation in the first place. Certainly not to that extent.

Anyway - the fact remains that the userpage is offensive, xenophobic, inciteful, elitist, POV, unnecessary, soundboarding and conflicts with WP:NOT. --Mal 18:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dealing with WP:PAIN backlogs.

Over the past two months WP:PAIN has received a increasing number of requests, some of which appear to stay on the page for several weeks. That is worrying to me, as either the admins dealing with it are not removing the notices, or the requests are getting backloged due to lack of admin time. IMO, personal attacks are a lot more serious than childish vandalism, as any editor can revert vandalism, and are less time critical, but unchecked personal attacks are highly divisive and can drive good editors away, especially if allowed to escalate without intervention. I'm also a little concerned that twice in the last two months when there has been a backlog, the older complaints have simply been removed without any comment that I could find on any of the disputants page (17 Feb: [5] and on 26 March: [6])(I've left a note on the admin's talk page, bringing this comment to his attention, but I thought I should bring the topic up here, as suggested by the WP:PAIN noticeboard, as it concerns admins in general.

I have sympathy for admins, as I can understand that personal attacks are difficult to deal with, but as it stands, if I, or anyone else was being personally attacked, we are supposed to talk to the user, and warn them via {{npa}}, and if they persist, post on WP:PAIN, but without admin backup at that point within a reasonable timescale, those warnings are as effective as the famous english police warning - "Stop! Or else I'll yell 'Stop' again!", leaving the users who are being attacked feeling isolated, and increasing the likelyhood that they themselves will reply with heated comments.

Could I politely ask some admins to keep PAIN on the their watchlist, as I believe that with prompt attention, many personal disputes won't get chance to escalate into something that will take a lot more work to sort out. Regards, MartinRe 22:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, this would require an adjustment to the blocking policy. Currently it only allows blocking for cases where the attacked user is in personal danger. Without some more teeth in the blocking policy one is left with exactly that. Stop or else I'll yell stop again. - Taxman ^Talk 23:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK#Disruption allows blocks for "harassment, and excessive personal attacks", so it does have enough teeth as is. But I would hope that consistant prompt action with a warning (if required) from an admin, showing that it is being taken seriously should stop many disputes getting to the stage of excessive attacks in the first place. If users see that continuing personal attacks will get them blocked rapidly, it should help, both in discouraging attacks, and showing the targets that their complaint are being taken seriously. Regards, MartinRe 00:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Only if it is riseing to the level of dissrupting the normal functioning of wikipedia.Geni 00:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, seeing an experienced user leave wikipedia because of personnal attacks is "disrupting the normal functioning of wikipedia" ... --LimoWreck 00:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a subjective point of view, it would vary. I for one have WP:PAIN watched, but have never taken action on any of them quite simply because blocks are not for punishmen, and there's no need to resolve a three- or four-week old case where attacks may have stopped. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:45 UTC (2006-03-28)

My point is that cases shouldn't get to three weeks old in the first place. If an admin looks at a report, and thinks nothing needs to be done, that should be noted (explained to the user(s) in question, if required) and the entry deleted from the page to show that it was looked at. My worry is that if a case gets that long, and the attacks stop, is that because the target just had enough and left? WP:PAIN is a board intended "to get administrator attention quickly when dealing with personal attacks." As it stands, many requests for assistance are left unanswered for several weeks, when then they get archived with no response as being "too old", but they only got too old because they received no response in the first place!.

To clarify, I am not worried about which action is taken, just that a decisive action is taken (even if that action is "do nothing", whcih it may be in several cases) An admin is entitled to "Do nothing, warn them again, or block the user in question" depending on their view, but if they decide to do nothing, it should be clear that that is the case. Currently there is no way of someone to tell the difference between a complaint that an admin has looked at, and thought nothing needed to be done, and a valid complaint that no admin has looked at. It's the difference between asking for something, and being told "No", and asking for something, and not getting any reply at all. Regards, MartinRe 12:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree... I had listed a user on the WP:PAIN page, but well... after only a few days my entry was removed, without any notice, probably no one ever bothered to look at it. (I have had the same problem with the request for comment and request for investigation pages however, which actually led by to just tag an article with AfD after a few weeks, because that was the only way to get some response on that case; but we shouldn't need to abuse other pages or procedures to get some response). But esp. on administrator-related pages users should at least get some response --LimoWreck 12:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how good idea WP:PAIN really is. It seems to encourage tattletaleism, often on the part of someone who is equally guilty of personal attacks as the person being accused. Angr (talk • contribs) 13:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

(De-indented for readability) That is a worry, yes, but an unfounded reports should get a response as well, even if they range from "uncivil, maybe, but wasn't an attack", or "No way was that remotely an attack", or "*you* are complaining about attacks, with *that* comment, please be civil yourself". If there is no negative response from filing unfounded reports, then disruptive users could use them to continue harrassing the same users.

PAIN seems to be an anomoly in its location in the disuption resolution chain. In WP:NPA the steps are 1) talk to the other user 2) use dispute resolution, and 3) WP:PAIN. Most of the suggestions in WP:DR (informal mediation, WP:30, or WP:RFC/USER, none of which are mentioned in PAIN) have the appearance of more "formal" complaints than PAIN, giving the impression that PAIN should be used first, which de facto, it appears to be. Admins take action on the serious complaints, which the page was designed for, but I believe that the dis-joint between the intent and usage of the page is causing some problems.

Following from the above, another possible improvement would be allowing ordinary users to deal with/comment on the requests. This is consistant with vandalism, anyone can revert or warn, and admins only have to get involved when it's serious enough to warrent admin level action. I know nothing is stopping people doing that now (and I see some do) but the page as written is clear that "editors add, only admins deal with/remove." I'm sure admins would not object if some of the workload was removed :)

In line with the above, I'm going to make the above suggestions shortly on Wikipedia_talk:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard.

Apologies if this is a little unclear, please feel free to ask me to clarify any points. Regards, MartinRe 17:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought the famous English police warning was a warning shot to the back of the head. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User needs some intervention

Hi. User 24.171.16.151 is in the middle of a campaign to push a very narrow POV on a number of neonazi and white supremacist pages. I hope an administrator can try to see if there is a way to get this user to calm down and edit withing Wiki guidelines. This is part of a much larger battle over these pages, involving a split in the white racist movement with supporters of different factions now edit warring on Wikipedia. At some point this larger issues needs attention as well. The pages in question can be deduced from simply looking at the page contributions for User 24.171.16.151 [7]. Cberlet 14:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I left a note for this editor to consult WP:V and WP:NPOV before making any more unreferenced additions.--MONGO 15:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, nice note. Alas, this user continues to remove [and previously has removed or added] information on one of the factions from several pages: Aryan Nations, Aryan Brotherhood, Richard Girnt Butler, [[August Kreis III], Jonathan Williams (pastor), White supremacy, Nazism, Neo-Nazism. --Cberlet 20:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- 2

• -Ril- (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• CheeseDreams (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

The above arbitration case has closed. -Ril- is CheeseDreams evading her block. The -Ril- account is to be blocked indefinitely. CheeseDreams' ban is extended for an additional year.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 22:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-life will certainly be less stressful/interesting now. --Doc ^ask? 08:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC) (pops open the champagne)

I'm still trying to get my head around the fact that he's a girl. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

She obviously learned well from the last couple of her sockpuppets that were spotted fairly early on. It's a pity (but of course, understandble) tha some of her editing patterns were noted in the arbitration case, because I'm sure she'll learn and create an even craftier sockpuppet. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] indef block of User:Licorne

Licorne (talk · contribs · block log) was recently given a year-long block for POV-pushing, personal attacks, and other bad editing habits (see Final decision). He opted to not participate in his RFC or his RFAr, and when it became clear that he was going to soon be blocked he started spewing out anti-Semitic personal attacks that I will not re-print here. (you can see the whole exchange here) (Why he's decided I'm a Jew, I don't really know, but it is clear that is his motivation for wanting to attack Einstein. He also seems to think I'm homosexual. I suspect "homosexual Jew" is just a catch-all category of hate for him.)

Since then, Licorne has managed to push through occasionally with his sockpuppet accounts, and appears unrepetent to say the least (see, i.e., this one from a few days ago). It seemed to me silly to pretend he was only banned for a year — it seems unlikely he will ever be welcome back to Wikipedia after this sort of behavior — so I increased his block to indefinite.

Being the target of most of these latest attacks, it seems reasonable that I should make sure I have support from others on this. The way I see it, ArbCom's sentence based on the considered evidence was totally reasonable, but they did not consider the anti-Semitic comments (they were not entered into evidence because they came at the end of the voting stage). I think if one were to review the latest attacks independently, it would be a clear case of an indef-block. In the short term of course there is no difference, really, but it seemed important to me to distinguish between a handed-down sentence for POV-pushing and what he really deserves on the basis of his latest behavior, and to pull no punches about his desirability at Wikipedia. But I want to make sure there are no serious objections to this. --Fastfission 02:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not have an objection to this. He is not welcome back if he keeps up the same behavior that got him banned. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting attacks in edit summaries

Am I correct that the only way to delete a personal attack in an edit summary is to delete the entire edit? And that, in the case of articles with over a few hundred edits, the task is best handled by a developer? -Will Beback 09:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, this should be changed - "a few hundred" sounds a bit generous; over thirty or forty sounds more realistic, I can't imagine an admin ticking hundreds of boxes. There should be a "select all" button, so that the admin can "unselect" the version he or she wants deleting - it would make life much easier... --Latinus 09:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There is an extension to do that floating around. I suspect there is a way tp do it through your monobook.js. Not sure how though.Geni 10:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The best thing to do when there is a huge number of edits is to

1. Delete the article
2. Restore the offensive version.
3. Move the offensive version to a "dump" title and delete again.
4. Restore all the "good" versions under the redirect.
5. Restore the content.

This way, if offensive material is added a second time, we won't need to remember previous offensive versions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be easy to notice the edits with offensive edit summaries - that is a good way of doing it though. --Latinus 10:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't only go for offensive edit summaries, it also goes for things like libellous attacks in biographies which are tougher to spot on the undelete page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this method should probably be mentioned in the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and should be specified as the "recommended" method. --Latinus 10:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Cryptic/toggleundelete.js is a script to add an invert button to undelete pages. But in the case of pages with a very large history it should probably be left to a developer to avoid strain on the servers. the wub "?!" 10:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What qualifies for "very large"? The two articles I'm thinking of have about 300 and 600 edits respectively. I'll try Sjakkalle's suggestion, and the .js script. Thanks for the help. Cheers, -Will Beback 10:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That should be fine. I was thinking pages with thousands of history entries, like this one, George W Bush or AFD. Someone deleted and undeleted AFD a while back, and it locked the whole site for a bit. the wub "?!" 11:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that's called the User:Ed Poor effect. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 14:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sockpuppets

My account was blocked because in a IPcheck and after many edits in a discusion page I found to have used once the same IP with another user who happen to be a close friend of mine and sometimes we both edit from the same pc at the University. It is clear that at other stimes we were editting from different computers. Using IP check shouldn't be a proven way to discover sockpuppetry. Our votes were removed and now me and my friends (Aleksandar, SteliosMpikakis) have to make new user accounts. (banned from editting) Svetlyo at 213.16.187.114 10:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The above claims for sockpupetry are not valid. I'm pasting below the findings from the usercheck:

Stevepeterson (236 edits), ALEKSANDAR (47 edits), Arnegjor (82 edits), Steliosmpikakis (12 edits), Svetlyo (136 edits).

How can Svetlyo for example be my sockpupet, he has almost as many edits as me. Stevepeterson 11:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You could make similar amounts of edits on both accounts. Mike _{(T C)} 18:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What can I do to prove that I am not a sockpuppet of Stevepeterson? I want my account back, this is not fair. what will wikipedia gain if I have to make a new account; they blocked me just because they wanted to remove my vote in a votal (Anne-Marie of Greece), a vote that anyway wouldn't make any difference, as we all dinally decided to follow wikipedia's convections for our final choice, regardless the result. This is just NOT FAIR.

Blocked Svetlyo from 213.16.187.123 19:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like point out that posting here while blocked will only make your block longer. You cannot prove it, we cannot see who is actually at the computer. How long is your block for? Mike _{(T C)} 19:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's an indefinte block for being a sock-puppet of the other person. So there's really nothing for him to get extended. No real opinion on the blocks themselves, just wanted to toss that out. - TexasAndroid 20:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I just find a bad idea having to create a new username and losing all my history of edits. The other option is to quit wikipedia... Svetlyo

[edit] User:Jimmy Jones

Could an admin take a look at the recent activity of User:Jimmy Jones. In short, this is a recently created account that created a series of nonsense new pages that were quickly speedied (e.g. Sex is Nice I Like 2, Return of the Killer Sex Is Nice I Like Article etc.). I put the speedy notice on several of these. Others were tagged by other editors. I also left a warning on User_talk:Jimmy Jones asking him to refrain from vandalising Wikipedia. This was not a standard message, but I hope it was reasonably civil and appropriate.

Jimmy Jones then reverted my comments on his talk page, claiming I was in breach of Wikipedia's policies on WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:NPA and WP:Etiquette by posting to his talk page. See his edit summaries at on his talk page history for details. At this point it was clear that he was not an average newbie vandal, and his edit summaries claim that he was an admin who created the Jimmy Jones sockpupet for the purpose of testing editor's responses to deliberate and provocative vandalism.

Finally he left a comment (since reverted as vandalism) signed as if by User:Essjay further accusing me of violating WP:BITE. This was clearly a forgery: I confirmed this with Essjay, and further evidence was provided by freakofnurture here.

Either Jimmy Jones is an admin's sockpuppet created for the express purpose of vandalism who tried to pass himself off as Essjay (presumably for the purpose of implicating an innocent admin), or he is a serious long-term vandal who is trying to provoke editors and admins into rash action. I tend to the latter, under the assumption of good faith: I believe no admins are behaving like this. Assuming the latter, is there any way to trace the individual behind the Jimmy Jones account?

Thanks, Gwernol 16:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which vandalism board?

It is not clear where to report someone who has worked his way up to {{Test4}}, stops editing on that warning, and then resumes with a new vandalism (I'm thinking of User:207.106.138.2, who just signed Athenian democracy. ) Please advise. Septentrionalis 19:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Try WP:AIV, although the test4 was over a month ago. Perhaps a test3 or bv is in order, because this is an IP and could be anyone else. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete request for user subpage

Could I get a delete for User:Topaz/sectionsplitter_debug.js? I'd mark it {{db-owner}}, but it's a javascript and doesn't appear to respond appropriately to templates. ~Topaz^♪♫∆ 19:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Ragib 19:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is a new one...

Wikipedia email from rogerhorne6@aqualityplace.co.uk:

Hi there,
Please move 100 pages to (Article name) On Wheels... or (Article Name) Is A Sexfreak!!

and you will win $5000!!!

Linuxbeak requests you do this, so do it now and get the $5000 off him!

Roger Horne

--Syrthiss 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I moved the pages as requested. Linuxbeak, I want my $5000 now, dammit! --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's not feed the trolls. --Doc ^ask? 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking on request?

Blocks that may be controversial are ... blocks that, while possibly wise, lack policy basis.*

The info-en address got a request from a sysadmin responsible for 216.120.176.2 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), asking for the IP address to be prevented from editing - they don't particularly want their students editing, especially given a lot of what results is pure vandalism, but are having trouble setting this up with their local filtering software.

After checking various details to confirm it was actually an admin there, I've blocked the IP indefinitely; this is a bit unusual, though, so just thought I'd mention it here. The blocking policy doesn't say anything about block-on-request, but it feels fine to me - anyone want to yell at me? Shimgray | talk | 21:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Totally fine. I've done the same thing. If that's what the system admin wants and it prevents vandalism then we're looking at a win win situation. Well done.Gator (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. Shimgray | talk | 22:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait. IPs should never be indefinitely blocked. It could easily be reassigned to a totally different entity in the future. Superm401 - Talk 00:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem - the blocked-user page provides a few ways to resolve that problem when and if that day comes. Theoretically the open proxies we have blocked could eventually be reassigned too, but until then we're better off blocking them. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, this is one of the reasons we could really use a new form of blocking. With the current situation, good editors will no longer be able to edit from this school. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 00:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I for one will not be losing any sleep about losing out on the opportunity of one day having a good user come out of this school in exchange for the ton of vandalism and hours of wasted time put into stopping the BS that consisitently comes out of this IP ESPECIALLY when the the school's authorities don;t care (why should we?). You will not get any pity or worries about this block from me. I say good riddance to bad rubbish.Gator (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway

The Arbitration Committee has reached a final decision in this case. Crotalus horridus is prohibited from creating or editing userboxes (either templatized or hard-coded into a userpage). If Crotalus horridus edits a userbox, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall be one year. Crotalus horridus is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If, in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, it is found that he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Tony Sidaway is prohibited from reversing any administrative action more than once. Each reversal shall be accompanied by an explanation in the appropriate venue, including especially a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review in the case of a disputed deletion.

Should Tony Sidaway or Crotalus horridus violate any of the remedies in this decision, they may be briefly blocked, up to two weeks in the event of repeat offences. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lock Kosovo

Please lock the Kosovo article untill the final status negotiations in Vienna are over. The article is vandalized on a daily bases by Albanian and Serbian nationalists. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 02:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection but there isnt enough vandalism to protect imo, but im not an admin so its only my opinion. Mike _{(T C)} 05:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MrMister

Just blocked indefinitely based on these page moves. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proliferating PoolGuy (talk • contribs) sockpuppets

With a sockpuppet a minute, he/she is continuing to spam WP:RCU with justifications of his WP:POINT violations. Suggestions on what to do to stop it? I am pondering semi-protecting WP:RCU. Thoughts on whether that will have undesirable side effects? --Nlu (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps protect it for a SHORT SHORT amount of time, its not like people will have to post check users done right away, they do take time. Mike _{(T C)} 13:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roitr

Please block the following sockpuppets of Roitr (see [8] for more information):

• Markdanil (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Mikhai (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Valentinnaksh (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

--Nixer 14:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker

This case has been closed. The remedies are warnings to IronDuke (talk • contribs • logs) and Gnetwerker (talk • contribs • logs). No enforcement is required.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary undeletion

Could someone temporarily undelete the image description page for Image:092str.jpg? I'm being accused of vandalism with respect to this image and OrphanBot, and I'd like to figure out what happened, particularly since OrphanBot's logs don't show that it ever encountered this image. --Carnildo 19:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Let me know when you're done with it. Jkelly 19:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The deletion log shows that it was originally deleted because it was listed on WP:PUI.[9] I do not see how OrphanBot had anything to do with it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot's never had anything to do with it. The image has never been in either category that OrphanBot works with, and it has never been even tangentally related to any special request by OrphanBot. OrphanBot did once edit a page that the image was used on once, but that was to remove an entirely different image. --Carnildo 20:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm done with the image. Feel free to re-delete it. --Carnildo 20:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neonazi edit war

A Neonazi edit war is brewing on the following pages over a faction fight in Aryan Nations: Aryan Nations, Aryan Brotherhood, Richard Girnt Butler, August Kreis III, Jonathan Williams (pastor), White supremacy, Nazism, Neo-Nazism. The primary problem is POV editing by 24.171.16.151 (talk • contribs). I am really tired of running around after this user and making the pages NPOV. Now POV antinazi edits are appearing (see [10]) I have no interest in being a referee for a bunch of neonazis and thir foes. This is my third request.--Cberlet 20:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet, what do you want to see happen? Is this a request for more editors to watchlist the pages, or is page protection needed, or blocks need to happen... what are you looking for here? Jkelly 21:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, well, I'm not an Admin., and I am not sure what is appropriate. I am worried about this getting out of hand. Perhaps semi page protection for a week on the other pages, (Aryan Nations is already full locked); and blocking User 24.171.16.151 for 48 hours? I don't know what is customary in these types of cases. I suppose just having a bunch of Admins. watching the pages might chill stuff out, but I doubt it. Hoping you folks might suggest an appropriate remedy.--Cberlet 21:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What is it going to take to get folks to pay attention to this? The edit war continues. This is just ridiculous. I can't revert anymore without starting to violate 3RR. If nobody cares, just let me know so I can give up. I prefer to see even the pages on neonazis be accurate, but if I can't get any help, what's the point?--Cberlet 03:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried RFC? Administrators really have limited power in a content dispute. We can't make people talk, or understand Wikipeia's rules, any better than a normal editor can. What it takes is someone willing to try to shepherd the article into shape, and that's got nothing to do with administrator buttons. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked into this, and there was a pretty clear 3RR violation on Richard Girnt Butler, so I blocked the IP for twenty four hours. I doubt if that is much of a solution. –Joke 03:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Joke. For the record, Chip, I know nothing about this issue, but I left a message on the IP's talk page hoping to help him see that he's going about things the wrong way. Doubt it'll take, but hope springs eternal. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no idea what to do other than ask for a block for 3RR. But if it is just me reverting the warring editors, I hit 3RR quickly myself. Look, it's a bunch of neonazis fighting over who controls the "real" neonazi group Aryan Nations. Do you seriously think they want some "help" working out how to edit the text? Have you ever negotiated with neonazis? I realize most people do not enter this realm of reality, but while there are some neonazis who might actually abide by Wiki rules of courtesy, this is not what is happening here. Check the page histories. It is an ongoing revert war. Some creative thinking here would be greatly appreciated.--Cberlet 03:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that may be the way to go. Let him run up against 3RR and get blocked. If he keeps it up, the blocks will get longer. I was tempted to block him myself tonight for the kinds of obviously inappropriate edits he's been making today, but I wanted to give him another chance to "get it." · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no idea what to do. This aspect of Wikipedia is depressing. Sufficiently motivated editors can almost always keep an article in good shape, but a lot of time can be wasted in the interim, and a lot of people can get frustrated with the process. Perhaps if the RFC process were better developed it could be used to establish a consensus outside the special interests who normally edit these articles. The problem I've seen is that RFC's are fractious and easy to ignore: these aspects impede their use as tools for consensus-building. –Joke 04:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and of course the reason they're easy to ignore is that it's a rare bird who actually wants to wade into some pitched battle about a subject they likely have no interest in, particularly when there are usually enough battles to be fought in one's own "wikiturf." · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've semi-protected those articles under active attack (IP reversions in the last day). --Golbez 03:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, now that the offending IP has been blocked for 24h (and suspecting it's a static IP, I propose blocking for longer), only one article, Nazism, is being vandalized by multiple IPs. It's been semiprotected. --Golbez 04:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Nazism has anywhere near enough activity to be semi-protected. Please reconsider. It only had two edits yesterday. –Joke 04:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Now Christian Identity is involved. Sigh...--Cberlet 16:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User 12.35.165.82

Anonymous user 12.35.165.82 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been severely vandalizing every page he touches as you can see from his edit history. Just thought some one should take a look. ArchonMeld 02:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked 31h. Thanks. --Golbez 02:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Payson High School

We've got a situation over at Payson High School. User:Jonsiebob is committing repeat WP:POINT violations. Probably need someone to protect the page for a few minutes. Isopropyl 05:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I just blocked him for disruptive behavior instead. Angr (talk • contribs) 06:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathanbender

I've noticed an interesting pattern of edits which may indicate an unusually sneaky and persistant vandal, and I thought someone might want to take a look. User: Jonathanbender and User: Jonathanbender2 are both indef. blocked for the same vandalism. User: Jonathanbender3 is nearing the end of his current 48hour block. All three have the same pattern of vandalism, specifically inserting ytmnd saftey not guaranteed, often with a misleading edit summary (usually "rv ytmnd vandalism" or some variation on it). The same patten of edits have come from the apparently stable IP User:71.252.164.152.

This is where things get interesting. Shortly after removing some vandalism by User:Jonathanbender3, another editor User:Monosylab1k gave me a {{bv}}, more or less out of the blue. I left some comments on his page, inquiring as to why. Other than this edit, Monosylab1k has not edited related to ytmnd. After no explanation was given, and I could find no reason for the warning, I (perhap unwisely) removed it, noting I was doing so on Monosylab1k's page. My own comments there were then edited by the aforementioned IP, 71.252.164.152, and subsequently by now indef. blocked User:Billy212 to make my edit into a personal attack.

The latest stage of this saga seems to be User:Arbinado, a new user who started right in reverting Billy212, and almost exclusively Billy212's edits, but sometimes incompletely leaving some of the vandalism. Tellingly, Arbinado uses the same wording in his edit summaries as Jonathanbender. My strong suspicion is that Arbinado is the latest incarnation of Jonathanbender, as his edits are always immediately after Billy212, and only reverts Billy212's vandalism, and often does so incompletely so as to leave in the bulk of the vandalism. See edits:

Vandalism by Billy212/"Revert" by Arbinado [11] / [12]
[13] /[14].

I may be wrong, of course, and Arbinado is a new user who sometimes uses a true revert, and other times attempts to edit out the vandalism by hand for unknown reasons but doesn't get all of it, and coincidentally reverts using the same phrases like "rv more ytmnd vandalism" on his edit summaries as Jonathanbender. But it seems unlikely.

I think appropriate action would be to

• block Jonathanbender3 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• keep a close watch on Arbinado (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) (and maybe Monosylab1k (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log))
• watch the edits on the ususal ytmnd articles, Time travel, Wanted, Safety, Mark (given name) (I, and I know others already watch these pages) for new variations on the theme of trying to seak in ytmnd jokes.

If anyone could take a look, I'd appreciate it. Sorry for the long post. --TeaDrinker 06:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting, indeed. Props for uncovering a possible web of vandalism :) Isopropyl 07:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] College hockey

I just got this in my mail box:

• Hi, I noticed you were active on many college hockey pages on Wikipedia. My friends and I are starting a sports wiki that you may be interested in. It uses Wikipedia's software but we made a lot of technological improvements to allow for more news and opinion articles, as well as regular encyclopedic entries. If you’re interested in it, check it out at [spamblocked address]. Here's the College Hockey home page: [spamblocked address]. Thanks, Rob [from rob4point0@a*l.c*m]

I'm fairly sure I've never edited an article on college hockey. Have others received this email? -Will Beback 10:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a known semi-spammer I think... JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this person has been banned for spamming for his wiki. Will, if you'll look at some of Almeidaisgod's sockpuppets, he's posted his spam on at least one or two of them. Possible he may have gotten your username from one of his socks' talk pages. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 13:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Yes, we encountered these folks a little while ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive81#Sports Wiki Spam. Several accounts were blocked for posting a few hundred talk pages spams to the blacklisted site. (I'm assuming that we're talking about a URL that starts with 'armchair'.)

The accounts were unblocked when they seemed to 'get it' about spamming talk pages. Evidently they're a bit blind/clueless about the notion that spamming through email is also inappropriate, or they don't care. Presumably the Wikipedia account is Roblefko (talk • contribs), though it may have just been a throwaway for talk page spamming. I've got to go to work right now, but if someone can find a way to get them to stop again, that would be dandy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do, I got spammed via email today... ccwaters 18:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Account hacked by Vandal

The user that is being attacked is Xchrisblackx. Someone has hacked his account and is committing vandalisim and making this user look like the bad guy here. Can he get his account changed ? Martial Law 02:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC) :)

• He's already made a new account I think. And the offending account has already been permabanned. --Golbez 02:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone should tell him this. Martial Law 08:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC) :)

I am User: Xchrisblackx and I have not made a new account This is my statement and I will only say this once, Morning March 30 I went to log on and my password was wrong I then went to check on my User page and found nothing wrong I went to check my history and found that an edit war had been raging between myself??(note: Check my edits and you'll find i'm only on usually in the late morning to early afternoon, and it said I was on in the early morning?) Then User: Deckiller told me my account was hacked and that this hacker was blanking pages and I told Deckiller to go ahead and block him. I then confronted User: Curps and told him my story and talked to a few other users. I am currently trying to control my vandal buddie and take my account back over.--66.37.64.6 17:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

(Note if getting my account back does not work I would like my account to be changed, just tell me what to do)

Has been returned to me and solved Mahogany-wanna chat?

[edit] ScienceApologist and Plasma cosmology

ScienceApologist has consistently violated several Wiki policies in the article on Plasma cosmology, where we are fortunate to have a plasma cosmologist helping with the editing.

• ScienceApologist continually removes from the article, the term "plasma cosmologist" [15][16][17][18][19] contravening Wiki policy on NPOV (specifically on Word ownership where he personally questions its use), igoring verifiable citations to the phrase [20].
• He has also included an ad hominem on contributing plasma cosmologist, Eric Lerner [21] by questioning his credentials, and "cosmologist" label, contravening Wiki policy on No personal attacks.
• Contravening Wiki policy on Civility, where he suggests that I have (a) "no verification to back myself up" (already provided) (b) I "continue to bluster about hot air" (c) that I should be "ready to return to civil engagement" (d) that I am on a "POV-warpath" (whatever that is) (e) that I am "not ammenable to listening to any editorial points" (despite an extensive dialogue). [22]
• Contravening Wiki policy on Verifiability, where I have asked for verification of ScienceApologist's position [23], but have not received references to the required information.
• And although only a guideline, I see no consensus for ScienceApologist's point of view.

A more detailed discussion can be found on the Plasma cosmology talk page. --Iantresman 09:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, specifically, a dispute over how to use the label "cosmologist". It is not something that needs any more assistance than the RFM you've already filed. Ashibaka tock 23:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ScienceApologist and Galaxy rotation problem

Despite two consecutive complaints against ScienceApologist, this is not harrassment, as I hope I can demonstrate.

In the article on Galaxy rotation problem ScienceApologist has contravened Wiki policy on Verifiability, by (a) removing my citation tag [24] in request for speciific information to back up a statement in the article (b) not provided the verification to support the article statement. As background:

• The last paragraph of the article on the Galaxy rotation problem mentions FIVE theories (1) dark matter (2) MOND (3) plasma cosmology (4) quasi-steady state cosmology, and (5) ideas advocated by Halton Arp
• The paragraph concludes (unverified, I believe): "None of these alternatives are considered by the vast majority of the astronomical community to be as convincing as the dark matter model", followed by a reference to two articles 1 2
• Both references discuss dark matter and MOND, but not the other three theories. So the reference can not apply to ALL the alternatives as impied, only to MOND.
• Neither reference is peer-reviewed, one is a press release, one is a general news item. Both are based on the interpretation of either PR people, or a science journalist, which in turn is based on the opinions of one or two scientists. NOWHERE is there any reference to theories other than MOND and dark matter, so the article's concluding statement is not verified.

--Iantresman 14:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"removing my citation tag in request for speciific information to back up a statement in the article" -- Um, it looks like that is not removing the tag for no reason, but adding more sources to fulfill the request that you were asking for. Ashibaka tock 17:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

But the existing source, and new source, do not verify the statement. Wiki policy on verifiability does not let you provide any old citation, it surely must verify the statement?--Iantresman 21:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

When you bring a problem to the admin noticeboard, you have to show that you need administrative assistance. The link you've given here is a content dispute. Ashibaka tock 23:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This noticeboard is not a battleground. Please take this discussion to user talk or make it clear what an administrator needs to do. Thanks! Isopropyl 23:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This battle ground was also taken to my inbox by Tommy, the user I blocked for legal threats. I am not getting involved either into this content dispute, since I am an idiot when it comes to science. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks on a AfD?

I nominated a list for a AfD and Itake (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) has continued to put up personal attacks. I have removed them and they have been reverted[25]. Arbusto 23:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I would block Itake, but I am involved in this (having asked both Itake and Arbustoo to stop fighting and cleared the crap form the AfD to talk as well). Itake is young, I think, but unnecessarily aggressive. Just zis Guy you know? 22:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say asking them to stop fighting and cleaning up their mess is not being "involved." If you had taken a specific side in the relevant debate, then certainly a recusal would be called-for. However, if anything, you are the perfect person to take administrative action as you know both sides of the story and have a clear idea of what is going on. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2006

I'd fix this (admittedly menial) problem myself, if the page wasn't edit-protected, but extraterrestrial is one word with no hyphen. User:Raul654 said he'd fixed it, but the hyphen is still there. Sorry to disturb... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 00:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Golbez has fixed it. Hermione1980 00:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] April Fools RFAs

I want Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mathbot and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vandal restored as they were joke noms for April 1st only and I do want to go on with it, but I won't not placing them on the WP:RFA. I want them to be archived soon after for historical and BJAODN perposes as I don't have a copy of them. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Valid deletions of invalid RfA's. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Support deletions as disruption of process. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:11 UTC (2006-04-01)

Agree with Jeffrey O. Gustafson, leave them deleted. Pepsidrinka 01:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh bull. We've had joke RFAs for two years running. It's absurd to suddenly crack down on them with no discussion. Mr. Treason 01:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I need at least the content to place it in a user subpage --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Can they be moved to my userpage the content like User:Jaranda/Requests for adminship/Vandal --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved them to User:Jaranda/Requests for adminship/Vandal and User:Jaranda/Requests for adminship/Mathbot and deleted the redirects. Everyone should be happy (but they never are). Superm401 - Talk 01:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked User:Nrcprm2026 for 3RR violation

I have blocked User:Nrcprm2026 for egregious violation of the 3RR. Since I have participated and commented on his RFArb (although I have never — knowingly — edited any of the articles he has been involved in), I'd like another admin to review my action, and support or reverse as appropriate. Thanks, Nandesuka 18:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This is just to point out that my edits at Uranium trioxide are not vandalism but an attempt to remove material that is irrelevant to the subject matter and/or introduced against consensus. Everyone is invited to consult the talk page.

I have contributed to James' RFAr as 131.215/16. 82.41.26.244 19:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like >3RR to me. Though of course I have a history of conflict with Nrcprm2026; otherwise I would have blocked him myself William M. Connolley 21:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User adding bigoted POV to many pages

Could someone look at this user (71.131.245.179) to see if something can be done? See the recent wave of objectionable edits here. --Cberlet 23:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Kinda reveals himself in his edit comments: Jewish Zionists do control the mainstream media. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] APRIL FOOLS DAY SECTION

[edit] April's Fools

Could an admin put this up as today's main page? zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Em, yes, if that admin wants desysopped. But, I think I'll pass. --Doc ^ask? 01:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Translation: No.--Sean Black ^(talk) 01:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoa there. A lot of people have worked on this, including admins that I don't think plan to be desysopped (eg User:Deathphoenix, User:David Levy, User:Ashibaka, etc.). See Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page. No need to be so harsh. :) zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Did we come to any sort of consensus about this? Did Raul OK or actively reject it? Mr. Treason 01:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure. But at any rate, I don't think this should be viewed as vandalism, and one doesn't need to be attacked or bitten. zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Jaranda/April Fools 2006 to add all April Fools jokes so far. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

*scratches head* For all the planning, it seems as if someone dropped the ball on implementation—especially with all the admins involved. Why was zafiroblue05 left feeling compelled to bring it here? RadioKirk talk to me 02:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Because some people (including admins) don't realize that April Fool's day has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia and would rather spend their time on stupid April Fool's Day jokes. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 04:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Is there a date for burial services for your sense of humor? RadioKirk talk to me 17:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You could add a link to the April Fools version on the regular main page. -- Kjkolb 04:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

My name was mentioned, so I should note that I've never endorsed this idea. My participation was limited to the discouragement and removal of patent nonsense from the proposal. I would much prefer that we retain our usual style of content. After all, someone has to. —David Levy 04:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] April Fools Day ALERT

April Fool's Day is here. The mayhem may start, if it has not already. Martial Law 03:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC) :o

That's right! Willy on Wheels 3:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC) \/\/ [] \/\/

I've blocked indefitnely. :) -Zero^Talk 04:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the mayhem has begun. Red and blue text ? Martial Law 05:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Now its back to normal, for this site. Martial Law 05:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC) :)

[edit] Dealing with blatant April Fools articles

So what exactly is consensus here because I am getting mixed signals based on the previous discussions above, recent speedy deletions, Template:Aprilfools, and Category:April Fool's Day 2006? If a legitimate user creates a blatant April Fools hoax article, should we immediately speedy delete it, keep it, or redirect it into some other namespace? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete with extreme prejudice. But, then again, I need to "get off it." --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Just ignore it until 2006-04-02. --Cyde Weys 05:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been speedy tagging all the hoax articles I see outside of the main space but unfortunately many administrators are resisting me even to the point of misusing rollback to do it. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should take the hint? --Cyde Weys 05:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No worries, Pegasus, I have been going through and removing the garbage on Newpages. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I plan to delete any joke articles that I run across in the main article space, tagged as "April Fool's" or not. Joyous | Talk 17:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've been doing Newpage patrol for more than 13 hours, and the ratio of bad to good doesn't seem any higher than normal. Still, the more eyes, the merrier, especially on Newpage patrol. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been SD'ing several, if requested on CSD. We can't count on a template/category to clean these up later. Most of the talk on the mailing list is that odd or funny was fine, but nonfactual was not. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Move to WP:BJAODN/nameofjoke, then delete redirect, finally list on WP:BJAODN/2006. - Mailer Diablo 05:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Or better yet move to my namespace where alot of the articles is going User:Jaranda/April Fools 2006 is the BJAODN/2006 anyways when I move it tommorrow --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's important to keep April Fool's jokes out of article space, and I even understand why people want to keep it out of project space (though I really don't think a couple of silly RFAs or AFDs being listed for one day is going to hurt anyone). But why do people feel the need to revert war to keep a rather well done parody off Jimbo's user page? Jimbo invites people to edit his page and it has always seemed to me like he has a sense of humor, and the page was obviously clever parody, and probably something someone worked hard on. What damage could it possibly do? Why waste any effort on it when there's actual vandalism to deal with? Polotet 06:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC) (Oh, and the interest of full disclosure, I reverted the humor back into Jimbo's user page twice and got a rather harsh "vandalism" warning from Pegasus1138 for my trouble. Polotet 06:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC))

I reverted on Jimbo Wales once, but was going to stick to 1RR per editor on it, so wouldn't have reverted you again. Nonetheless, you were also immediately reverted by another. I've reduced page protection from protected to sprotected at this time, but do not encourage pranks on it :p — xaosflux ^Talk 13:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that April Fools' jokes should be kept strictly to userspace... hence I think reverting Jimbo's page is overzealous. If he doesn't like it, let him revert it himself. --Sam Blanning (SQUIDWARD!!!)^(talk) 13:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, we can be a bit more tolerant of April Fool's jokes today, but, unless it is within a person's userspace, anyone should feel free to revert any jokes made. "Wait until April 2" will mean a huge clean-up operation where we will undoubtedly miss many things. Also, if your April Fool's prank is reverted, do not reinstate it. The integrity of the encyclopedia is more important than the joke you think is so funny. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I continue to think that we should adhere to the precedent of the past two years and allow joke RFAs, RFArs, AfDs, FACs, and other such things. These have not gotten out of hand in the past, have not been difficult to clean up, have been funny, and do not need to be cracked down on - certainly not by some admins with sticks up their asses who didn't bother to get any sort of consensus that we weren't handling this the way we've handled the past two years. Mr. Treason 15:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sjakkalle's got it. Keep them out of article space. Speedy, warn politely, etc. In project space be a little more tolerant, and in user space, if it is on that user's page leave it alone. But in all cases, definitely don't ever reinstate a prank that's been reverted. That is disruption, and just isn't worth it. There are plenty of people in the real world to play jokes on. - Taxman ^Talk 17:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] April Fools Day Mayhem.....

All Admins be advised that the April Fools Day mayhem is now underway. Martial Law 06:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC) :o

And it's now over, at least in UTC. *Dan T.* 00:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stalked pages?

Perhaps this is nothing, but I noticed something weird when I left a message at User_talk:Joturner. At the top of the page (where the links to my user page, my talk page, my preferences and so on is) the words "my watchlist" were changed to "Stalked pages". These new words still linked to my watchlist. This only appears to happen on the talk page for Joturner. Could his talk page have been hacked somehow or is this some design option I'm not aware of (although as an admin I was not aware this part of Wikipedia's programming was open to editor design). Comments?--Alabamaboy 19:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It was just User:Cyde messing around within the MediaWiki namespace. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 19:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I figured it was something minor but just wanted to check since I'd never seen it before.--Alabamaboy 19:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] April Fool's

I don't know where else to post this. I'm saddened that Wikipedia didn't post any April Fool's pranks on the main page. Where's your sense of humour? — natha(?)nrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 01:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Subjugated to the desire to keep Wikipedia in a position where it can still be viewed as a serious resource. Jaranda has a subpage with links to Wikipedia April Fool's jokes. Hermione1980 01:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I also bet that if we did not have half the problems as we did in the past few months, we would have done something. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

April Fool's are soooo 2000. Do you you suggest we change "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" to "all your free encyclopedia belong to wikipedia?Geni 09:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, we had some stories on the front page which looked absurd but which are actually true. That's way better that silly pranks in my humble opinion. --kingboyk 12:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Profanity Clarification

When quoting someone who has had a paranormal experience, is it OK to incl. the profanity often used by the people who has made the report ? I'd give a example, but I don't know if that would violate anything. Martial Law 20:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC) :)

I think if a direct quote is relevant to the article, it can be included its entirety, including any profanity, regardless of whether it's about a paranormal experience or anything else. Wikipedia has no general policy against profanity, though it does have a policy of not being censored. Angr (talk • contribs) 20:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Profanity--The Ungovernable Force 20:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Also see WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not censored. I would say that, in a direct quote, profanity should almost never be removed. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Can I state a example without any disciplinary action ? If so, I'll state one, and why. Martial Law 07:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Go ahead. The Ungovernable Force 07:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Persuant to this permission, this is the kind of example I will run into on Wikipedia:Paranormal Watchers:"I was driving alone huntin' coon when this damn light suddenly appeared, then, next thing I know is that I'm in one of those UFOs that you read about in the Weekly World News and some damn alien is putting things up my ass and they threw this THING on me and told me to fuck it to get some sperm, then they placed some kind of damn thing up my nose, which hurts like hell, then when I reported it, the damn cops thought I had lost my damn fool head, then I find out here on this Wikipedia about the Robertson Panel article, which states that if you see one of these UFOs or a alien, the US Government set this up to make ME to look like some kind of damn dumb fuck because I had some alien up my ass." Wikipedia:Paranormal Watchers is a Wikipedian organization set up by and for wikipedians who have had bizarre encounters with the paranormal,(such as the hypothetical UFO report that will not be that way for long ), may continue to have bizarre experiences, and/or investigate these matters. Some may play Chess, some may play music, we have had these experiences, some continue to have these experiences( like having a real ghostwriter on Wikipedia ), and some are investigators of these bizarre matters.

Here is a invite: All are welcome to Wikipedia:Paranormal Watchers. The example is stated persuant to the permission granted. Martial Law 08:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Anyone interested ? Martial Law 08:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC) :)

[edit] User:Earl Andrew and images

While going through my contrib history, I noticed that an image I had tagged with Template:No source in December 2005 was still in existence. Upon checking, my adding the template had been reverted by the uploader but no image source had been provided. I deleted the image Looking at the user's image history I discovered another one, deleted that, and then realized that the removal of "no source" tags without providing a source was actually a habit, and that the user has uploaded a very large number of images without sources, tagged with Template:Promotional without any evidence of these images' copyright belonging to the subject of our articles as a "work for hire" or being from a press kit.

I left a message for the user. I received a somewhat unfriendly response, and replied. User:Earl Andrew responded by blanking their many image warnings. Given that this is a long-time editor with a large number of contributions, I assume that some administrator has a good collaborative relationship with this user and might be able to have a word with them about uploading unsourced copyright-infringing images. Thanks in advance. Jkelly 22:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a "good collaborative relationship" with him; I've never encountered him before. But I have warned him that removing warnings from his talk page and continuing to upload improperly sourced and licensed images after being warned are both blockable offenses. Angr (talk • contribs) 06:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It would have been so much easier if you had alerted to me where I was going wrong instead of just deleting my images. I did source the images, but I assume I did not do it properly. I would prefer if you guys would tell me what I'm doing wrong instead of saying I'm not doing anything at all. All these new image policies are confusing and are constantly changing, so it's hard for me to keep up with all the changes. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

In spite of the conciliatory note above, Earl Andrew (talk • contribs) just reverted my placing Template:Nsd on an image and gave a URL that does not actually contain that image. The user then reverted my edit at Paul Dewar to replace the unsourced unfree copyrighted image that I had removed in favour of a free-licensed one from Wikimedia Commons. Is anyone here inspired to speak up on this user's behalf before I block them pending confirmation that they are going to abide by Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria? Jkelly 03:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppetry by blocked user

User:Itunes666 appears to be a sockpuppet of currently blocked User:Atticus765. Similar edits: (1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b) (Edit: his shifting of band genres was one of the reasons for his current block.) -- ChrisB 05:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked the sockpuppet indefinitely and extended Atticus765's blcok for an additional week. Thanks for the report. Superm401 - Talk 06:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like User:Atticus765 has got himself a brand new sock puppet: User:Apple765, just after User:Itunes666 was banned. Similar edit: [26].--Count Chocula 12:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Likewise indef blocked. --Syrthiss 12:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I extended the block on User:Atticus765 for another week. Superm401 - Talk 17:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lolicon images

This page is protected due to wonderful edits wars over the images, but in its current state it may be infringing on copyrights. In such cases, it is better to remove the disputed content until it can be resolved (see WP:BP and WP:CV). As such, I request that the image be removed from the page. Yes, there are some that disagree with the removal of these images but there certainly is not a consensus to include them regardless of the copyright claims and even if there were policy is clear that content should be removed. Kotepho 00:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• This has been copied to WP:RFPP. - brenneman^{L} 04:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blu Aardvark

I took a quick look at the block on User:Blu Aardvark. The original block of the chain that went quickly from one week to indefinite seems to be grounded on a false premise, that being on "indefinite wikibreak" means one can be banned for longer than would normally be tolerated. Things escalated from here, and within 36 hours, Blu was blocked permanently. I am inclined to reduce this back to the original block, if that, because there has been a lot of needless escalation and out-of-process stuff done, by both sides. I think what is needed here is a calming period, not blocking, protection, and discarding.

PS, the new Wikipedia Review has no Nazis on it that I know of, so can we please stow that strawman? That definitely causes needless stress and bad feelings, and makes civil debate extremely difficult.

So let's chat. --Golbez 07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed in principle: We're always supposed to have benefit to the encyclopedia as our first priority, so is it possible that this user can be brought back into the fold? As to this particular case, "Have they made positive contributions before the mess?" would be the pertinent question. - brenneman^{L} 04:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Raul654 18:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and if they have, shorten the block to let them edit productively again, but given them a short leash. If you shorten the block you take responsibility for closely monitoring the user's edits. Also it's a good idea to contact the blocking admin and ask them to respond here as there may be more to it. - Taxman ^Talk 17:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

With respect to Golbez, his summary is highly misleading. See wp:an/i Raul654 18:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

See Wp:an/i#Blu_Aardvark:_I_recommend_a_permanent_ban and previously Wp:an/i#Blu_Aardvark.27s_personal_attacks. It would be better to continue this discussion there so that others know it's happening. I must admit I fail to see how you could think of unblocking someone who has gone around vandalizing the project. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well there goes the other half of the truth coming in as I alluded to. Discuss over there please so it's in one place. - Taxman ^Talk 19:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch and Sandertje

There's a problem at Dutch language which involves the user Sandertje refusing to change the proscriptive nature of a comment about the use of the term "Flemish" to describe Dutch spoken in Belgium (well, Flanders, at least). He is reverting several other users' suggestions for a neutral compromise and refuses to provide any kind of reference in his own support. The consensus so far seems to be against him. His most recent comment was:

I'm sorry? References?! I should have references for the word falsely?! I don't think so, I will continue to edit, revert and expand wikipedia and I don't care what or how you, or people like you, think about that.Thank you.

Sandertje has already been in some conflict over Dutch issues with AvB and there's been some heated verbal exchanges at talk:Dutch language.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

User: Sandertje, is having a fruitful and successful discussion via MSN with AvB at the moment concerning present 'problems'.Sander also didn't revert the changes of other users, the last 'real' revert/edit concerned the changing of not correct into incorrect. On another matter it was User:Peter Isotalo who did not provide references for his edits, and provoking conflict(s) not Sander.

Sander 12:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to confirm that Sander and I had a fruitful and successful discussion via MSN yesterday, to be continued sometime this week. AvB ÷ talk 22:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Rapid Transit

Personal Rapid Transit or PRT is used by anti-transit right-wingers and libertarians to bash real transit. PRT does not exist and like Intelligent Design, has no support among transit advocates and professionals. Like Intelligent Design, PRT has been promoted by the Discovery Institute. I and other transit advocates have been harrassed by proponent of PRT. Because PRT does not exist, the proponents can constantly move the goalposts. However, one thing remains constant--their claim that PRT is superior to conventional transit, in particular LRT. Wherever LRT has been considered (Minneapolis, Seattle, Cincinnati, Austin, Denver, Detroit and more), the PRT proponents invaded the meetings...arguing...arguing...endlessly as you see them doing ( in particular, an anonymous editor who calls himself "Transportation Enthusiast") on the Wikipedia page, wasting everybody's time...and that's what PRT is designed to do-- waste everybody's time. I hope that you will lock this page up with a disclaimer at least until the middle of April (when the Minnesota Legislature's session is half over). There are important transit bills before the legislature, and I don't want to see this Wikipedia page being used as it has in the past to help right-wingers like Rep. Olson [27] to argue against the bills. The mediator who is working on the page now is very good, however he is performing a Sisyphean task of keeping the article neutral. I suggest you contact transportation professionals to give you on the facts on PRT....Thank you.Avidor 16:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"The mediator who is working on the page now is very good". From what I've seen, you probably couldn't get any better. So what have you brought it here for? We don't have a lot of power when it comes to resolving content disputes. --kingboyk 17:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, mate - I don't claim to be very good, but I do what I can. Since both sides are now saying the article is biased to the other, it's probably going OK on balance, but anyone else who feels like pitching in is most welcome. And as Kingboy says, this is not really the right forum. There is already one admin watching the thing, after all. Just zis Guy you know? 21:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spellcheck?

(moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Spellcheck?)

[edit] Regained account control

Xchrisblackx has stated that he has regained his account. Can the "permablock" be removed ? Martial Law 02:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC) :)

[edit] Possible name issue: The Editor in Chief (talk • contribs)

I think that this name may be misleading, but I don't really have the time or energy to deal with this just now. If somebody else were to manage this I would be very grateful. – ClockworkSoul 04:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have posted a note on his talkpage regarding this concern. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove autoblock: 207.200.116.10

I'm attempting to add a Wikipedia page, and it appears that the IP I am on has been autoblocked (its an AOL IP) for the past few hours. Would someone please help me out by unblocking the IP so that I can post my article. I'm sure that the troublemaker has long since lost interest and moved on.

Thanks. --Brianvdb 10:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked all three autoblocker-triggered blocks of (possible) AOL IPs I blocked earlier today, does that work? NSLE _(T+C) at 10:57 UTC (2006-04-03)

Looks like it did. Thanks for your help! --Brianvdb 11:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Christopher Hepesus

Could you please ban this user ASAP? He appears to a re-incarnation of persistent vandal Johnny the Vandal and he's pretending to be Hephaestos. Mike Garcia 15:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No vandalistic activity has been observed so far. I talk paged the new account with a note to have the old account endorse it, if everything is on the up and up that should take care of it. If this, or any, account starts obviously vandalizing, please post on WP:AIV. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted this user on my talk page from claiming that he's really Hephaestos. In fact, Hephaestos never created any sockpuppets, so this user may (most) definitely be Johnny the Vandal or Wikipedia is Communism. Mike Garcia 16:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, he never made it to my page. Johnny usually does Hephaestos, Mike Garcia and me in one quick vandalism spree. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I seem to have violated WP:BEANS. He hit me after I posted this. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User not removing fair use images from userspace

On 28 March 2006, I removed a fair use image from User:GreatGatsby's userpage (diff). My grounds for the removal of these images is Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy item #9. On 29 March 2006, GreatGatsby reverted the removal without comment or edit summary (diff). On 30 March 2006, I left a note on his talk page requesting that he remove the image in question plus an additional logo (logo for Opera) as well, as it was a fair use image (diff). Since then, GreatGatsby has edited, and in fact added an additional userbox to his userpage (diff), ignoring my request for him to remove the two images. I've no wish to engage in an edit/revert war with this individual, and am thus posting this here for other admins to comment and/or take corrective action. --Durin 15:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have left him a note asking him to comment on your note Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 15:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the images again and left a note on his talk page. Angr (talk • contribs) 15:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As the Wikipedia logo is copyrighted, is its use on User pages a copyright violation? User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say no, because the page is published by Wikipedia. (Wikipedia is not a free web host.) --kingboyk 17:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've asked that question myself someplace, Zoe (don't remember where so I can't provide the diff), and also got an answer like Kingboyk's: "I would say no" or "I don't think so", but I've never gotten a definite "No" from someone in authority. I think the question is still up in the air. Angr (talk • contribs) 17:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've wondered the same, but I think it would probably never get anywhere in court; Wikipedia suing itself for itself using logos on its own userpages where it's not allowable under fair use? Seems a strange claim :) Maybe you could go after individual users, but that's doubtful too; once you click submit, the submissions are licensed under GFDL. Regardless, I've operated under the assumption that Wikipedia logos are allowable outside of the main article namespace. --Durin 19:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Court has nothing to do with it. This is about Wikipedia policy, which says no copyrighted images on user pages. Whether an exception is made for Wikimedia's own copyright has never been explicitly stated. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's copyright policies descend from copyright law. Within that law, there doesn't seem to be a clear case that any harm has been caused when Wikimedia's logos are used outside of fair use within its own project. Therefore, lacking any direction in explicit Wikipedia policy, it would seem that usage of such logos would be allowed. Similarly, a company can use its own logos wherever it chooses to do so and does not break copyright law in so doing. I'd be surprised if Wikimedia took a stance against its own logos being used on this project. --Durin 21:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

But Wikipedia's image use policy is much stricter than necessary under US copyright law. It would be better if there were a clear statement from someone at Wikimedia that Wikipedia's ban on copyrighted images in user space does not apply to images copyrighted by Wikimedia. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CFD

Just wanted to drop a reminder here about checking in on CfD. Kbdank71 used to handle most of the closings, but he's on wikibreak at the moment...and while I've been trying to take up the slack (with the help of TexasAndroid and others), I took a weekend off and came back to a 4 day backlog of closings. I've caught up again with the closings backlog (and don't mind catching up even on 2 day backlogs) but I'd appreciate it if admins could check in periodically and do some closings if its >= 3 days. That usually means I'm busy IRL or my computer is down.

There are also a bunch of moves and deletions for processing at the moment because of the backlog, and no Nekodaemon to do auto category moves from tags. :/

Thanks! --Syrthiss 18:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As soon as I get done with my current batch of template substing I'll get my bot over to deal with some of the larger load category moves though not being an admin I can't do anything about pending deletions. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Worst case, if you've emptied a cat and need it deleted just move it to the "to be deleted" section on /working. When I go to close discussions I'll wipe out stuff there if nobody has got to it first. --Syrthiss 11:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete request for user subpage

Could I get a delete for User:Topaz/prodego-monobook.js? I'd mark it {{db-owner}}, but it's a javascript and doesn't appear to respond appropriately to templates. ~Topaz^♪♫∆ 20:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Baleeted. --Syrthiss 20:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Massive WP:SPAM by Serbian Genealogical Society

User:SGS has flooded wikipedia with links to advertising article Serbian Genealogical Society and External links of many articles related with Serbia, Montenegro, Genealogy etc. I plan to WP:AfD the SGS article first, but which further steps should I take

a) to establish community's consensus about the inacceptability of such blatant advertising

b) to get the damage undone and the commercials removed from Wikipedia

c) to warn the user about his conduct

Note that "Srpsko rodoslovno društvo" has only 20 Ghits for Serbian search string, while has 15,400 starting from Wikimirrors and every possible directory the guys could find. Duja 21:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless the link adds significantly to the article (which, from a quick glance, doesn't appear to be the case), mass addition of links should generally be regarded as inappropriate. You may wish to point the user, who may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, to the proper pages describing this. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overenthusiastic use of warning templates

User:203.15.35.68 appears to have cut-and-pasted two warning templates (rather than subst'ing, and thus retaining their category, which is why I noticed) onto the user page of user and IP address to touch what I assume are his favorite articles (Brisbane Boys' College and Anglican Church Grammar School). While this appears to have been done in more or less good faith (e.g., all the people warned did engage in vandalism of these pages), the several I've examined had already been given first-level warnings for that particular act of vandalism, so adding these second- and third-level warnings seems inappropriate. Perhaps they ought to be rolled back? Choess 22:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Would you like Tawkerbot2 to report repeat vandals here

Someone has proposed having Tawkerbot2 make a post here if someone triggers the bot multiple times (say 4 times or more, the exact number is up for debate) with links to all of the diffs that the bot caught. Would this be helpful and if so, would you prefer that it posts here or on an "automated bot reporting list" somewhere else.

Feel free to reply either here or my talk page, it makes no difference to me -- Tawker 00:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think a separate list would be better. This page is already quite overloaded. --Ragib 00:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. And WP:AIV would be an ideal place for that kind of report. --Ed (Edgar181) 01:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a seperate section on AIV might be a good idea. No harm in giving it a try I think? --kingboyk 01:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I too agree that WP:AIV would be a good place for this. --CBDunkerson 01:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Concur, a subpage of WP:AIV would be good. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 02:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok WP:AIV/TB2 has been born. Of course the code to report to it isn't there yet, but thats the location to add to watchlists eventually -- Tawker 06:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It should now be reporting to WP:AIV/TB2. Personally I would prefer that it report directly to WP:AIV as I fear that subpage will get forgotten. joshbuddy^talk 07:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Put a note on AIV asking admins to add the subpage to thier watchlists. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 09:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lindosland

User:Lindosland is insisting on placing external links to a commercial website on a number of articles. The links point to a company he founded and, though he claims to no longer own it, continues to work for. I've tried to explain the problems with linking to commercial websites and linking to what is at the very least his own website content, but he doesn't seem to hear and I don't have time right now... Please can someone else help out. AlistairMcMillan 01:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed to merge edit history of redir with main article

As per what was said on AfD, we need someone to merge the edit histories of Thank you Mario, but our princess is in another castle! (currently a redirect) and Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle! (difference in punctuation). The redirect's history got messed up as a result of an edit war, and the main article is now at the latter title. Thanks! — Kimchi.sg | Talk 06:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The histories have been merged. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Troll at large?

SlashDot (talk • contribs • logs) appears to be some kind of troll; new account, edited a bunch of porn and GNAA related articles, has been removing info related to spyware in 180 Solutions products diff. See also Talk:Zango_Messenger. Also has gotten into a 3RR dispute on his/her own talk page User_talk:SlashDot. Also uploaded a bunch of not-quite-hardcore porn-related images (see user log). No blatant vandalism visible but Inserted prank image into Al Gore diff and the rapid edits from a new account smell like block evasion or some such (edited 09:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)). Conspiracy/coincidence angle: a slashdot.org comment [28] alleges that the Zango Messenger page was itself edit-warred by 180 Solutions personnel last year. The page has been pretty quiet since then but this person suddenly shows up after that comment appears. Phr 07:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

User has already been blocked for 24 hours for vandalism, and I would suggest reblock indefinitely for not only being a vandal account, but for having an inappropriate username that resembles the name of a popular internet site. Thoughts on this? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Suspected sock/block evasion (re-revert of Zango Messenger from an IP address: [29] Phr 03:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Also further reverts to same page Phr 02:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking clarification

I'd like to request clarification from others regarding an unfortunate recent exchange between me and another editor. Here is the timeline of events:

• I tagged Elizabeth Haldane, a one-liner article from Duncharris (talk • contribs) on March 12.
• BenAveling (talk • contribs) comments on the talk page on notability of the person, pointing to this link, which states exactly the same thing noted in the article

(Scottish social-welfare worker and author. The younger sister of the statesman Richard Burdon Haldane and the physiologist John Scott Haldane, she was educated privately. For much of her adult life she served on various advisory and regulatory boards for nursing. Influenced by the English housing reformer Octavia Hill,).

• Presumably on the basis of this, Duncharris (talk • contribs) uses his admin revert button to revert the notability tag
• I reinsert the notability tag requesting for further establishment of notability (i.e. the link given in the talk page adds no new information).
• Duncharris (talk • contribs) reverts it further using the admin rollback button.
• I request Duncharris on his talk page to explain the unexplained removal of the notability tag.
• Duncharris (talk • contribs) replies with this personal attack, with the edit summary

If you get enough chimpanzees with enough typewriters they are capable of adding stupid tags to all articles),

and suggesting inside "A guide for you:1)Try to use your brain 2) If you can't do (1) try using Google instead, (admittedly (2) requires a little bit of brain use, but still, if you can't manage (2), don't bother at all.)".

• On getting no further proofs of notability, I nominate it the article on AfD.
• Duncharris replies in the afd page with the comment Someone needs whacking with a cluestick..
• Later, some other editors provide links that establish her notability as the first women J.P. in Scotland, on light of that I withdrew my nomination.

My question is, does the mere reference of a EB article, with exactly the information I quoted at the top of the post, establish notability of a one-liner article to the extent that it makes the AfD nomination bad faith? Is requesting notability proof "vandalism"? And is the AfD nomination a violation of WP:POINT, in light of the above timeline of events? I'm not accusing anyone of anything (except for the abuse of ther rollback button by Duncharris), I just want clarification from experienced admins, so that I can make better judgement in future, and not go through the sequence of events that happened here. Learning is always good, and if I am at fault in nominating this article, I'm happy to admit my fault, apologize for that, and learn from it to make better decisions. Thanks. --Ragib 02:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In general I would suggest that the existence of an EB article would support a claim of notability. Frankly, EB is much pickier about the people that they include in their encyclopedia, and I would be very hesitant to AfD anyone who demonstrably had an EB entry.

That said, the freely available portion of EB's article doesn't indicate why Elizabeth Haldane was notable. It was a bit sloppy of Dunc to create an article that left out the single most important fact about Haldane—and perhaps the key fact that makes her noteworthy.

There was a bit of rudeness on both sides of the issue, but I really don't like to see admins using rollback on (what was at least initially, if not finally) a good-faith notability tag. Revert warring over a notability tag is bad behaviour on both sides, particularly when either party could have just used Google to find one or two more sentences. (The first non-Wikipedia hit would have done just fine: [30].)

Looking at the exchange on Dunc's talk page, Ragib seems to have done the right thing in approaching Dunc about the reverts, and he got a really obnoxious reply.

One more note—I'm pretty sure that Thryduulf's addition of a NPA warning template ([31]) to Dunc's page isn't going to calm things down. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

FWIW: the EB article (subscription version) is 2 paragraphs and mentions that Elizabeth Haldane translated some works of Hegel and Descartes. The other notability that EB might have relied on is Elizabeth's being related to an English politician and a doctor (i.e. she's from a well known English family). In general I don't think Wikipedia should be making so many stubs about minor historical figures like this and using EB as a list of names to make such stubs from isn't so good a tactic, and being related to obscure English society figures isn't so notable either (despite EB). Phr 03:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit at a loss about the statement "there was a bit of rudeness on both sides" above – from what I can see, Ragib's behaviour was blameless. Just pointing to the mere fact of the existence of a EB article, not to its actual contents, was not sufficient to establish notability in this situation; the article as it stood was clearly AfD'able, the crucial information hadn't been forthcoming despite repeated polite requests, and Dunc's behaviour during all phases of this was really abominable, and quite unacceptable for an admin. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There wasn't rudeness on both sides; the rudeness was entirely on the part of Duncharris, who as an admin really ought to know better. As for adding the NPA warning template to his talk page, if Thryduulf hadn't already done so, I certainly would have. Angr (talk • contribs) 09:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to request further clarification of whether using the admin rollback button to remove "notability" tags without any explanation is correct in this case. Duncharris (talk • contribs) has again removed one of the tags from an article that has no information about the person's notability other than his family information. Having rollback privilege doesn't mean it needs to be abused in such way. Thanks. --Ragib 15:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right. The rollback button is for reverting vandalism and oneself, not for removing tags left in good faith. I'd say his use of the rollback button in the diff provided above is an editorial comment on the insertion of the tag. Angr (talk • contribs) 15:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] monobook.js pages appearing in Category:Articles that need to be wikified

I figured that I would be more likely to get an answer and solution for this here, so this is where I came. Also, editors who have pages in the category are frequently admins.

For some reason, some editors' monobook.js pages show up in Category:Articles that need to be wikified. The only reason the are not that many right now is because those of us who wikify articles keep asking people to edit their monobook.js files so that they don't show up anymore. It happens so often that I suspect that people are copying the code from somewhere. So, I would like to know where they are getting the code and a way to stop the pages from appearing in the category, without a loss of funtion if possible. Thanks, Kjkolb 09:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Brossow fixed it. You can get the new code at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Quick wikify. I guess that's where it came from. Thanks again, Brossow. -- Kjkolb 12:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] probable linkspam

203.214.42.73 has been adding links to moddb to various game articles. I'd have called linkspam on it and reverted, but would these links possibly fall under being userful? Mod DB does seem to be a pretty significant site, from what I have seen.--Drat (Talk) 11:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that it's borderline. I suggest adding a link to it on an article that deals with game modifications in general. Wait, it already has one on Mod (computer gaming). I think that is sufficient. -- Kjkolb 12:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It even has an article! -- Kjkolb 12:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

So should I or shouldn't I revert the adding of the links?--Drat (Talk) 22:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spliting articles and the GFDL

Could an admin familair with the GFDL and how it replated to splitting articles spare a moment to comment on the following thread, please? Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#How_to_split_pages_-_Wikipedia_guidelines_missing.3F

Basic question is if you split off a subpage, like this one, is it acceptable that part of the the history is in another article. (that part seems okay to me, under GFDL item J for modifications) However, the question is what happens if the original article is deleted? Is the history still "accessible enough" to cover the GFDL? Or, if not, is there a way of either marking an article as containing the history of another, or copying over the history to the split article so they are indpendendent from the moment of the split. Regards, MartinRe 13:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In case it helps, I've summarised the links to most of the discussions (though the Village Pump seems the best place for discussion): see here, here, here and here. Carcharoth 15:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J. Robinson

Could an administrator please ban this user ASAP? He appears to be another re-incarnation of persistent stalker Johnny the Vandal and he's pretening to be Hephaestos. Mike Garcia 13:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zephram Stark indefinitely blocked

Rather than bother extending Zephram Stark's block timer (per his arbitration) every time he comes up with a new sockpuppet, I've taken the liberty of indefinitely blocking him as "banned by the community". It doesn't seem to me like there's any reason to pretend any other remedy is relevant. If I have acted precipitously, please advise. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:TrumpetPower!/Jesus as Mythical Creation

I understand that Jesus as Mythical Creation was recently deleted. However User:TrumpetPower! has a copy as a user subpage. Do we allow for this? I've never been entirely sure. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I can't see any reasonable argument why not. People can keep all sorts of things in their user space, and this is certainly relevant to the encyclopedia. While the article was rightly deleted as a POV-fork, the content could presumably still be useful in editing Jesus-Myth. –Joke 16:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PaulinSaudi unblock request

User talk:PaulinSaudi#I am Blocked, Again Someone please take a look at this unblock request. Femto 16:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC) PS this seems to be an IP autoblock or something like that

I've left a message. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of duplicate images

While checking CAT:CSD I frequently see images marked for speedy deletion as duplicates, but the duplicate is on Commons. Be aware, before speedying them, that images must both be on Wikipedia to qualify for speedy deletion category I1. See Wikipedia talk:Moving images to the Commons for reasons why, and {{sdd-i1|Image:imagename}} for a talk page template you can use to advise users why it doesn't work. Stifle 16:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist

A final decision has been reached in the above arbitration case, and the case has been closed.

Lapsed_Pacifist (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from articles which relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland. The ban is intended to include any page in Wikipedia which Lapsed Pacifist engages in a dispute related in any way to the conflict in Northern Ireland.

If Lapsed Pacifist edits any article from which he is banned, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 19:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] regarding User:68.219.87.13

This anon has been adding unverified information in Calvin Ayre for several days, most of it seem like personal attacks at Mr. Ayre, and it has been reverted by several users. I have no idea who Calvin Ayre is, so I have no idea whether this is a content dispute or pure vandalism, but I'm leaning on the later. The history of the page here. Can an a more experienced user please take a look at the page, and talk to User:68.219.87.13. Thanks. Eivind^t@c 23:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I warned them earlier and they continued the edits, so I have blocked temporarily and warned again. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Vkasdg

He's doing some crazy stuff. Vkasdg 01:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)