Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive72#User:JossBuckle Swami

I'm think it might help to apply WP:DENY to Cplot. At this point he's just trying to get as much attention as possible and reveling in every little bit he gets. If we stop making a big deal out of anything Cplot-related, but just revert, block, and ignore, hopefully the problem will go away. I can't really think of any reason these Cplot socks need to be categorized; they're all blocked indef, so there's no need to continue watching any of them. --Cyde Weys 01:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:This is really a question for the checkusers, whether any of the listings that are being made are helpful to them. Newyorkbrad 01:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

::As a general rule, no, they're not useful. Ask me in private for the reason why. --Cyde Weys 02:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:::While I generally agree with you Cyde, I think descisions about how information on sockpuppets is disseminated and organised should really be up to the checkusers. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:Evidently there's some need for sockpuppet tagging, see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:%D9%A7 history of this sockpuppet's user page]: Evidently there's some reason to tag them beyond the length of their CheckUzer usefulness. 68.39.174.238 06:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am requesting review of the indef ban of User:Raspor. I have been in contact with this user and he is willing to not edit the ID article, submit to mentoring, and probation. I believe he is quite sincere Geo. 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:From someone who endorsed the community ban at ANI. For starters, it should be all articles even faintly associated with ID. Secondly, mentoring has had mixed results, as on occasion I have seen for myself. Thirdly, the problem is not merely one of bias. This fellow used an extremely unpleasant editing style: blocks for 3RR,WP:POINT violations, and on occasion some extremely unpleasant personal attacks. This sort of thing is likely to follow an editor around whatever they edit. Given all this, I feel that the encyclopedia and the community will not benefit from letting Raspor back in, but I suppose I could be persuaded. Moreschi ^Deletion! 16:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

::He probably would agree to that. Geo. 06:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Given the fact that he has now evaded the ban several times, with at least one sock and an IP that I know of, I am not convinced. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• I had typed up a very similar message; one edit conflict later and I will simply QFT Guy's comment. —bbatsell ¿? 20:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

i am watching an interesting case unfold with respect to the definition of a reliable source.

1. An editor wishes to add some content they consider notable. But there are no reliable sources.
2. After the fact, a blog is opened by a credible journalist with content that could be used as a source.
3. Editor claims to know the journalist.
4. Editor claims it is a reliable source since wikipedia accepts quotes written in blogs by credible journalists.

I would discount this blog as a reliable source since it seems just too convenient that the blog appeared with the required information during the dispute on wikipedia. How should one deal with such a case? David D. (Talk) 17:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:Is this the journalist's personal blog or a publishing sponsored blog... i.e. Journalist X has a regular blog that he writes for and is hosted on Time.com? If this is a personal blog I don't think it matters if the journalist is credible or not... There is nothing in WP:RS that suggests this is in any way an acceptable source. In fact it says "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." If this has never been previously published I would say this is not a reliable source. Whether or not the editor knows the journalist is besides the point. If this is an "official" blog, I'd say it might pass muster, but again I don't think writing an article on one journalist's blog posting is the right way to go. I'd request additional sources. Of course it is hard to say in this specific situation without actually seeing the article, source, and journalist in question with diffs.--Isotope23 17:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: RS does not state that the journalist in question must have published the specific piece of wriitng elsewhere: else we would never accept self-published material from professional journalists, but always use the cite from the the "credible third party publication" instead. Admitting self-published material by professional journalists makes a distinction between the 60 million bloggers who are not professional journalists, and the slim minority who are. When they self-publish, they put their professional credibility on the line, in a way that the mass of bloggers do not. This credibility is determined by whether or not they have been published in credible third party publications. In this case, the journalist has self-published something in the area of their experise: language. While the specific material noted has not been published elsewhere, other similar specific material has been published in credible third party publications, and no reason has been offered to doubt the claims asserted by the author.-Cindery 22:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::I could give you the specifics but i didn't want to drag people into the argument. The blog is not an official blog, in fact, it is not even the journalists primary blog. I think you make a good point re: the third party publication. it is possible that the blog is a fake too, although that would be stretching AGF at this point. I think requesting additional sources is the best way to go. Thus the arguments about RS and the legitimacy of the blog can be dropped. thanks for your input. David D. (Talk) 17:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

::: "it is possible that the blog is a fake too, although that would be stretching AGF at this point." There's your answer right there. AGF is irrelevant. We cannot absolutely verify that the named journalist is the author: it is not a reliable source. If it's on some site like blogspot, they have no way to verify authorship, and neither do we. Period. End of discussion. Fan-1967 17:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• It may pass WP:RS, but it might have WP:OR problems, as well as problems with WP:V's call to use reliable, third party sources. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

::Isotope23, the blog was created and the information was posted a few hours befor it was cited. No, the journalist dosn't have a blog on a his paper's website. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Nevermind... I found what David D. was talking about on my own while dealing with another issue... man what a mess that whole thing is... Regardless, that is a blogspot post, In my opinion, there is no way, even if this is a notable journalist and her identity can be proven, that this could be considered a reliable source for the grafitti info unless there are other existing sources to back this up. Fan-1967 is right, this should be non-negotiable even if there is some consensus to keep it in the article. It simply is not in anyway a reliable source under the current WP:RS guidelines; and the talk of changing WP:RS that seems to have sprung out of the RfC related to this situation is ridiculous.--Isotope23 21:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: There are other existing sources regarding the graffiti, both in general and in specific. The "talk" re changing the RS guideline was initiated by Milo H. Minderbinder, regarding establishing the identity of authors.-Cindery 22:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting development that needs further input:

The journalist has two blogs, one is an official blog. The second blog (blogspot), with the disputed facts, was started on Jan 15th 2007. The journalist has linked to the blogspot entry from his official blog, however, the link has been incorporated into a entry he made on Dec 12th 2006. To me (not assuming good faith here) it seems a lot like trying get vanity facts (in this cases specific examples of graffiti) into wikipedia by getting them a seal of approval from authority (the journalist in this case). I see this as exploiting a loophole in the guidelines. Is this any different to than writing ones own personal web site and then using it as a primary source? I am assuming that there needs to be an independant source in this situation. David D. (Talk) 22:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:Even if the information were on the person's primary blog, its value would be dubious, as for all blogs. As for the other, anything on blogspot.com has to be rejected as not meeting the standards of a Reliable Source. Fan-1967 22:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::That is your opinion, and not what is stated in RS regarding self-published material by professional journalists.-Cindery 23:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:::But we do not have any reliable source to verify that this material was created by that journalist. Blogspot does not verify article authorship in any way, and a dubious link in the purported author's own blog seems to predate this one by a month, which makes it suspicious at best. If we cannot absolutely, positively, without question verify the authorship, it's worthless. Fan-1967 23:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::::That's your opinion, it's rather negative and IDONTLIKEIT, and they don't seem to agree with you at RS--see ongoing discussion.-Cindery

:::::They don't know, in theory, where the ongoing discussion is occuring. See, talk:RS/Blog as source for barrington Hall graffiti, talk:RS/Clarifcation request: Blogs of journalists and of course Talk:Barrington_Hall David D. (Talk) 01:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::: I can't believe that Cindery is still arguing about crap links on Barrington Hall. Aren't there any good sources? Guy (Help!) 08:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::::She claims there are two other sources, which makes the insistence on this blog all the more puzzling. Thankfully, we have a proposal for editing the article that has received support so far. If anyone here wants to recommend a course of action, feel free to drop in at Talk:Barrington_Hall. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to whoever decided to come up with the expiry time for protection. However, is there some sort of guideline on how long protections should last? Or is it just Your Best Judgment® for now? -- tariqabjotu 21:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is a fairly new MW feature I believe, and no policy currently exists regarding it, though some discussion on what protection lengths would be appropriate would probably be a Good Thing^TM. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Blame Werdna.[http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki?view=rev&revision=19567] {{mono|1=;)}} Titoxd^(?!?) 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That is so cool! HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:Wow... Why didn't we think of this 6 months ago? :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:: Heh. You know, more developers = more spiffy features for us... so, all users who have a decent knowledge of PHP should help out! {{mono|:)}} Titoxd^(?!?) 23:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just noticed it. Also "protect pages transcluded on this". w00t! Guy (Help!) 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame that there's no note of the expiry of the protection in the page history, but still, that and cascading protection are awesome! --Deskana (request backup) 23:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:I was wondering if anyone would ever thing of this... 68.39.174.238 00:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

: You mean an automated "protection has expired" entry in the page's history? That does seem like a bug, because isn't recorded in the edit summary of the protection null edit. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::Also, you can repeatedly unprotect pages (even when not protected) and leave null edits in the page history. Just FYI. --Deskana (request backup) 02:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::The protection log DOES record the expiration date, if we can get that in the auto edit summary it would be useful. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:To help us all along with this great new feature I've updated/created:

• Interface: MediaWiki:Protect-text (new super-brief instuctions)
• Template for tagging: :Template:Tprotected ({{t1|tprotected}}) (includes end-user link to the expiration date)
• : Short form redirect for template: :Template:tprot ({{t1|tprot}})
• Category for new tag'd items :Category:Temporarily protected
• — xaosflux ^Talk 03:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:Important note, if a page has existing protection (e.g. Edit=Auto,Move=Sysop) and you change the protection to anything (e.g. Edit=Sysop, Move=Sysop) AND use an expiration, ALL protections will be removed upon expiration. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:Shouldn't almost all protections be temporary? I thought that was the point: to eliminate the interminable backlog at Wikipedia:List of protected pages by having expiration times for protections. -- tariqabjotu 04:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh what do we need a guildline for. The protecting admin should have an aprox idea as to how long the protection should last for.Geni 13:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:Agreed. We can figure it out on a case-by-case basis, and over time, admins can look at the lengths others are using and come to some sort of a consensus. --Cyde Weys 15:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::We can create a policy when a need demonstrates itself. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The template is not automatically removed though, is it? Cbrown1023 02:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a very nice feature. I think a protection length equal to the block for troll squalling, i.e. those people who after being blocked repetitively spew obscenities onto their talk pages. Article protection timing will require some thought, but 24 hours might be a good starter for cool-down on edit wars. This feature is great--I sometimes forget to unprotect pages once I step in to stop vandalism or an edit war. Antandrus (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:Sweet! Quick, someone edit {{tl|utprotected}} now that the block log and page protections can be synchronized. Come to think of it, the page protections can be integrated as an option into the block interface (EG. "Protect user/usertalk pages (Use only for trolls like BA)"). 68.39.174.238 07:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Despite being warned for canvassing such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheKaplan&diff=prev&oldid=102247860 this], this user has continued in it. I recommend at least a temporary block. (See also the "Is this userbox appropriate" section above for details on his attack userpage which has since been deleted.)--Azer Red Si? 22:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:Unless I am missing something this user has not canvased since the warning. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

::Yeah, I somehow made the exact same mistake as Azer last night when I checked his contribs. But nah, he hasn't done anything other than edit your talk page once complaining about free speech since he was warned and his userpage was deleted. —bbatsell ¿? 16:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am tempted to switch my time zone to GMT in preferences so that the times in the sigs and the times in the logs match, I am always getting confused. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

{{lc|Board games}} has been flooded by spam over the past months. If there are no objections, I will delete all the spam edits from the article and restore only the clean edits. The reason for this is the following: when the edits are in the page history, they can still be viewed by readers. Once they are deleted from the article, they will no longer be visible for normal readers, which makes spamming the category a lot less attractive for the spammers. Any thoughts? Aecis^Bravado 01:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:Sounds fine. Proto::► 10:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

{{vandal|JossBuckle Swami}} is the latest ban-evading incarnation of Gregory Kohs ({{vandal|MyWikiBiz}} / {{vandal|Thekohser}} / {{vandal|207.8.215.81}}). Having descended yet again into trolling and pushing his agenda with relation to the blocking of his MyWikiBiz account, I have blocked him. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Appears like a sound desicision to me. I knew something didn't smell right, and it wasn't the fast food I had for dinner. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 09:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:*Um, he did fully admit to it above. Anyway, what's wrong with this guy being around? Just curious. Patstuart^talk|edits 10:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:::What is wrong is a few things. First, he was blocked by Jimbo and has not been unblocked, so any new account is a ban-evading sockpuppet, block on sight and delete any articles as WP:CSD#G5. Second, he honestly thinks Wikipedia is in business to attract companies to create articles. He thinks that we are failing in a findamental aim because we erect barriers to companies creating PR articles on themselves. In other words, he simple does not get it, despite having had the conept of Wikipedia explained ot him multiple times. Third, he keeps lapsing into vanity and spamming of his own websites. Fourth, he keeps trolling. Fifth, he is selling Wikipedia articles. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::::Huh. I'd figured out JossBuckle Swami was my MyWikiBiz (easy enough to follow the trail), but I hadn't realized he'd been banned. Oy, I could have saved the trouble of arguing with him. --Calton | Talk 13:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:::I think we can consider MyWikiBiz to be community-banned, beyond Jimbo's personal block. Chick Bowen 15:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:We can assume two things: as long as his site is up he will be banned, and he will continue creating sockpuppets. -- ReyBrujo 15:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose a community ban of {{vandal|MyWikiBiz}}, {{vandal|Thekohser}}, {{vandal|JossBuckle Swami}}, et al. for disruption, spamming, and damaging the integrity of Wikipedia. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Jimbo did not ban MyWikiBiz, he blocked MyWikiBiz, and later unblocked MyWikiBiz with a strongly worded message on their user page disowning the practice of hiring editors to write articles on Wikipedia. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Up to a point, Lord Copper.

04:59, October 5, 2006 Jimbo Wales (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "MyWikiBiz (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (inappropriate use of Wikipedia name in commerce; implying that people can pay him to get listed in Wikipedia)

• So, banned by Jimbo. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Indef block != ban. Bans apply to a person or entity, and are enforced by a block. A block is just a mechanical means of stopping the edits of one account. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Seconded. If they won't go peacefully, then we need to get out the big guns. Shadow1 (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Thirded. It's bad enough, IMHO, to offer that sort of business, but block evasion makes it even worse. Especially Jimbo-block evasion. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Yup. Disruptive, vain, spammer, soapboxer, disruptive, and disruptive. Oh, and he's disruptive, too. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• I support the idea, but aren't we differentiating between a ban made by Jimbo and a ban made by the community? What follows, a ban by the Arbitration or the Foundation? Just wondering... -- ReyBrujo 20:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• He was blocked by Jimbo. I think it makes sense to make clear that he is banned too. Personally I thought that was already implicit, but there's no reason not to make explicit. Chick Bowen 20:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Here's the thing: he was banned by Jimbo, and soon unbanned. I think we need to keep that in mind. Keep in mind, I'm not taking a stance on the current ban: I don't know him well enough. Striking, he was rebanned. Patstuart^talk|edits 20:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• endorse ban - please do... we don't want people paying mywikibiz for articles in wikipedia. Thats just not right, and exaberates the spam problem that we already have. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Chick Bowen 20:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Who's the brave soul who will start the MyWikiBiz article? "A company founded by Greg Kohs that charges money to create Wikipedia articles. Kohs is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia, and any articles created by him may be deleted without debate under WP:CSD#G5{{tl|fact}}". Oh bugger, self-reference. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse permanent ban. This is so far from the principles of Wikipedia that I don't see anything wrong in having a declaration both from Jimbo and from the community that we will not have anything to do with it. Sam Blacketer 23:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A blocked user, {{user|Knowpedia}}, requested my assistance [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bkonrad&diff=102620317&oldid=102296588], but I don't have any time at the moment to look into this. The user had previously been a responsible editor, but I"m unaware of recent circumstances. older ≠ wiser 11:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:Not too sure, you may wish to ignore this request. Terence Ong 12:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why was this described in the block log as a "vandalism-only account"? That seems inaccurate. I've left a note at the blocking admin's talk page. Chick Bowen 15:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:PRODding other people's User pages and wiping out an existing User page with a Welcome template look like vandalism, to me. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::Interesting situation because while those PROD, etc were definitely vandalism, it appears the rest of Knowpedia's edits were reasonably good faith. I think at this point an indef is probably a bit harsh though there may be circumstances here that I'm not aware of.--Isotope23 19:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::Yes, I don't disagree that those edits were vandalism. It's the vandalism-only that I'm questioning. As Isotope23 says, if there are other circumstances than fine, but if there's a discrepancy between what's described in the log and what appears to have happened then it makes sense to investigate. Chick Bowen 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• It was blocked in relation to a VandalProof tool abuse report. It was using VandalProof to tag user pages as CSDs, prod them, so on so forth. Betacommand revoked the user's access and they were blocked. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::That's not what User talk:AmiDaniel/VP/Abuse says Peter. You appear to be confusing the "test" speedy deletion tagging of an article (Gay icon [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gay_icon&diff=prev&oldid=100816048 here]), with the later {{tl|prod}} of three user pages. There may be contribs which have been deleted, but what's visible seems the sort of thing that merits a short (or even not-so-short) sharp block. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have shortened the block to one week with consent of MrDarcy, the blocking admin. Please keep an eye on this user; I will too. Chick Bowen 01:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F@NB0Y$ has been a circus since it started, I think it is time to close, but I participated in it so cannot close it myself. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:*shudder* A webcomic AfD... has anyone else noticed AfDs getting more and more insanely argumentative lately? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::It is because the webcomic posted the AfD on it's forum and told everyone to come vote. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:::It's not just that one. I've seen a lot of others go crazy when they should be really easily dealt with. (Current case in point that I mentioned on here previously - SPAs all over the place, guidelines and policies be damned, and so on.) Is it a full moon or something? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::::Q: Comment, what evidence do we have that this webcomic is gaining in popularity?

::::A: Common sense alone should garner the growing popularity given it's increase feature in the Joystiq polls

::::Priceless! -- ReyBrujo 17:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Closed, with a rationale that probably took longer to write than it deserved. I tried to be kind. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:Nicely done. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::Good closing, way to educate. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:::An exemplary closing. I'll have to try and summon the time and/or patience for something like it next time I see a mess like that. Sandstein 20:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::::Yeah, I looked at that F@NBOY$ AfD page for deletion just a couple of days ago, along with the web page that encouraged readers to submit keep, and it seemed like an unfair AfD. When looking back at the AfD, I wasn't sure if the people writing Keep, actually wanted to keep it, or just obeying the webpages authors views. Great Job on deleting that article. It needed to go! Thanks much again! Chickyfuzz123^{(user talk)} 01:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::: Thanks, all. Experience on WP:DRV indicates that a really clear closing rationale helps enormously in cases likely to be disputed, especially if the subject comes up again in a year when things have changed. Hopefully this won't get to DRV until something has changed, as I think I made it clear enough for now that the case is currently pretty hopeless. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm they made a commic about us. However anyone who has ever clicked the wrong link on commons will know that wikipedians do have nads and are aparently rather proud of them.Geni 10:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous vandal appears to have posted some very detailed personal information about someone in the Alyssa article. The edit has already been reverted, but the information still exists in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alyssa&oldid=102746076 history]. Can an administrator remove that edit for real? Valrith 22:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:I've handled it temporarily by moving it to a subpage and deleting the details there, but in the future such information should be directed to those with oversight (and more discretely :P ) so that it can be removed permanently from the history. I'll see if I can find an oversight to handle the leftovers. Cowman109^Talk 22:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ANNAfoxlover this]. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 23:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:That's a nono, user warned. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::Definitely, I'd suggest reverting his edits and deleting the user subpage--or at least MFDing it. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 23:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:Hmmm, NOT violations are not speediable, I created a mfd here Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ANNAfoxlover/Pixar. Perhaps someone else may think of this as advertising and speedy it, I am not sure myself. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::Yeah, G11 could cover it. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 01:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:You convinced me. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This user has been indef-blocked for WP:BLP violations, incivility, and abusiveness. Some of us suspect he is a sockpuppet of a banned user, but the checkuser did not confirm that. Thus, I'm wondering about his article Ruth Ann Moorehouse, which is also rather a BLP violation. Without checkuser confirmation I suppose it can't be deleted as WP:CSD#G5, but I'd propose deletion under G10. I'd rather not do it myself since I'm already involved, however. Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It was pretty clear from the subjects of the articles the two chose to edit, and their aggressive discussion style, that they were the same person. But Spawnopedia got blocked serially by three different admins, anyway. :) User:Zoe|(talk) 23:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:Given that the article was apparently written and pasted in one sitting, has anyone checked it for copyvio? Newyorkbrad 23:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::It is, and is now tagged for speedy deletion, but it's older than 48 hours. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Gone. Newyorkbrad 00:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:I deleted it. I doubt that User:Spawnopedia was planning to take advantage of the grace period to request relicensing from the actual author. Jkelly 00:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks. Also, to Angus: note that the 48-hour thing is no longer part of the copyvio policy (there was a Jimbo order a while back). Chick Bowen 00:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This article, The Cheetah Girls (TV series), is my first AFD closure as a non-admin. A peer review on how I did would be greatly appreciated. I closed the AFD, merged the information to the new article and redirect to that article. It feel like, assides from the the fact that I didn't blank and redirect the discusion page talk:The Cheetah Girls (TV series), like I left something out. Your comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. --CyclePat 01:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:Good job on being bold! However, you might want to have left this for an admin to sort out because there were a number of delete motions. As WP:DELPRO says, "Non-administrators may only close decisions which are unambiguous "keep" [or redirect and merge] decisions. Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator." It say this was kind of a close call due to previous AfDs. Anybody else have any comments? PTO 02:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:That looks to me like a fair close, but in the future, I'd really recommend holding off on closing something that is that borderline. Not because you can't do it correctly, but because it tends to cause more problems than it solves. If all of AfD is that backlogged, then I'd drop a note on WP:AN and if it's just one article drop a note on an admin you know to be around. —bbatsell ¿? 02:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::Thank you! In the future, I'll make sure they are a little more obvious (ie. something like 16 merge/redirect, 2 delete, 2 keep). Maybe the lenghty little conclusion explaining how I came to the decision was a good hint that it may be ambiguous. But then again I though it helped explain how it was unambigous. Thank you again, for your constructive comments. --CyclePat 03:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice: Help! I was hopping to simply do the changes as per the request. But I suddenly noticed that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Cheetah_Girls_%28girl_group%29&diff=102814264&oldid=102807048 all or most of the information I merged was deleted from the article]. Which leaves me wondering if this doesn't go against the spirit of the decision from the AFD, that it be merged vs deleted. I figured I should stay at, ironically, "arms lenght" on this one. But my gut is telling me that it didn't have enough sources and the editor is removing the inform to keep his POV instead of finding sources (which I know exist). Good luck! I'm like I said. I think I should leave this one up to someone else. Its a sad story.--CyclePat 04:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

: Oh Pat, you've waded in with both feet again, haven't you? Guy (Help!) 12:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:: Something about climbing structures and Spiderman suits comes to mind again... :) ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 12:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

{{article|Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus}} had no edits since 30 December and no discussions since 25 December. It was archived on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FUser_conduct&diff=102577400&oldid=102291751 22 January], as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Closing_and_archiving Disputes may be removed from this page and archived under any of the following circumstances:: If no additional complaints are registered for an extended period of time, and the dispute appears to have stopped. and The dispute proceeds to another method of dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration. which were fullfilled as the dispute has progressed to both mediation and arbitration. I have filed some closing remarks on the discussion today, as I considered the RfC closed - it was however unarchived by a user who is having a recent disupte with me and who wrote There is no such thing as an official closing of RfC. I'd like if somebody could review this case and decide if this can be archived or not; I consider this matter closed as I don't believe RfC should be used as some 'black lists of greviances against a user'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:Again, Piotrus? Why can't you just talk and run to various boards all the time? --Irpen 02:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::It would also be nice if somebody could deal with the harassment above, it's getting tiresome.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Are you requesting someone to block your opponent again? Tiresome indeed. --Irpen 02:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Really Piotrus, this is getting very WP:POINTy. Please desist. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Decist from what? It was Irpen who 'unarchived' my RfC (and it was not me who archived it).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::Holly s&*%$, I can't even save my comments because of edit conflicts... this is a fisty subject isn't it. You may want to take a look at WP:AMA, open a case, and perhaps an advocate such as myself will be able to help you out. Send me an email once you've done this if you wish for me to help advocate your cause. --CyclePat 02:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I was the person who originally tried to close the RFC, but, frankly, it's not worth fighting over. --Ideogram 02:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:It is indeed improper to close an RFC when you are the subject of it, Piotrus - it should probably remain open for a longer time as the original closure by Ideogram has been contested. However, we really don't need all the comments here about Piotrus being on a campaign to get you blocked, Irpen. Can we please be civil on WP:AN, of all places? This nitpicking between the two of you is disruptive. Cowman109^Talk 02:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't close the RfC. It was done by another user. I just object to reopening it as it has progressed to mediation/ArbCom (and the rules state it should be archived in such case).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Piotrus, this is the, what, fourth board you've posted on about this, at least? It's starting to get annoying and disruptive, please desist. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• This is the first and only board I posted in relation to closing and unclosing of my RfC. Please list other boards that I raised this issue on - I am not aware of them. If I indeed did so, I will apologize and go see a doctor about my apparent memory loss; however if I didn't do so I am expecting an apology.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Piotrus, this is the fourth in a succession of boards where you and Irpen have dragged your conflict into. I'm not entirely blaming you, because it's both your fault, but you're both skirting blocks for disruption. The second step in Dispute Resolution is to disengage. I suggest you try that, now. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Ah, so you are talking about that larger conflict. That would be third public board by my count (WP:RFI, WP:ANI, WP:AN, am I missing the 4th?). But anyway I indeed said all I wanted to; I leave it to the community to judge what if any actions should be taken against any users involved in this conflict, and now I will take yours and others' advice, step into the sidelines of this and try to relax.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit-conflict in response to Piotrus) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct&diff=prev&oldid=102813131 attempts] to re-close it, I mean. Things like this get iffy in any situation when someone tries to deal with something that concern them - it's best to leave it to others. For now it's probably best to just let time take its course. Cowman109^Talk 02:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:Agreed - which is why I posted a comment here for others to review that matter, and take appopriate actions (close it or don't close it, but comment on the issue).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I submitted WP:RFI for deletion for the very similar reasons why WP:PAIN is now deleted. I think this is worthy to be announced here. --Irpen 02:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Unless the server cache is acting up, it looks like you copied the instructions to MfD listing to the top of the page instead of the actual listing notice. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SteveWolfer

Quoting the standard instructions at the top of the RfC page: "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: {{mono|{{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)}}."

: Because User:Simoes has rescinded his certification of this dispute, which leaves this dispute with only one endorser, and because time has passed the 48-hour deadline cited above, this RfC needs to be deleted. Please look into this. More importantly, it appears this RfC was directed at Mr. Wolfer as a personal attack, abusing the system for that purpose.

User:Buridan appears to be the culprit in the ongoing dispute, totally ignoring consensus and engaging in a purge of Ayn Rand across the lists of Wikipedia. I've been working a lot with lists over the past year, and I've never seen anything like this - he shows a complete disregard for the consensus generated on talk pages and plows forward with item removals even when this course of action lacks consensus. See also next request below.   The Transhumanist    02:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

RfC deleted. Thank you.   The Transhumanist    10:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is being ignored on List of basic philosophy topics. Removals of items have been made which lack consensus. Please look into this, and enforce the consensus, however you may interpret it. I have refrained from edit warring, and am instead requesting that an administrator intervene and determine the proper course of action here. Thank you.   The Transhumanist    02:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:Just to give the opposite end, Buridan, and other editors, hold the position that items were added without consensus. It's all a matter of perspective.

:And the main discussion is taking place at Template talk:Philosophy navigation#Notes. From there down, it's all about whether Ayn Rand (or specifically the link: Objectivism (Ayn Rand)) is very important within philosophy or not. (I'm just an eye-rolling observer) --Quiddity 07:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:: True, the opposite position is that the links were added, but in the case of the List of basic philosophy topics, they weren't added: they were part of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_basic_philosophy_topics&oldid=27297509 original list] when it was created in November of 2005, and have been on there ever since. On the talk page of the list, there is no consensus to remove the items. I'd like to get the items restored without an edit war, which is why I've posted a request here.   The Transhumanist    08:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Strange. Would an uninvolved administrator please review this article? What I find most odd about this spam magnet of sorts is that the article was created this month, yet it has cleanup tags that date back to July 2006. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:It was a fork of Christos Coins; I redirected it there and protected it just in case. We should probably keep an eye on that article in case it becomes a spam magnet itself. Chick Bowen 03:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::Now I've listed Christos Coins at AfD, after a second thought. Chick Bowen 03:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

{{vandal|Planb11}}, having previously vandalized such articles as Barack Obama [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=102173348], is now trolling at Talk:Face, arguing for the inclusion of [http://hometown.aol.com/rufflife3628127/images/ugly%20girl.jpg this image]. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:Now indefblocked by someone else. Looking at the above image is strongly not recommended. Sandstein 06:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Main Page#2007 State of the Union address and Talk:2007 State of the Union Address#Main Page. I believe this article to be ready for the main page. A lot of editors collaborated during and after the address to create a decent and accurate article. --Czj 04:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:I agree. I took approximately more than an hour just to get to that state, and as time passes, the article will keep getting better at a faster pace.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:: Template talk:In the news is the place to discuss this. I'm not sure it fits the In the news criteria though. --Interiot 04:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::: Thanks, Interiot. Posted it there. --Czj 04:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A user at this IP has been inserting spam into the Female ejaculation article repeatedly since October. I reverted some of those edits today and reported the vandalism to AIV. Block notices were then placed on the user's page, but the user wasn't actually blocked. Some time later, 3 more edits were made to insert spam into the same article. Those edits too were reverted, and I again reported the IP to AIV. As it stands now, this user still has not been blocked. Is there a reason why this is so? Have I done anything untoward in my edits to the user's talk page or my reports to AIV? Robotman1974 06:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:06:17, 24 January 2007 Bbatsell (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "24.122.127.118 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (Spam)

:---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:As above, I have blocked for a week. {{tl|test5}}s were added to the user's talk and userpage (now deleted) by a non-administrator, which probably led to the confusion. —bbatsell ¿? 06:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for inquiring, but as :Image:Comet McNaught - Levin.NZ.jpg is now on the front page, shouldn't it be protected? Shouldn't cascading protection have already done this? Hbdragon88 08:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:Cascading protection has taken care of it. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 08:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh. It only shows up when you try to edit the page. Hbdragon88 08:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=103036117#IRC_admin_channel discussion] has become very lengthy and has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IRC admin channel

Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behavior absolutely unacceptable; to ensure that it does not continue, we have worked with the leadership of the IRC channels to appoint additional channel ops, with a specific mandate to keep Wikimedia IRC channels polite and courteous. Behavior on the IRC channel may be taken into consideration with respect to arbitration cases if it results in disruption on Wikipedia. Fred Bauder for the Arbitration Committee 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

------------------

Please direct your comments to the abovementioned subpage (no, SlimVirgin, I've learned nothing!). This thread took half of the space in this board, so I moved it there. Thx. El_C 01:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea except you did not preserve the edit history in your split. The proper way to do it, in my view, was a delete/partial restore/move/restore-the-rest action, rather than just a copy/paste move. If you're not sure how to do that, you might try asking Kylu how on IRC, she's an expert at it and often available that way to help people out, and I expect she would be happy to walk you through it step by step in real time, as she's quite good at it. I'd favour reverting this change of yours, and trying again. But this is a high traffic page so it might be tricky to do it cleanly. Still, having no edit history whatever over there is not very useful, in my view.. did you ask around before you did it? ++Lar: t/c 03:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:I can do it, but it could take AN being down for upwards of ten to fifteen minutes to sort through all the posts. Teke ^(talk) 03:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:*(edit conflict) Note: maybe not, lemme check the contribution history. I'll report back in the amount of time it would take me to click. Teke ^(talk) 03:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::It can do more than that, I think. I'm sure I read somewhere that the whole database locked up with strain once when George W. Bush was deleted to do something similar. --Deskana (request backup) 03:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Not so here, as the history is moved in the archive. GW's page's history exsists without archiving. Teke ^(talk) 03:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::::Ah, wonderful! My mistake. --Deskana (request backup) 03:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::Nooo, I was wrong. It isn't. It should be though...Seriously, it would cause some problems since the page goes back over 2 years. Teke ^(talk) 03:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::Reflecting, based on that the subpage should be fine, since the archive histories aren't moved. Teke ^(talk) 03:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:It's no problem. You can just match the date on a timestamp of any signature to easily find the edit on the revision history of either page. El_C 05:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:: It would be nice to be able to do that programmatically even. :-) --Kim Bruning 09:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::: If you just pop a link at the top of the subpage, referring to the point in the history of this page at which the subpage was split off, editors interested in the original discussion can see it in all its glory by clicking on the link. A link to the history at the same point might also be useful. --Tony Sidaway 11:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone think it's time to call up his IP or file a WP:ABUSE report? I'm not sure how to go about this, and I don't know his IP range. But this is getting entirely out of hand. Patstuart^talk|edits 23:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

:There is already an investigation going against his IP there... a second... the one under the 68.30.65.203 heading. -- ReyBrujo 23:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

He has recently used:

• 24.148.7.123
• 64.241.37.140
• 66.73.80.206
• 66.149.74.142
• 67.167.7.81
• 67.167.7.187
• 68.30.156.41
• 75.22.229.188
• 75.57.102.247

I suggest we start gathering a definitive collection, to be followed with ISP complaints and range blocking. Raul654 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

:Add:

• 68.251.35.198

:To that list. --Wildnox(talk) 00:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

::I have seen a cplot ip blocked for a month. Since we blocked the ips for a week and did not work, I suggest extending to one month, until the investigation is finished. -- ReyBrujo 00:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

:::My theory about Cplot, although probably flawed, is that Cplot is probably multiple people using different IPs. And yes, a WP:ABUSE report will probably help. --SunStar Net^talk 01:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

::::Of course, you can't have a single person with so varied internet accounts. -- ReyBrujo 01:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::I think that Sunstar means that it is being used as a Role account, possibly with access gained by the posting of the name and password to something like a forum or BBS, to be manipulated by multiple users to game the system. Teke ^(talk) 01:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::Oh, gotcha. I suggest keeping a bot deleting posts that are over 60kb automatically :-) -- ReyBrujo 01:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• They'd have to be really dedicated to carry out this much of an attack on Wikipedia. BTW, I found a "parody" of Wikipedia, which is also called Wikipedia (confusingly enough), maybe Cplot can take his stuff there?? --SunStar Net^talk 01:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Time to knock on SBC's door and tell them to tell this guy to put a sock in it. —Pilotguy (ptt) 01:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

::This may be a role account, per Teke's suggestion above. I'm sure some forum will probably have a thread somewhere on this. --SunStar Net^talk 01:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

::I just searched google for the terms "government" and "cplot" and came up with nothing but many questionable sites syndicating wiki content (including user talk) in order to increase their page rank. I also came across a Harvard law site with a [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/foi/Talk:Group_6_Dispute_Results discussion] involving a user called "thewaythingswork" which seemed to digress onto Cplot. Either there's nothing out there, or I need to refine my search terms. Could a proxy service be responsible for the numerous IP's? Crimsone 01:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Probably some open proxy, if that's what Cplot's using... --SunStar Net^talk 01:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

::::Is that possible? The IPs resolve to major commercial ISPs. Chick Bowen 02:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::Yes, but to say specifically how might offer ideas if it's not the case. It's not a particularly common thing to see from average internet users, but it is possible.For example, my IP is registered to PlusNet (and yes, it's static), but I could still be running a proxy on a second machine for others to connect through. Crimsone 02:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::I always figured it was a bunch of guys from the same area working together, given the various Chicago ISPs listed in the suspected sock list. I don't really have any experience with this kind of thing, though. WarpstarRider 03:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

From a nontechnical angle my hunch is it's one person. A group of people would manifest a variety of writing styles. Yes, this means prolific and dedicated effort from one individual, but some irrational people are prolific and dedicated. This person ignored my repeated offers at Village Pump to accept evidence via e-mail and conduct an independent investigation. So while the emperor has no clothes, it's also human nature for the emperor to insist he's wearing fine duds while the crowd giggles. Durova^Charge! 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

:At one point, I began thinking they were common people who had been cheated by Cplot to post those comments there. However, noticing how the sockpuppets try to insert the text in as many sections as possible reflects careful planning. Suppose Wikipedia asked for confirmation whenever it detects more than XXkb of text is being inserted at the same time (a copyvio warning, in example), wouldn't that stop him from doing this automatically and also help catch some copyvio infringements, especially when User:Wherebot is down? -- ReyBrujo 04:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

::So the question, is, now, would anybody like to call up SBC and give them the nastygram? (that's me honesetly asking for volunteers). We will need some checkuser information from Mackensen that we can email to SBC. Patstuart^talk|edits 03:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I blocked an IP last night who was either Cplot or a Cplot wannabe which resolved to the University of Virginia computer lab. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:I'm quite sure there are Cplot imitators out there. Cplot himself uses a few different ISPs. I'm willing to discuss via e-mail, but not here. --Aude (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the IPs that originate from Chicago should be the ones that are targeted in an abuse report? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 19:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Another IP used today by Cplot: {{IPvandal|24.14.241.94}}.--Wildnox(talk) 20:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Several more used today:

• 68.29.19.14
• 70.8.72.109
• 75.22.229.188
• 24.148.87.100
• 75.3.20.158
• 24.148.64.151

Range blocked for 6 months. Raul654 18:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:Cplot unleashed a whole new group of socks today. Apparently the range blocks didn't work, or he's using a proxy. PTO 03:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Not like this really belongs here, but I'm just wondering: did I really misuse "Wikify" (The context being that I thought the template should be moved, to "Wikify" article) and did my edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_people_by_name:_Ko&diff=prev&oldid=102156522] merit a revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_people_by_name:_Ko&diff=102441663&oldid=102156522] and a warning on my talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Captain_Wikify&diff=102489357&oldid=102227050]? --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 21:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:That "Revert" looks a litter questionable: I've never seen a template with that long a name. As to the warning, if it misusing a phrase in an inflammatory way (EG. Overbroad application of "vandalism"/"vandal"), I could understand a warning. I suspect the Help:Glossary has a more exact definition of it, but I don't see your use of it as being worthy of a stronger warning then the usuall "Please use edit summaries" one. 68.39.174.238 07:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:I wouldn't consider that misuse of the term "wikifying", and certainly not harmful misuse; I'd include general fiddling with the order and formatting of the article to get it to match standard Wikipedia format as "wikifying", particularly when it's the order of templates or other wiki-syntax. And from an easy-of-editing prospective, I'd prefer {{tl|List of people K}}, as easier to work with than the cryptically-named {{tl|Lopbn p}}, which also has no documentation, and appears to take some strange arguments (and a large number of them). Mairi 23:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a sock check on User:FredLevine who's currently at large on Talk:Margaret Spellings. He's extremely determined that a provably bogus quote be kept in the article even though it doesn't appear in the transcript of the interview in question. Thanks! - Richfife 15:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:Well, his Talk page was a red link. I've now explained 3RR to him. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:: Er, yeah. Should have done that. I'm of the opinion that all Christas content comes from a single person (paging Ronald Bernard), though, so there seemed little point in posting pointers on the talk page. - Richfife 00:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::My message says that I am assuming good faith, but let him know I'm not stupid. :) User:Zoe|(talk) 16:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:He should have been blocked on sight. This one is a notorious fraud/spammer of us, with many socks that have been blocked. I would do it, but I'm a non-admin. Patstuart^talk|edits 23:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lee Nysted Experience needs closing with kindness. The artist himself is a serial vanity poster and a problem, but there is at least one other editor who I think could, with patience, be useful to the project (Huntstress), and I'm trying to help her (presumably) along. I suspect that this is a "one day but not yet" subject, but the whole argument is so infuriating that my blood pressure rises every time I try to assess the merits of it, and in any case I !voted on it. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:Done. Proto::► 16:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:: Thanks. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Good close, and good explanation. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::: I can't say that our own "Lee Nysted Experience" has been terribly edifying, mind... Guy (Help!) 17:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::And of course it's already been reposted and deleted again, with User:Huntress829 stating here (in Proto's archived messages, which I should note was something User:Lee Nysted did in *my* archive recently) that the article won't be going away while regularly deleting notices from her talk page and reposting editorial comments about the article. These people just do *not* get it. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please tell this user to stop adding tags that invite a user to remove key information from an article or reduce it to a hollow, should-be-non-existent shell. He acts like he owns wikipedia by constantly adding unnecessary tags to articles. I also think that he and Scepia may be sockpuppets. Henchman 2000 19:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution, second on the left down the hall. Mind the trout. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:*Besides... it appears he is adding "unsourced" tags to articles that are unsourced... we should be encouraging editors to removed unsourced information from articles.--Isotope23 20:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This page Lil’ Flip just got created (there no history) and it looks suspiciously like an old page someone has recreated. (Including a Cleanup tag dated September 2006) I cannot see deleted pages, and since there's no history, I have no idea what the deal is, but I thought an Admin might wanna have a look at it. NipokNek 21:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:It turns out it's a duplicate of an existing article. Probably just a mistake. I deleted the duplicate and redirected to the original. TheQuandry 21:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I recently created a page on the wild beasts, a band from Leeds who are now notable. The band are friends of mine and many a time have I used wikipedia from their house on their computer. One of the statements that I added was that they had just signed a deal with domino records. Infact, this deal has not been officially announced (yes, I understand that this should not have been added as their are no reliable sources, however the band took it upon themselves to vandalise the page (probably inadvertidly to remove the domino records statement (they simply blanked the page)), and as I have used their computer previously to use wikipedia, it has been registered that the edits came from my account. Infact, when the edits were made (At 5am UK time!) I was fast asleep in bed. This led to me recieving 2 vandilism warnings and vandilism showing up in my contribs and talk page. Is there any admin interaction that can be done to merge the history of wild beasts and my talk page so they do not show? I totally condone vandalism to wikipedia and to be honest, I'm normally the one giving the warnings. I don't want vandalism being attributed to my account. I'd be really greatfull if you could take a look at this RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:I don't think condone is the word you meant. For now I think changing password is the most important option. Agathoclea 00:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::Did it as soon as I realised what happened RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::and condone was the wrong word to use - probably should have used despise! RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Actually Azerbaijani, the world she was probably searching for was condemn.

{{user|ZeframSpark}} is an obvious sockpuppet of banned {{user|Zephram Stark}}. Someone please block. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

His [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RadioKirk&diff=prev&oldid=103028001 laughable] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RadioKirk&diff=prev&oldid=103042133 attempts] to paint me as cowardly, foolish and arbitration-worthy aside, banned user Arthur Ellis and his sock/meatpuppets are at it again, attempting to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warren_Kinsella&diff=prev&oldid=102487302 restore] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warren_Kinsella&diff=prev&oldid=102490906 only] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warren_Kinsella&diff=prev&oldid=102494535 the] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warren_Kinsella&diff=prev&oldid=102786164 one] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warren_Kinsella&diff=prev&oldid=102844086 version] that Ellis prefers. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:Mostly dealt with at WP:AE. Sadly, Arthur is unable to see that the conservative approach to the biography of his friend Rachel Marsden that he fought for in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden also applies to his enemy Warren Kinsella. He is currently banned for one month, which keeps getting extended due to sockpuppetry and ban evasion. Thatcher131 12:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know that we had cascading page protection now. Anyways, since the talk page for {{admin|Tawker}} is move-protected, {{tl|wikibreak}} and probably all the templates on his talk page are also protected. Can someone take a look at this and see if there isn't a better way to have things? I've got neither the time nor the sysop bit to address this one. Thanks. BigNate37_(T) 04:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:I removed the cascading protection from his page (it's not mandatory, but optional). I see no reason why he needed it, but I'll leave a message on his talk page. -- tariqabjotu 04:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:{{tl|wikibreak}} was the only transcluded template that I could see, hence cascading the protection seems unecessary. Viridae^Talk 04:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::I was testing out the cascading protection, and apparently I forgot to lift it. No worries there although I don't see much harm in move protecting wikibreak. -- Tawker 05:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me why this page has been deleted? I can't find an associated afd discussion. -- Roleplayer 09:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common phrases based on stereotypes NoSeptember 09:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::Actually, this appears to be a bit of a problem. That afd was closed as no consensus, and that was 11 months ago. But Doc Glasgow, who originally prodded the article, then went and deleted it with that afd under the delete summary. I suggest taking it to WP:DRV or talking to Doc; it will probably be overturned. Patstuart^talk|edits 09:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::And here we are: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common phrases based on stereotypes (Second nomination). You can still try deletion review though. Patstuart^talk|edits 09:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::::I see, Doc mentioned the wrong AfD in the deletion summary. That clears it up. NoSeptember 09:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Should we allow advocacy WikiProjects? This doesn't seem to be the reason we are here. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:Ummm, well, it is directly related to the ongoing running of wikipedia. But it's not realy a project, it's a narrowly focused discussion. Perhapse merging them and moveing it to WP:CENT would be better? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Aaaaaargh! No! There is endless precedent for not having, creating, keeping, encouraging or permitting Wikiprojects which advocate one side of a debate. All it does is polarise. It doesn't help that one of these had only three edits, one of which was from Greg Kohs. A meta-debate on meta-advertising, whether, and in what form, and so on, is fine, of course. Kohs seems to have interpreted it as implying we should have ads in mainspace though... Guy (Help!) 19:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject No ads is pretty long running and pretty harmless. Well unless you want adds on wikipedia of course. A bit like Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Any attempt to delete it would be somewhat silly and likely fall foul of the disruption clause. In short I don't think we need any more drama right now.Geni 20:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:Exactly, so it's harmless to those that agree with it. As JzG said, there is longstanding precedent that one sided advocacy is not a good thing. WP:CSB is totally different because it is directly working on improving the project by fixing a current problem. Obviously Wikipedia:WikiProject Yes ads is Pointy, but the point is actually valid. You can't disallow one, while keeping the other side. - Taxman ^Talk 21:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::Ha, well, I'd like to see who'd be willing to slit their throat and put it up for WP:MFD :P. Patstuart^talk|edits 22:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::*I would. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, even for wikipedia-related issues. There are much better and far less divisive ways to go about this than silly advocacy wikiprojects. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::::Please back up that claim with evidence. Remember the wikiproject did atchive it's initial aims.Geni 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::Which doesn't mean it was the right, or or best way to do it, nor even that it doesn't cause more damage than good. The only reason I wouldn't put it up for MfD is I think there'd be way too much ILIKEIT and not enough application of policy. But do let me know if someone does. - Taxman ^Talk 15:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::If you think there are better ways name them.Geni 18:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::::There don't have to be better ways to do it for it not to be something that we want to have here (ie not meet our policies and goals). But a non partisan factual discussion of the pro's and con's of accepting advertising would be better than the current AVOID ADS BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY type of thing currently there. But do we even need that? Meta is more the place for that type of thing. Personally I think it's amusing people are willing to let mirrors get advertising income on their work, but not the Wikimedia Foundation. At any rate policy is fairly clear that partisan things like this are not what we are here for, and I would say the same thing about a similar page for the opposing view. - Taxman ^Talk 19:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::::So you supported the answers.com deal as intialy stated?Geni 14:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::I don't recall excatly how it was originally stated, but I recall there was a big difference between how it was stated and what was assumed. It's also not relevant to whether the Wikiproject is the type of thing we want here, but I do support opt-in only advertising. I've not yet seen any compelling arguments against that, and an order of magnitude more funds than are currently available could be very well utilized to reaching the foundation's mission. - Taxman ^Talk 23:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::look at your sidebar. Do you see a link to WP:TOOLS featuring the answers.com thing? That was the initial plan according to the foundation.Geni 13:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• I dont think that the First Pillar is very ambiguous about this. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::Any interpritation that rules out the no ads wikiproject would also likey impact this board.Geni 23:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Why? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::::First allow Wizardry Dragon to put forth his interpritation of the frist Pillar.18:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

While I have a certain conceptual amount of agreement, I'm wondering how much of a real difference would be made by more or less retitling the above group to WikiProject Ad Analysis or something of the like. Given the prevailing sentiment, it seems like even if based in non-advocacy the discussion would be largely the same. Heck, it may be that allowing this as an avenue for the expression of some pretty strong feelings may even better allow for a separate project or discussion to be more neutrally grounded. Isn't this something where we'd be served to not only look at the strict sense, but also the context and cost/benefit as a whole? Bitnine 15:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been asked, by several editors on my talk page and by email, to commence an wp:rfc on user:Ludvikus. However, I think that there may be enough evidence to implement a community ban for Disruptive editing:

• His editing of Philosophy is tendentious. The talk page amply demonstrates that there is little support for his views. Furthermore his affectation of martyrdom is tedious.
• He is campaigning to drive away productive contributors. His actions on Philosophy make that page unlikely to attract new editors. His insults on user talk:Peter J King clearly had a strong influence on Peter's removing himself from the Wikipedia. His comments on user:Mel Etitis are another example, including the disruptive posts for which I blocked him; indeed, his obnoxious approach to other editors in general, and the sheer volume of tendentious material he posts, "operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors".

For the purposes of a community ban, what counts as "a handful of admins or users"? If another admin could take a look and advise, I would be grateful Banno 06:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ludvikus has a single 48 hour block in his block log, and that is from Banno. I can see that he has many complaints on his user page, but it would be a bad thing to give someone a community ban just because they are in a small minority. If he continues to be disruptive, and starts violating policy extensively, then we could reconsider, but right now I oppose. Incidentally, it might be an idea to drop him a note on his talk page to tell him about this discussion. Sam Blacketer 12:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:* So informed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALudvikus&diff=102897472&oldid=102889507 here] on his talk page. Regards, Navou ^banter 13:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:An RfC is the way to go. Jkelly 17:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Since User:FT2 is attempting a reconciliation, I will leave the article in his hands. However my expectation is that we will hear more about Ludvikus. Banno 21:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

From Larry Sanger, Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism [http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25]

...One has only to compare the excellent Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy to Wikipedia's Philosophy section. From the point of view of a specialist, let's just say that Wikipedia needs a lot of work.

There are many ways to explain this problem, and I will start with just one. Far too much credence and respect accorded to people who in other Internet contexts would be labelled "trolls." There is a certain mindset associated with unmoderated Usenet groups and mailing lists that infects the collectively-managed Wikipedia project: if you react strongly to trolling, that reflects poorly on you, not (necessarily) on the troll. If you attempt to take trolls to task or demand that something be done about constant disruption by trollish behavior, the other listmembers will cry "censorship," attack you, and even come to the defense of the troll. This drama has played out thousands of times over the years on unmoderated Internet groups, and since about the fall of 2001 on the unmoderated Wikipedia.

This is another case in point. With the benefit of hindsight, I should have implemented the ban, then asked the questions. This would have provided the needed support to the competent editors. My bad. Banno 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:I think that it's worth correcting the false impression that some editors seem to have gained that the problem lies merely in Ludvikus being in a minority. The main problem is that he makes a vast number of low-quality edits, which he defends with a volubility and aggression that make it difficult if not impossible for most other editors to get a word in or to edit sensibly. He makes little sense on the Talk page (aside from his sarcasm, bluster, and personal attacks), but he does so at inordinate length. He only has one block for two reasons: first, the blocking rules don't really cover the sort of disruption in which he specialises, though it's worse and more frustrating than much that is clearly blockable; secondly, just about the only admins who have any interest in the area are already editing at the article.

:Incidentally, I had various run-ins with Sanger before Wikipedia was created, and didn't think much of him — but I have to agree with his analysis as quoted above. The Philosophy article, which should be one of Wikipedia's flagship articles, is a laughing stock. As a professional philosopher myself, I find it deeply embarrassing --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::May I also draw your attention to this edit on Jimbo's page. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=102926395]

Please see also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lucaas&diff=prev&oldid=102981935 this edit] where he combines threats of legal action with physical violence. I'm comforted that we are physically separated by a large ocean, but this is a bit unnerving for editors who may live more closely. Dbuckner 08:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice also that since the Philosophy page was locked, his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ludvikus edit trail] shows he has moved to other articles in philosophy, wreaking havoc along the way. This is no better than vandalism. Why wasn't a ban implemented forthwith? It is simply impossible to do any further work with this character around. Dbuckner 08:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

----

At this point and time I'm seeking:

• An apology from Administrator User:Mel Etitis for his disruptive use of the Bristol Stool Chart to show, call, or shout, "SHIT" at me with it on at least two separate occasions.
• I suspect it may have possibly been an ego confrontation that sparked the disruption.
• If he aplogizes to me much progress can be had.
• I am perfectly capable of letting by-gones be by-gones.
• I sincerely hope it is possible to restore good faith between us. He is the best writer I have come accross on Wikipedia - and appears quite intelligent. I only hope he is capable of a reconciliation, as I believe I am. I hope he also has the security to acknowledge my intelligence as well. I'm hoping we can both be equally forgiving men, as regards one another.
• I urge you all to assume Good Faith, which is Wikipedia policy - as we all love Wikipedia, as well as Jimbo, one of its genius founders.

:Sincerely, --Ludvikus 19:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There is alot of truth on both sides of this issue. I have not involved myself in the mud-slinging but I have as a result received some in the background and do not find this dispute between the two sides to be very fruitful. I would not single out one person in the above but each has gone through their amateur dramatics, use of offensive language on both sides, over-zealous editing (on one side it is from speaking too much on the other a kind of childish huffy threat of withdrawal and denial of what the volumous one says).

Against one, you might say annoying behaviour (see some long-winded edits on philosophy talk), on the other, when not in a huffy mood its more like group bullying (see coordination on talk pages) of a largely unaware, new person. Not sure which is worse but for me I have some facility in ignoring volumous talk but find the more bitter language less easy to brush over. Note, I take some risk in making this statement as I believe some of the mob types have quite a nice corner-thing going here.

On the matter raised as to whether the online Stanford Philosophy site is better than wiki, I think most of it would be disallowed here as being Original Research or Essay. So in that sense wiki's philosophy is better. It also has alot more than Stanford.

Lucas ^Talk 15:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

----

Mel, Mel, Mel, the issue is quite simple, actually. Let the clouds pass, and the flames subside. You have rated me, on the Bristol Stool Chart as falling somewhere between a 6 and a 7. All I'm asking you to do is reconsider your rating, or perhaps rating system. Do you understand, Mel? --Ludvikus 16:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to draw everyone's attention to this discussion today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anglo-American_philosophyKD Tries Again 19:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)KD

-----

Dear FT2:

It seems you have overlooked the following letter I have sent you:

Dear FT2,

*I submit that you fail to distinguish, at this time,

between conduct before User:Banno's 48 hour ban, and conduct after.

I believe that if you do so, you will find that it is User:Dbuckner

who is the primary, if not the exclusive, agent of the alleged disruption.

*Or are you saying that it is Wikipedia policy to punish an editor twice for the same offense?

*One act in question is the use of the Bristol Stool Chart

- which is naturally construed as shouting "SHIT" at an editor - to evaluate an editor.

*May I ask - should that not be the only disruption to be considered now?

*Could you be more specific as to what other alleged disruptive uncivility you have found?

:Respectfully submitted, Ludvikus 18:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have been rated by User:Mel Etitis to be between 6 and 7 on this Bristol Stool Scale.
• It appears to be accepted, condoned, and tolerated practice at Wikipedia.
• I find it discusting, offensive, uncivil, and the ultimate form of DISRUPTION.
• It is no different than calling someone SHIT.
• I ask you all to click on that Bristol Stool Chart and imagine yourself to be rated on that scale by Administrator User:Mel Etitis. How would you feel? And who would be the source of disruption? You, or Administrator Mel?
• It reflects poorly on the reputation of both Wikipedia and Jimbo.
• I find it very difficult to believe that Jimbo would allow such behavior if he new about it - and I expect that he does, as I have written to him about it.
• I am still waiting for an apology from Administrator Mel Etitis.
• If you inform me that such graphic images of human feces may be used by administrators to rate the performance of editors, I would leave immediately.
• Just tell me that such conduct is common in Wikipedia, and I will disappear.
• It is that simple. Just let me know, for example, that Jimbo permits Administrator Mel Etitis to behave in such discusting manner - and I'm out the door.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 04:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

{{vandal|Lee Nysted}} has been here for a short while, also as {{vandal|Nyslee}}. He created {{article|Lee Nysted}} four times, and we've also had {{article|The Lee Nysted Experience}} and {{article|Nysted Music}}, AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lee Nysted Experience and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nysted Music. Vanity content has also been deleted from his user page and his talk page.

Here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tawker&diff=prev&oldid=100472137] is a perfect example of his fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is here for.

It has been established, to a high degree of probability, that no sources currently exist on which we can base an article. Every one he's brought so far turns out to say a whole lot less than he claims, and a whole lot less credibly. He's been consistently argumentative and vexatious. He's now going round [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smdewart&diff=prev&oldid=102987263 soliciting a new article]. Our inclusion criteria have been patiently explained to him a number of times, he seems to regard them as a minor obstacle to be worked around in pursuit of the greater goal of an article on himself, not any kind of guiding principle. He has two other editors working exclusively on Nysted-related content, {{vandal|Huntress829}} and {{vandal|Smdewart}}. All show an identical pattern of wiping Talk pages, but they probably are meatpuppets not sockpuppets.

So: Wikipedia's Lee Nysted Experience has been canonical vanispamcruftisement, and if we hadn't already coined that term we'd have had to for this guy. It is more than apparent that he is desperate to get an article on Wikipedia, and if he ever did it's equally apparent that he would WP:OWN it. Forgive the tetchy tone, but I have had enough of him, and if anyone ever offers me one of his CDs free and for nothing I wouldn't even use it as a beermat. I propose that if he doesn't shut up in the next - oh, ten minutes or so, that we ban his argumentative vainglorious ass. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:Ah yeah, I blocked his sock a while back. That's why I remember this guy. I'd support one last reminder of the purpose of wikipedia. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::Still waiting on the checkuser results for this one. We know it's vanispamvandalhoaxcruftisement, but let's wait for the checkuser, and at least you can block some of the socks and put a note on their page. Patstuart^talk·edits 16:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::It's back. Why am I not surprised that the two most strident folks in that case, User:Lee Nysted and User:Huntress829, as well as the previously identified User:Nyslee, are socks? Interesting to note the previously unknown sock, there, too, though it hasn't done much. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lee Nysted I have indef blocked Nysted and his socks. At the risk of attracting further opprobrium, fuck him. This is a project supported by the donations and donated time of hundreds of thousands of individuals, and he has no thoughts other than to abuse it for sordid vanity. Not one single edit from any one of these accounts is anything other than shameless self-promotion. Dude, game over. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:Unrepentant self-promotion too. Endorsed. Patstuart^talk·edits 22:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:Thank you, Guy. Great work on this one. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. I've seen a situation which I believe requires a review from some admins.

{{User|Catbird222}} has edited {{article|East of Eden}}, claiming multiple times to be the copyright holder of both the book and the upcoming film, and has removed information from East of Eden which s/he believes to have "infringed" on his/her copyright [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_of_Eden&diff=100185353&oldid=100155151] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_of_Eden&diff=102177615&oldid=102177494]. At first I thought this was most likely trolling, but when investergating further into this, I found that there was a MedCab case open, which Catbird commented on. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F2007-01-13_East_of_Eden&diff=102796657&oldid=102180117 This] edit has prompted me to bring it to a wider attention, as I'm not sure as to believe Catbird or not.

I have left a message on Catbirds talk informing him of this discussion, and one on the talk page of {{User|BradPatrick}} also, as Catbird says that Brad knows about this already. I'd like to add that I'm not comfortable with the fact that we have no hint on who this editor is (as it makes it impossible to verify if they are telling the truth}, or who they work for, nor am I happy with the ammount of Legal jargon being thrown around in his/her pervious edits. Thε Halo ^Θ 23:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoever they are, they should be banned for legal threats. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I have indef. blocked User:CatTurd222, whose name and choice of articles to edit was clearly made in order to mock CatBird222 (the name itself violates the Username policy). User:Zoe|(talk) 23:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::Good block. User:Fan-1969 is now blocked as well. There may be more imposter accounts around connected to this. Jkelly 00:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

: The question is whether we consider these things to be "A polite, coherent complaint". Because WP:LEGAL emphasizes that "A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat"." I'm not convinced at all that it is an accurate or reasonable complaint, but it has seemed to be civil.

: They definitely should be directed to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright#Are you the copyright owner? - if all of us are out in left field, and they are justified, they'll get what they are asking for, and if they are being ridiculous, they will get told politely why they are wrong. Pointing them to that is a decent idea regardless of whether or not they are blocked. GRBerry 23:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::I've added a link to the Article Problems/Copyright section you mentioned above on Catbird's talk page. It should also be noted that CatBird only edits Steinbeck related articles, including {{Article|Lew Hunter}}, where s/he removes the mention of a certain Megan Steinbeck [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lew_Hunter&diff=prev&oldid=86239745]. {{IPUser|152.163.101.5}} then re-added the name, while also adding "stop removing my name, GS" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lew_Hunter&diff=prev&oldid=86524200]. Not sure if that's important... Thε Halo ^Θ 00:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::Unless I am confused, the issue here is that Catbird222 wants to use Wikipedia to publish claims that a third party, has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nancy_Steinbeck&diff=prev&oldid=100184941 engaged in fraud], and is removing the trivia section from East of Eden because the recording artists listed there infringed on copyright by mentioning the book or its author, but is not claiming that any Wikipedia article infringes on their copyright. As for WP:NLT, as far as I know, Catbird222 is not making threats against Wikipedia users, just asserting that there are legal issues with third parties. That said, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-01-13_East_of_Eden&diff=prev&oldid=102796657 some of the editing] raises WP:BLP concerns. Frankly, I don't think that restoring the trivia section in East of Eden is so pressing that we cannot have a conversation about the concerns; ideally one that doesn't involve otherwise unpublished accusations of wrongdoing by third parties. Jkelly 00:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::{{User|Catbird222}} is wrongfully invoking my name in this debate. I do know a lot about the Steinbeck controversies, and have been in long conversations with folks in a legal capacity about same, but not to Catbird's benefit. Catbird is explicitly placing herself at risk by editing Steinbeck articles which are not directly related to John Steinbeck IV. That means no John Steinbeck, and this seems to be going markedly in a bad direction. Beware of vanity editing on Nancy Steinbeck as well.--Brad Patrick 13:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::::Thanks for clarifying. Jkelly 20:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

AdilBaguirov is continuously removing a 3rr warning that I put on his talk page. I dont know if it is necessary for the warning to be on his talk page for it to be effective, but still, he has disregarded the fact that it is a warning and not an actual punishment. Anyway, I hope someone can talk to him and calm him down.Azerbaijani 00:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:It's better not to reinsert a warning after the editor has removed it. That looks like edit warring. The warning itself remains in the history and you can refer to it in a diff if necessary. The removal demonstrates that the warning has been read. Durova^Charge! 00:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::Ok thanks, but I'm afraid I dont think he understands it, therefore, has not read it. He assumes that the warning implicates that he did break a rule or something, without realizing that its just a warning.Azerbaijani 01:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Well if he hasn't technically violated any rules, why in the world are you trying to force him to display a warning? --Cyde Weys 16:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at now-banned User:JossBuckle Swami's user page, when I noticed the category above that it was a part of. Suspicious, I clicked, and found a bunch of names on it.

While it's a legitimate category (in that it was not created by JossBuckle Swami, but by {{User|Jeffrey O. Gustafson}}), what caught my eye were its members and their edit histories. Though created on October 31, 2006, its members only began adding themselves on January 3rd (including JossBuckle Swami). And while I'm sure most are legitimate editors, the timing, as well as the edit histories and some odd gaps therein some raise red flags for me: not enough for Checkuser, but enough to ask some questions, especially about the first two:

• {{User|Mecredis}}

:Total edits: 2 9

:Added Cat tag: 8:26, January 3, 2007

:Previous edit: December 10, 2004

• {{User|Sstair}}

:Total edits: 4

:Added Cat tag: 20:51, January 3, 2007

:Previous edit: August 22, 2006

• {{User|Matthew kokai}} -

:Total edits: 226

:Added Cat tag: 05:25, January 4, 2007

:Previous edit: December 14, 2006

:Previous edit to that: October 15, 2006

• {{User|MarkJaroski}} -

:Total edits: 16

:Added Cat tag: 10:19, January 5, 2007

:Previous edit: 20:14, January 3, 2007

:First edit of month: 10:59, January 3, 2007

:Previous edit: March 1, 2006

Suspicious person that I am, I thought I'd bring it here. --Calton | Talk 00:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::Good observations. MFD on the category? Durova^Charge! 00:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::The project with which the cat is connected no longer exists, suggest you take this to CFD. --Wildnox(talk) 00:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::The category bothers me, yes, but that's secondary: it's the users who've added themselves who concern me. Note especially {{User|Mecredis}} -- two edits total, both to his user page and 25 months apart. Again, the timing looks suspicious. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::::Mercedis has 9 edits, last in August 2006. It is definitely odd behavior but nothing we need to be concerned about at the moment, particularly since (as you point out) they are practically not editing. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::WP:UCFD would be more appropriate than CFD, since it's a user category. Mairi 04:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::::My mistake on the edit count, but my point still stands: gone for two years, but the sudden appearance amid a cluster of similar sudden appearances making the same additions to the same category? --Calton | Talk 07:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, sockpuppetry issues aside, how can we justify deleting this one and not :Category:Wikipedians against advertisements? Savidan 04:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:The wikiproject it was attached to has just been deleted, I think that is justification enough. Viridae^Talk 04:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::While there are no official rules of user categories (the closest thing we have is Wikipedia:Guidelines for user categories, which is inactive and only an essay), based on past precedent categories where users state they are against Wikipedia policies are acceptable, as long as they don't say they don't follow the policy. If someone thinks this should be deleted they are free to nominate it, however. VegaDark 04:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:Calton asserted above that "it's a legitimate category", so presumably whatever user division it creates, both userboxes would need to go. I'm not sure I disagree with either deletion, but any nom would reasonably apply to both. A side note, I don't believe 'being attached to a wikiproject' is a requirement for a userbox, but userfication of both might be appropriate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::Please attribute to me the correct opinion: ...it's a legitimate category (in that it was not created by [Jimbo-banned AND community-banned abusive sockpuppet] JossBuckle Swami...). Very BIG qualifier there. I have made no argument supporting or opposing this category. --Calton | Talk 07:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the stance (and thus the opinion) is a reasonable one, and thus shouldn't be destroyed by nature of what it is. WMF is forgoing about $200 million annually by not having ads. Think of how much good free content stuff all of that money could be used for ... Cyde Weys 17:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:Then if a group of active and not-suspiciously-like-sockpuppet Wikipedians decide to recreate the category, they're free to do so. I don't propose salting the earth. Yet why keep a category that appears to be artificially populated by one person in support of an extinct Wikiproject? Durova^Charge! 23:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I happened on this discussion here by chance while adding wikilinks to incident boards and wikipedia guidelines to my user page. I added my user name to :Category:Wikipedians who think that the Wikimedia Foundation should use advertising on December 10, 2006 according to this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ATimeshifter&diff=93417804&oldid=85193032 revision difference]. I also put info about it on my user page. At the time I added my user name there were only a few user names. Maybe 2 or 3? I don't remember. How does one check when other user names were added to the category? Now there are 13 user pages listed. Why was the project page deleted? Why is there even discussion about deleting this category when there is this category: :Category:Wikipedians against advertisements. Why is its project page not deleted also? Actually, I don't want it deleted. And I support user-controlled ads with options for placement, turning them off, etc.. But little of this can be discussed without category pages, project pages, their talk pages, etc.. --Timeshifter 05:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

User has requested page to be userfied. I've been helping him navigate the AfD process, but I wasn't sure of the policy on moving AfD'd pages so I advised him to request userfication. In any case, if someone has the time it would be awfully nice if he/she would userfy this page for User:Janusvulcan and speedily close the AfD. --N Shar 05:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:I was looking at it; if we userfied, I don't think it would be a problem as most if not all the delete !votes had to do with the fact it was an inappropriate article in the namespace (e.g., neologism). Patstuart^talk|edits 05:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::Yeah, that was my thought. It didn't have personal attacks or anything... --N Shar 05:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• The cited "sources" are threads which make this an attack, so I deleted it as such. That is (hopefully) not the intent of the author, and there is a place for philosophical debate on this subject albeit possily not at this ;;precise'' title, which is rather judgmental. I am happy to userfy it to somewhere provided it is cleaned to avoid any identifiable reference to specific editors, if somebody would like to say where it should go. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The evidence gatherer has admitted that he tagged 2 legitimate users so can someone conclude the case? Bowsy 13:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:I've closed this case but I suggest you read my conclusion and keep in mind my suggestion when editing. Because you share a computer you need to be very careful about editing the same articles.--Isotope23 17:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Good, after all, it needed to be on record that we were legitimate users. After all, none of the evidence was very reliable. Bowsy 19:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The Category:Ascorbates page is really acting up. Whenever I try to go there, it acts as if the page doesn't exist and I'm in the middle of creating it. Yet I thought it existed and I'm sure I'm not in the middle of creating it. I think it might be a server file referencing problem, but I don't really know. Thanks, Ruff ^{Bark away!} 19:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:There is no :Category:Ascorbates, and there is no deleted history either. Jkelly 20:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked {{userlinks|Sand Squid}} for 48 hours as a result of the following conversation:

::Like I said, if it remains deleted or is restored matters little to me anymore. I won't spend any effort on rewriting it. I've found a new way to entertain myself with Wikipedia.--Sand Squid 19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J.smith&diff=103199048&oldid=103188322]

::Yeah, and what did you find to do to entertain yourself? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sand_Squid&diff=prev&oldid=103200150]

::Wikipedia:Vandalism :-D

::This is alot more satisfying than creating or repairing an article someone else will delete. There are those who create and those who destroy. Since I apparently cannot create, I will destroy. Or at least annoy.--Sand Squid 19:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J.smith&diff=103204998&oldid=103199048]

Since this is unusual, I would like my actions reviewed. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:What was the purpose of blocking for forty-eight hours? If you're convinced that the account will only be used to damage Wikipedia, it should be blocked until that is no longer true. If you're not convinced of that, the block is only likely to annoy the user further. Jkelly 20:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::I wanted to bring the block here for community review before I lengthened or removed it. 48 hours was simply an arbitrary length to serve temporarily. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:My opinion is that it's best to wait until vandalism actually happens, and then block. People say things they don't really mean, sometimes. Friday (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::Agreed, if he's just blowing off steam there isn't much reason to block. I'd say unblock unless he actually does something wrong.--Isotope23 20:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Like make another personal attack on someone else? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RoyBatty42&diff=prev&oldid=103207016] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RoyBatty42&diff=prev&oldid=103166577] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BenAveling&diff=prev&oldid=103237880] and here. Probably also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Playgirl&diff=prev&oldid=101414338] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes&diff=prev&oldid=102045314]. He's been unblocked without agreeing not to vandalise. IMHO, that was a mistake. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::I have thrown an NPA tag on his Talk page. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::::Er yeah, that is the kind of thing that would make me think twice about an unblock.--Isotope23 02:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::Done is done. All's quiet at the moment. Let's leave things as they are until we see if anything happens. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There has been been some ugliness in this debate recently; someone brought up the possibility that this user is the same as now banned User:NotAWeasel. RunedChuzo, who does edit the same articles, and has similar civility issues, is now engaging in move warring on his own suspected sock page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/RunedChozo]. If anybody would be willing to file a checkuser, move protect the page, and slap the user with some sort of short ban for incivility again (read the page and its history), it would be appreciated; I'm going on wikibreak. Thanks. Patstuart^talk·edits 21:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:It was done on November 16, 2006, by Dmcdevit. It confirms that Wheelygood was a sock of RunedChozo, but that NotAWeasel was editing from a distinct different location. You can ask for another run at it with fresh data, but...shrug. Perhaps an RfC is in order? Teke ^(talk) 22:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::I have blocked him for 1 week for disruption, personal attacks and lack of civility. Asterion^talk 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::I have filed it as a new CheckUser request as discussed here. I would appreciate your input. Asterion^talk 03:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In my recent changes patrolling, I found {{la|Pie vs cake}} had been blanked, and it had an AFD tag on it (screwed up somehow). Anyway, looking at the AFD, it was full of SPA !votes and three requests that it be speedy deleted. I did so, and when I realized I had forgotten the talk page, I went back, deleted it, and found that the article was recreated. I deleted it, found that it had been recreated, again, and WP:SALTed it. I then found the same text at {{la|Pie vs. cake}}, deleted it, and was then notified by the person who had recreated it three times, that [http://www.roosterteeth.com/home.php '''the article "Pie vs cake" was linked from the Rooster Teeth homepage]. After seeing what has happened with the F@NBOY$ deletion, did I mess up big time (or will they not care since they have the main article)?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I basically have a wikistalker called Astrotrain. He has gone through almost every piece of work I have ever done all at the same time. What can I do about this - I am going going to be able (timewise) to defend each case, can I have some help/advice!?!--Vintagekits 23:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:Astrotrain has been a long term contributor since July 2003... Vintagekits has been here since August 2006. This is not wikistalking, this is a difference of opinion over notability. It also appears to be a British vs. Irish sympathy issue. I suggest mediation, not blocking.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:Vintagekits, your personal attacks are at an end. You have been warned once, don't do it again. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

::THis was not an attempt to be a personal attack. I want to raise an issue and thought this was the best place to do it.--Vintagekits 00:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Have a look at his edits over the past month and tell me if I am being unreasonable.--Vintagekits 00:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

::For what it's worth (not much) my considered judgement is that Vintagekits (talk • contribs • [{{SERVER}}/wiki/Special:Log/move?user={{urlencode:Vintagekits}} page moves] • block user • [{{SERVER}}/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User:{{urlencode:Vintagekits}} block log]) is the indefinitely blocked Bluegold (talk • contribs • [{{SERVER}}/wiki/Special:Log/move?user={{urlencode:Bluegold}} page moves] • block user • [{{SERVER}}/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User:{{urlencode:Bluegold}} block log]). Same history of sockpuppetry, same stylistic quirks, and created the day after the indefinite block was issued. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:::If I was sensitive I would call this a personal attack!--Vintagekits 00:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

::::But it's not a personal attack. Is it worth a checkuser? Proto::► 09:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::Angus requested a check at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bluegold. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 12:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Something I spotted over at WP:MILHIST - [http://newsbiscuit.com/article/judge-directs-scary-obsessive-towards-wikipedia]. I do hope that is a spoof news site... Carcharoth 01:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:See disclaimer [http://newsbiscuit.com/about/disclaimer]. Hbdragon88 02:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Need admin help reverting page moves by {{User3|Ashchen220}} —Dylan Lake 02:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:Vandal has been blocked indefinitely, page moves have been reverted and deleted from the article histories. Aecis^Bravado 02:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Envidia has moved the article on the sloth animal to Sloth(animal) and then edited Sloth to be the same as Sloth (deadly sin). None of this received consensus support. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

: I'd revert the changes, but not being an admin I couldn't do much except a cut-and-paste rollback, which messes up the page history. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

::I reverted it and left a note on his page, explaining the WP:RM process. Since the "new" sloth page was just a copy and paste of Sloth (deadly sin) I moved Sloth(animal) back to its home, deleting the copy-and-paste in the process. Sloth(animal) is perhaps valuable as a redirect, even given the incorrect spacing. Savidan 04:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Sure. My main concern was Sloth being about the deadly sin; not everybody is Christian. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that {{User|Nationalist}} is edit warring with {{User|Jerrypp772000}}, and while doing so is making edits with summaries that range from boardering on not assuming good faith to outright personal attacks. This user has been blocked recently for telling another editor to "Fuck off" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nationalist&diff=prev&oldid=102611558], and I've noticed this behaviour contiues after Nationalist's block expired. User talk:Nationalist contains a number of links to offenses, which include calling another editor an "extremist POV pusher" in an edit summary while engaging in an edit war[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jiali&diff=103282597&oldid=103182409], to continueing abuse on article talk pages here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tainan_Airport&diff=prev&oldid=103281917], and here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chien-Ming_Wang&diff=103076071&oldid=103074274] where he belittles another editor as not knowing as much because he's not an admin. The edit history of Chien-Ming Wang also shows a pattern of disruptive edit warring with other editors (5), including Jerrypp772000 above. Thanks. 74.13.126.131 04:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be good to add an optional parameter to the sprotected and protected templates to show expiry. It woiuld be even better if this could be computed from an argument, so you put in "7 days" and it works out 7 days from today. Can that be done using the wiki syntax? Guy (Help!) 09:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:Can be done, but the current/date time would have to be set... either by the user typing it in or via substitution. --CBD 12:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:I put in one possible implementation method for 'protected' as described at Template talk:Protected#Date parameter. If this system makes sense to people the same could be done for 'sprotected'. --CBD 13:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CFD has a backlog extending back to 4 January. 12 days worth of discussions are not yet closed. Many of the unclosed nominations have a broad consensus. Could the administrators help with the backlog? Dr. Submillimeter 10:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As the current voting goes, it seems WP:RFI is going to follow the ill-famed WP:PAIN into history. There are almost no strong objections among the voters but some concerns were raised about making general reordering of the house. Here is the idea.

The first thing would be to rename WP:AIV to WP:RTB (Wikipedia:request to block) since that's already what it is. Not every action that requires immediate block are limited to simple vandalism. If the user goes apeshit posting horrific racist attacks all over talk pages, creates inflammatory usernames or does similarly blatant and obvious disruption, such user should be blocked on the spot similar to the blanking, penis or moving vandals. Such reports are already posted to WP:AIV and are acted upon by its watchers. The message on top of the renamed board should clearly state that only complaints against such blatant abuse should be brought there and the reports on the established content writers should be never placed there (not to repeat the painful PAIN and RFI experience).

The second step that would reduce the load of WP:ANI, the concern some users expressed, would be a sub-board where all the user complaints that don't belong to WP:RTB will be posted. The message on top of such board should say that no block should be imposed on a user before at least one full hour commences between the filing of the complaint and the blocking action. Such delay would allow to gauge something close to a consensus on whether the block is warranted. Since urgent requests will all go to WP:RTB, there will be no harm in one hour delay. Of course WP:AN3 will continue to run its course. Also, blocking per individual admin discretion case by case is allowed and no one is going to change that.

Opinions welcome, --Irpen 18:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• The idea has its merits. My only concern at the moment is the further fragmenting of the noticeboard and the creation of another layer of bureaucracy which might be confusing to new users (who, for that matter, might not realize that they're in a dispute with an established editor). This almost sounds like the return of Quickpolls, but I'm certainly game for an attempt. Mackensen (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• We don't need WP:RTB. That's what WP:AN/I is for, isn't it? There's not really a backlog I can see. Luigi30 (Taλk) 19:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:* Yes. AIV is not just about blocks, it could be for urgent page protection, spam blacklist requests or some such. And then we block them... Guy (Help!) 19:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• The only issue I have is that blocks are preventative, not punitive. As such, immediate action should be taken by an admin when a block falls under the blocking policy. To impose a time restriction is to tie a hand behind a back in preventing future disruptions. Other than those sorts of details, I've long thought AIV should be renamed and the reorganization could be very useful. Why not set up a talk page and work out a format that'll encompass all the guidelines on blocking, go from there? Teke ^(talk) 19:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::To supplement: sysops have three special tools (block, protect, delete). We have a specific process for requesting protection and deletions; there is no such process for blocking. If you follow through the logs for protection and deletion you can relatively trace where, if you are curious, the decision came from. Blocks are much more indiscriminate, from username to vandalism to 3rr to socks...a format would be nice for non-sysops to post their requests in a system that doesn't span five different community spaces. I don't want more process imposed on blocking, just a system for admins to follow up on user requests. Reiterating that: no more process, we already have it spelled out. Teke ^(talk) 19:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

::Request to Block also makes it sound like the place to come iof you have a grievance and want someone else blocked. Viridae^Talk 19:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Good point. Teke ^(talk)

::::What about calling it Wikipedia:Requests for emergency blocking? --ais523 11:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

While I have never had need to use it, I really think that some form of WP:RFI's please-watchlist functionality should survive. It's rather separate from the blocking system, and it could probably be even more useful if more people knew about it. — coelacan talk — 09:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason why WP:AIV has to change, though. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really sure what it is worth, but I did recieve a e-mail from Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington about this in November. It didn't seem like a immediate thing to worry about, but I guess it came true:

November 13, 2006 e-mail from Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington:

----

*plonk*

----

Censored Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's real name/other Internet name for privacy. So there you go.. semper fi — Moe 23:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:Well, they apparently gave up the idea of getting community support for an unblock. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

--

What is the point of publishing this? It is clearly a private email. Asterion^talk 23:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:It's perfectly legal to publish, only 1 party has to consent to publication.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::Copyvio. :p ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::Not at all. Many states require both parties to consent. --Cyde Weys 03:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

::That makes no sense, if "only one party" has to consent, there would never be a case where it was published without proper consent, since in order for an outsider to publish it, they'd need to see it from the sender or the recipient! Milto LOL pia 03:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:::This is taken from Wikipedia:IRC channels page: "The Wikipedia channels on freenode are a place to chat about Wikipedia on IRC. However, as far as their influence on Wikipedia goes, IRC is equivalent to e-mail: chat is considered a private conversation which in ordinary circumstances has no effect on how one is treated on Wikipedia." I know it is not straightforward but it seems to imply the opposite of what ALKIVAR's saying. Asterion^talk 08:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:Whether legal or not, it's almost never considered acceptable to post a private email on-wiki without the permission of the person who sent it. Moe, you should know better. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:I agree. Any objection to redacting the e-mail unless Sir Nicholas consents to its remaining posted? Newyorkbrad 17:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reimposed the block (Tawker, as well, does not appear to object) and hid the comments on the page while the discussion is ongoing. Any objection if I also protect it in the interim? El_C 23:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Although this was a community block and by rights should be discussed openly here. I think that's not wise. There are real people here and real issues. I'm taking no view either way on what's right or wrong. But having accusations, information and counter-claims examined here is unlikely to be in the interests of any party (and some are minors). Whatever is said here is pretty much published and permanent. I'd like to move that this decision be referred to arbcom, and invite all parties to submit their evidence to them. I know closed discussions aren't the wiki-way, but this looks like an exception. Let's send if for a private consideration on the arbcom mailing list.--Doc^g 23:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no familiarity with the circumstances underlying this situation, apart from what I read on AN or ANI as a relative newbie back in August. However, I urge all concerned to exercise extreme sensitivity and discretion in discussing this matter on-wiki. It is obvious that the situation involves extremely sensitive emotional matters involving several editors and former editors, some of whom are minors. In addition to prior discussions of the matter on Wikipedia, which were probably excessive, these editors are the subject of attack pages on another website which will be trawling any drama that may take place here for material. I am not trying to pretermit community discussion, but please bear this in mind. Newyorkbrad 23:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:There certainly needs to be a discussion, but I agree with the above statements, especially when you consider how wikipedia attack sites used this sensitive situation last time. Thε Halo ^Θ 23:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:The point is that there was neither a public announcement nor an appeal to the Arbitration Committee. This is, indeed, a highly sensitive issue, and after some thought, I am protecting the page while the matter is being sorted out. Thanks. El_C 23:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::The unblocking needs to be discussed by someone. I am perfectly happy if that someone is arbcom, but just unblocking someone like this is not acceptable. *Especially* considering the circumstances. pschemp | talk 23:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::I agree with posts in this section. Tyrenius 23:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::::I am going to officially ask arbcom to take this.--Doc^g 23:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::It will be interesting to see if ArbCom will take private evidence, and if nathanrdotcom will have to be unblocked in order to participate. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::Nathanrdotcom does not have to be unblocked to participate. He can e-mail his evidence and statements to an arbitrator, arbcom-L, or a clerk. There have also been circumstances where an editor was unblocked to participate in arbitration on condition that he/she edit only arbitration case pages, with immediate blocking the consequence for going beyond that. Thatcher131 00:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The original situation and the ill-feeling it created was very unfortunate. We aren't equipped to deal with issues like this. Some time has passed, hopefully enough for some perspective. Since there's still too much bad blood for us to discuss this without getting upset, I agree with Doc's sugestion that the arbcomm consider this, although given the original situation, it might be better if a lot of the "evidence" is kept off-Wikipedia. Guettarda 00:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

::I have filed an arbcom request [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Nathanrdotcom]--Doc^g 00:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is so super secretive. I just read Sceptre's second RFA and I'm befuddled - Benon's userspace link has long since been gone, and comments indicate that the nature of this affair is so sensitive that us uninvolved parties will never know what ever took place. ED isn't being helpful, either... Hbdragon88 01:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:Well now im back a touch of clarification, the userspace User:Benon/sceptre had *nothing* to do with nathanrdotcom, it was a completley diffrent incident, I had it deleted after a rather messy MFD

:I have no qualms about an admin reversing my speedy deleteion of the page if it is deemed nessasry, its really not at all that intresting to be honest. The "incident" was quite sensitve having gone so far as being disatisfied with the arbcom's response involved parties passed it up to Jimbo. The "secrecy" was to protect another anonomyus party who wanted to remain out of this whole thing and any further involvment. If you *really* want to know the whole story go ask jimbo, the arbcom or else google it. In summary Sceptre did some bad things a while back that got him --> <-- this close to being removed from wikipedia permanatly, to many established contributors myself included. Benon 03:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a lot of pointless bickering and very bad past issues being brought up can be circumvented by simply blocking his acocunt forever and allowing him to create a new one, entirely seperate. Milto LOL pia 03:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:Considering his behavior whch caused the blocking, that would not be appropriate. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Was it as bad as everyone says? Or was it blown out of proportion? David D. (Talk) 08:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it was the latter, but we may never know for sure. —Pilotguy (ptt) 14:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:What makes you say that? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There's an ongoing situation that a few of us would appreciate some advice on how to deal with more effectively. Starting in November of last year, an anonymous user started targeting the article on Cheri DiNovo, a Canadian politician, with unsourced allegations that both violate WP:BLP and would be highly libellous if left to stand. This led to an extended revert war which lasted until the article was sprotected on December 30; the user then began targetting the talk page with personal attacks against the Wikipedia administrators involved in the issue, which they did so persistently that the talk page had to be sprotected by January 4. The anon editor then started a tit-for-tat game on Michael Prue and Robert Hunter, again using unsourced BLP violations to discredit Prue. Again, they were so persistent that Prue was sprotected on January 21 and Hunter was sprotected on January 24. The user has also inserted the same sets of allegations into Sylvia Watson and Frances Lankin, although as of today neither of those articles has had to be sprotected.

In addition, the same user has also done the following:

• inserted their allegations about Prue and DiNovo into smear campaign.
• created a special talk subpage at Talk:Cheri DiNovo/Comments just to reinsert their personal attacks against WP editors after being blocked from that talk page; they later did the same thing at Talk:Michael Prue/Comments even though that talk page was never actually sprotected.
• inserted "Cherry DeNude, famous Toronto strip-tease artist in 1970's" into Cherry (disambiguation).
• inserted DiNovo into The New Yorker as a contributor (she never was), and then turned around and used the fact that she was wrongly listed there as an attempted swipe at User:Durin's credibility. They also added DiNovo to the list of past members of the band Earth, Wind & Fire and to List of people on stamps of Costa Rica, presumably toward the same purpose.
• attempted to erase the notice of the DiNovo dispute that was posted at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.
• repeatedly and persistently vandalized the talk and/or user pages of administrators who've gotten involved in the matter, often calling us either "fascists" or "NDP attack queers". This has included me, User:CJCurrie, User:Durin, User:Bucketsofg, User:Pete Peters, User:BostonMA, User:Imjustmatthew and User:Blue520.
• inserted personal attacks against Durin into durian.

This has happened under a variety of IP numbers, all of which resolve to APNIC. (Virtually the same allegations against DiNovo have also been posted to Rabble's discussion board and as responses to a number of blog entries on the Internet, albeit still without any sources. The poster of many of those comments self-identified as a resident of Bangkok, so it's likely that this is the same person.) Having to constantly revert this crap is, needless to say, getting tiresome, but since they're on a dynamic IP range there's no easy way to block them. I've tried addressing the matters of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP with them — if such a notice is addressed on an IP number's talk page, then it just gets ignored since they may never even see that IP number again, and if it's addressed on an article talk page, then they repeatedly delete it when posting new personal attacks against Wikipedia administrators.

This whole thing has now been going on for over two months, and it really has to stop. Sticking it out in the hopes that they'll eventually get tired and go away simply isn't working...so what, if anything, can we do about this? Bearcat 04:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:Mentioning it here, and getting some other people to help, is probably the best thing you can do. I've been aware of this singularly nasty chap for a couple weeks now (see User_talk:Durin#What_a_shock for examples of the type of behaviour to expect from this troll). I've also traced a lot of the IPs: they're in Thailand, Hong Kong, and various other places, but none seemed to be open proxies. I like WP:RBI for this kind of thing, but sometimes it takes a while to bore them to the point they leave you alone. Antandrus (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:I'll watch those articles for a while. Superm401 - Talk 19:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Could someone with more knowledge than me on IPs have a look at Nicole Kidman. There seems to be an orchestrated vandalism attack by a series of seemingly unrelated IPs to add a disparaging picture into the article, and reverting my and others reverts as vandalism. I've requested a semi-protection in the appropriate place but wondered if these IPs are related. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 09:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Semiprotected for a week. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Apparently someone created sleeper accounts for this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicole_Kidman&action=history silliness]. Some kids have too much time on their hands. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• I noticed that said accounts are still continuing to vandalize the page. Perhaps stronger measures are necessary? MSJapan 22:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Can we just shoot these sock accounts on sight? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• I've just indef blocked them all... They had no constructive edits, only daft null edits to build up a small edit history. Thanks/wangi 22:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

CAT:PER is now at 15 entries and has been backlogged for over 24 hours, which is a bit extreme for what's meant to be an immediate-request category, so I'm pointing out the backlog here. --ais523 17:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

: I gave it a go on some of them, but last I looked there was 10 or so left. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"Please be advised that I am a User Interface consultant for a law firm specializing in civil corporate cases in downtown Chicago. We would be happy to pursue you and your assets by proving that you took hostile action using an unclear area of Wikipedia policy and deliberately tried to harrass and harm someone's business." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.57.0.70&curid=9128834&diff=103442072&oldid=103432579 Sure sounds like a legal threat to me, could an admin take a look? This user has also been spamming a couple pages, you'll see it's the only thing in their contributions. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:And to top it off, now he's violated 3RR at Arlington Heights, Illinois as well. Let me know if I should just take it to 3RR noticeboard. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

::I have blocked them for one month, pending any agreement to cease legal threats. Those interested in taking legal action must pursue such actions off wiki. alphachimp 19:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

::::The block for legal threats is extremely appropriate, but I am not sure this is a static IP. Newyorkbrad 20:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::It is Comcast... it may be static or it may not be. If I remember correctly they change IPs every 3-6 months unless you are paying for a static.--Isotope23 20:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::I guess we'll see if anyone requests an unblock or not. Thanks. There should be a page somewhere (no, I'm not qualified to write it) listing the most common ISP's and whether their users are statically assigned or what. Newyorkbrad 21:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::Comcast IPs are effectively static: they change only if you leave your modem off for a while, or if something goes wrong with the DHCP server. --Carnildo 22:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::::So if you just turn your modem off then back on, it doesn't change your IP? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::::The person to ask about this is 68.39.174.238, but I believe that's correct, Zoe. Chick Bowen 02:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::::That's part of how DHCP works: even if you're no longer using it, the server is only supposed to give your IP address to someone else if the server's run out of IP addresses that are completely unused. --Carnildo 03:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Help with my mono book message changer page. I t will not work for the life of me. --D.H. ( T | C ) 20:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Recently i got blocked not once but twice for things i did not do. Firstly i would like to know how this could happen. It seems that the admins are trigger happy. The first block was labeled with "with an expiry time of indefinite (Probably User:Dick Witham)" So if your not 100% sure why block, No checkuser was performed just a block. What happened to Presumption of innocence?

The second one was for "with an expiry time of 48 hours (Continuing violations of Wikipedia image copyright and fair-use policies)" I got blocked for reverting an image i did not uploaded it and one thing i cant figure out is how is one image Continuing violations?, Wouldn't it be violating images copyright as i wikipedia does not hold the copyright for that image WWE does. Also even if i did upload that image i got given 0 mins at all to fix it cause the tags were placed on my talkpage the same time that the block was given.

So in conclusion i would like a review on both JzG & Yamla to ensure that there has been no abuse of power and to ensure that there is no other collateral damage, I also request that the two block/unblock actions are struck from the block log. DXRAW 22:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

: Without commenting on the first issue, the second thing will just not happen. It is not technically possible to expunge, strike, or otherwise alter the account logs, and it isn't something that is going to be coded any time soon, as developers have previously stated that they refuse to implement that functionality. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

: Yamla blocked, then saw the revert and immediately unblocked. This is a problem how, exactly? Guy (Help!) 23:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

::The problem with Yamla's block is

• The edit summary he used to describe the block.
• The manner he did not allow the user to fix the image before blocking.
• The block happened in the first place!

::The problem with JzG's block is

• The edit summary he used to describe the block. Its always better to err on the side of caution. Not go shooting from the hip.
• No checkuser was performed.
• The block happened in the first place!

DXRAW 00:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:Considering that you are now free to edit, I see no reason why you must pursue these admins to the ends of the earth. All admins have made mistakes, and all of us have apologized for them and moved on. According to your pursuit of "justice," shall all admins be desysopped for unfortunate mistakes? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::I'm not saying they should be desysopped, I'm just saying there should be a review so this does not happen to anybody else and to see if anybody else has experienced this by either those two or other admins. DXRAW 00:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Take Yamla's block for example he put the image tags on my talk page and then blocked at the same time. How is User X meant to fix anything up if he gets blocked straight away?

:::Also with JzG's block he did not do any checkuser or ask for a second admin he just took the admin stick spun around in a circle and picked me a user who's only crime is to try to improve this website. DXRAW 00:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::::The solution you are looking for, then, is WP:RFC. Though, I can say, the objective you aim for is quite hard to attain, as all admins are after all human, and all humans make mistakes. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked at that page and it does not seem to fix this situation. DXRAW 00:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:Folk make mistakes, no harm done... Time to move on?/wangi 00:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::There was harm done otherwise i would not have posted that. DXRAW 00:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:::I still don't see why you are pursuing action for editors who have apologized to you. Do you not accept their apology? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it should not of happened in the first place so i want to know why it happened, and will it ever happen again? I see this thread is turning into [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Assuming_good_faith this] DXRAW 01:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:As I understand it, JzG thought you were someone else, and Yamla thought that you had taken a different action than you did. They were wrong, and quickly fixed it (Yamla within the same minute). That's why it happened - I fail to see what additional explanation you're looking for. Will it ever happen again? Until we perfect AdminBot 2.0, there's a possibility that it might (and even then, it may). If it does, you should assume good faith and remember that no one here is infallible. --TheOtherBob 01:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that nobody is answering my questions so i will repost them

• How come the image tags were placed on my talkpage and then blocked in the same minute. Why was no time given to fix it up?
• Why was no checkuser preformed as JGZ was unsure if i was a sockpuppet?
• Is this an isolated incident or has there been others by these admins or other admins?

DXRAW 01:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TheOtherBob, let this go. They've apologized and it appears to be honest mistakes on their parts. You have an apology. More on.--Alabamaboy 01:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:I dont want an apology i want the above questions answered. From what i see people are saying yes you got blocked but now eveything is ok but nobody wants to correct the underlining problems that caused it in the first place. DXRAW 01:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::Because you are asking us to change the personality and character traits of an individual administrator, which we simply cannot do. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

So you think its ok to give no time for a user to fix up an image? What is the point of having the image tag there if a person is just going to get blocked? DXRAW 02:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:Another question why did the person who uploaded the image why are they not blocked? DXRAW 04:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

DXRAW, is there a specific resolution you're looking for? Everyone seems to have acknowledged that mistakes were made, you received an apology, but you're continuing to ask for more. It would help out if you could be specific about exactly what you want. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

To answer why a CheckUser was not done, CheckUsers are not an automatic thing when it comes to sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry is, first and foremost, proven in actions and behavioral patterns. In fact, unless things have changed recently, CheckUser only works on very recent edits, so if both accounts have not edited within a month or so (or perhaps even less than that, I'm not a CU or dev), it would be impossible to determine via CU, as this data would have been discarded. Guy incorrectly read the evidence, unblocked, and apologized. Seriously, what more do you want? We aren't perfect. (edit conflict) Agreed with Chairboy above. —bbatsell ¿? 04:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:I have posted twice what i would like answered and here it is for a third time.

• How come the image tags were placed on my talkpage and then blocked in the same minute. Why was no time given to fix it up?
• Is this an isolated incident or has there been others by these admins or other admins?
• The person who uploaded the image that got me blocked why are they not blocked? DXRAW 04:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::I know not of the first and third questions, but I can answer the second. Yes, this is an isolated incident as far as I know. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::Sorry, but really mate - what more do you want? Here are answers (no assurance that they're right answers, but they're answers.):

::1. Someone screwed up - then fixed it and apologized.

::2. Maybe - I don't know. But when you're talking mistakes...lord, if you only counted my mistakes, they would be far from "isolated." (And I'm not even an admin.)

::3. I don't know the story here, and maybe they should be - but how are you harmed by someone else not being blocked?

::Look, mistakes happen all the time. The best I can tell you is that you should assume good faith, and accept everyone's apologies - we all mean well here, and we're all sorry that you got blocked in error. That's really the best I think anyone can offer. --TheOtherBob 04:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:::3) Logic would dictate if i got mistaken for the uploader and blocked then the uploader should be blocked but that has not happend. Why? DXRAW 05:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::::Let me be the rude one and enlighten you that we are all getting exasperated at your quest for accountability because you are asking them at the wrong forum. We have showed you the apologies made in light of such an incident and we tried to answer your questions to the best of our ability. Perhaps you may ask the admins who blocked you for the answer to #3. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted here cause i wanted a review of the actions. DXRAW 05:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::And you got your response, which was yes, they were wrong, the offending admins have apologized, and hence it is time to move on and embark on writing the encyclopedia. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:Lets put this into a Real World example. You got put into Jail twice for something you did not do, But then got told no its ok eveything is fine now cause your out & by the way we cant get read of your record. Have a nice day. DXRAW 05:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::Let me enlighten you that Wikipedia is not the real world. If it were, then everyone will be subject to lawsuits, personal attacks, and death threats with wild abandon and with no accountability. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:: Actually it would be closer to the mark to say you were arrested and released without charge. As far as I know this is not actionable in the real world unless you can prove malice or deliberate harassment. Can you show that in this case? Guy (Help!) 10:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I know it is what is commonly know as an example. DXRAW 05:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, but the example does not work if the context is completely different. But no matter. Now, you say that you wanted your questions answered. They were done so to the best of the community's ability. Is there anything else we can help you? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::Still waiting for question 3 to be answered so no there is nothing you can do to help. DXRAW 06:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:::The answer to your third question is that these are very much isolated incidents. That they both happened to you within a relatively short time, though entirely a coincidence, is very unfortunate, you're quite right to be upset, and you have the sympathy and apologies of the community. Chick Bowen 06:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Perhaps I misunderstood you, though--if you mean why has {{user|Jan otto}} not been blocked despite some questionable image uploads, the chief answer is that he does not appear to be active at the moment. If he continues to upload copyrighted images without any regard for fair use criteria, however, he will likely be blocked. Chick Bowen 07:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:* I can answer one specific question: no checkuser was performed before blocking because it can take days to get checkuser results back and in some cases the checkusers refuse anyway. If these were the only blocks in your history, or if they'd been allowed to stand after being challenged, then you might have a case, but neither of these is the case. The only people who are likely to look at your block log are admins, and the block/unblock summaries are clear enough that no mistaken inferences are likely to be drawn. You have been told that the devs refuse to remove or facilitate the removal of blocks from the block log, so really that is the end of the matter: you are asking us to do something that can't be done in order to fix a problem we tell you is not a problem, in that we will not draw unwarranted inferences from these blocks. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Do the pump pages still need protection? It's been a few weeks since the SummerThunder shower - perhaps it's time to clear the skies. Durova^Charge! 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:Are the "federal clowns" still around? I can't tell, since I haven't even viewed a page in two weeks. MER-C 11:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

In the past few weeks I've noticed several threads take a similar shape:

1. An editor starts a discussion with I did X. Is X all right?

2. One or two people give a very hot response. That's Y! Y is wrong!

3. The original editor comes back with. Actually I did X.

4. The hot responses continue. Y violates policy. Y is misconduct!

5. Some AN and ANI regulars browse by and add. Yup, Y is wrong.

6. The editor who started the thread remains civil yet has clearly become frustrated. What evidence do you need for me to persuade you that I did X? Could I please have some feedback on X?

Or to be more specific, one discussion I've seen play out several times is:

A. I gave Joe Wikischmoe a 48 hour block for vandalism.

B. That's a punitive block. We don't do that!

That's a WP:AGF foul: B can't intuit A's motivation. So try some better alternatives.

B. My first reaction is that looks like a punitive block.

or

B. Could you explain how that's preventative?

These calmer responses invite A to respond without putting A on the defensive. So if the block really was punitive A gets the chance to fix things without getting put on the spot, if A had good reasoning A's reputation doesn't get dented, and everybody comes away with a little less Wikistress.

I've seen other variations on that theme (maybe I'll write an essay on the subject when my computer is fixed) but the basic theme is, try not to let an assumption of good faith toward one Wikipedian morph into an assumption of bad faith toward another. Durova^Charge! 23:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Could you explain how that's preventive" is a good question we should all ask ourselves from time to time, probably in response to any admin action. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I nominated {{tl|Greene}} for deletion at TfD (see the discussion here). The discussion was closed as "no consensus" by Cryptic. That, I agree, was correct, in that there was no consensus to delete. However, given the discussion, I believe the proper resolution should have been to move the template to userspace. I discussed this with Cryptic, who did consider my concerns about the outcome. Despite his comments, it still seems to me that this template should be userfied - it certainly would be in keeping with the manner in which the "userbox" debates were resolved and the reasoning discussed at the TfD. However, I am left with the problem of how to resolve this matter. I don't think it's a proper matter to discuss at deletion review; likewise, I can't just migrate it over to userspace (that would require a co-operative host, and I'm not exactly inclined to do so given my position on the template). Thus, I am bringing this request here, as it seems to me that this requires admin action, one way or another. Agent 86 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I have been having problems with a particular user who has been engaged in sock puppetry, trolling, personal attacks, and vandalism of a couple of topic pages, topic talk pages, my user talk page, and another user talk page. I have already discussed this with the user. Several times I have had sincere discussions with the user about his conduct and have even warned him a few times of his behavior. However, nothing seems to sink in. Please let me know what the next step I should take. Thank you. Wiki Raja 01:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:If it is a content dispute, you should visit requests for comment. For interpersonal disputes, you might try the Mediation cabal. Teke ^(talk) 02:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted this tidbit of vandalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falcon_Cove_Middle_School&oldid=103509683] but the information regarding the name and phone number of someone offering free sex is still in the edit history. Can someone purge that? Caper13 01:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:Done. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::It should probably be oversighted as well. Prodego ^talk 01:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone has posted a request on Talk: Sean Bell, putatively from a gun store owner looking for one of the attorney's involved. Post includes an email address and phone #. May be a privacy violation and/or slanderous, depending on whose email address and phone this is. Natalie 03:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:Expunged from history; thanks. Chick Bowen 03:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Might as well make this de jure instead of de facto. {{vandal|Lightbringer}} has been the subject of an arbitration case, where he was banned from Freemasonry articles for POV editing and personal attacks. To circumvent this ban, Lightbringer edited with numerous other sockpuppets, for which he was banned for one year. After this ban, similar bans have continued; 29 CheckUser requests have been brought against Lightbringer in all, with numerous sockpuppets and open proxies blocked, with the most recent case less than a week and a half ago.

For extensive sockpuppeting and violation of the Arbitration Committee ban, I propose an indefinite ban on Lightbringer. Ral315 (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned he's banned. Mackensen (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• support Syrthiss 13:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• I support with reluctance. Hate to see a user go out like this... but it wasn't our choice. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• It took me ages to cleanup that RFCU page when I came across it...[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Lightbringer&oldid=96376474] This nonsense has gone on too long, really. Support in full. Daniel.Bryant 20:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, yes. One of the 1% of problem users who take up 99% of people's time. Proto::► 21:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Lightbringer was banned by the Arbitration Committee in April, 2006; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer#Lightbringer banned. Dmcdevit·t 22:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• What part of "go away" was he having trouble understanding? Endorse, though unnecessary per ArbCom ruling. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Politely and without fuss, it's time to close the door for good. Durova^Charge! 23:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• It's become pretty clear that he's never going to stop doing this (he probably thinks it's fun), and I believe he exhausted the patience of many of us long ago. In addition, he stopped using his main account a long time ago, so I doubt anything short of a full community ban will allow us to shoot him on sight anytime. Scobell302 04:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:Hey! You appropriate this from me! I suggested it about a week ago! (Note: While that's true, my main concern is just that this occurs). 68.39.174.238 22:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Nihonjoe and I have added a parameter to this template to categorize salted pages by month. Usage is: {{deletedpage|January 2006}}, or whatever. At some point soon (possibly Monday), Betacommand is planning to go through and retag the existing pages en masse. Nihonjoe cleverly designed the template not to break if you don't include a parameter (those just won't be categorized [by date--they'll still be in the main category]), but this seems like a good way we can keep track of these. Chick Bowen 06:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, for protected deleted categories, the parameter will still work, but it will categorize the template both in the protected deleted page by month category and (not by date) in :Category:Protected deleted categories. Also, I see I wrote 2006 above--I am aware that it's 2007, although it's only very slowly sinking in. Chick Bowen 06:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:There'd been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=101866772#Deletion_of_salted_pages some talk] of replacing this template with protected redirects to a page in the project namespace containing similar text (thereby removing salted article pages from the random article pool and total article count). This seems like a good idea, and I believe that it should be strongly considered before any such bot run occurs. (Of course, the redirect pages still could be categorized by date.) —David Levy 07:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

::I think that's a good idea, though actually I think we should do the bot run anyway, because that way we can go through the old ones before replacing them with redirects. Chick Bowen 07:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:::To me, it just seems a bit pointless if we're only going to perform another bot run soon. We could just as easily delete the older pages after they become categorized redirects. But it's no big deal. —David Levy 16:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

::I quite like the protected redirect option. It has all the benefits of salting a page (that is, it keeps vandalism, hoaxes, and attack pages from being recreated), and eliminates the major drawback of salted pages (Special:Randompage running into salted pages, mostly). The only other problem with salted pages – which would still exist with the protected redirects – is that they prevent a real article from being created at the article name. I suspect that this is a desirable outcome at a vanishingly small percentage of salted articles; in any case, the project space target of the redirect can certainly contain detailed instructions for editors who wish to see a page unsalted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:::I would say most salted articles shouldn't have any article created there. Did you mean to say a small percentage should have good articles? Superm401 - Talk 19:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

: I do not believe {{tl|deletedpage}} should change too much. And a protected redirect would be an absolute no-no. As is categorising them by month (another bad idea). This is a bad idea. --SunStar Net^talk 11:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

::Why? Proto::► 11:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

::I ask this, too. Should pages be kept deleted/protected indefinitely? Sorting by month will certainly allow for better tracking of these issues. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

::::They are already date-sorted in User:DumbBOT/TimeSortedPD, and there's also a date-sorted [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/cat_sortkey?cat=Protected+deleted+pages&dbname=enwiki_p&order=time list on the toolserver]. —Centrx→talk • 17:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Generally not. But we need common sense here. Most vandal page creators move on quickly and so 2-3 weeks will suffice. But others are slow burning, and get recreated every month. MOstly if the deleted page is deleted and the things gets recreated, the harm is low. But if we've got someone posting a libellous article every few months to some obscure name, then we'd probably want to protect for a long time. And then there is Male bikini-wearing. I recently had someone repeatedly creating a redirect from a name to asshole. Basically, deleting protected pages is fine, as long as the admin looks at the reason for protection, the deletion history, and engages his brain. Automatically deleting something after x days is unacceptable. Cases will vary.--Doc^g 16:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

::::You're quite right, but a chronological categorization system wouldn't force sysops to delete older pages without investigation. It would merely point them toward the most likely candidates (some of which may have gone overlooked). —David Levy 16:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::Yes, I agree with what Doc says; the purpose here is to allow us to go through them and make judgments, not assign a deadline. I think we're all on the same page about that. Chick Bowen 17:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::I even recall seeing some complaints of a recently salted article perhaps being unsalted too quickly by another admin who was cleaning things up. Since this would be a purely informational tool, it could be used however best fits, which in some cases would probably be to leave things salted if they are very recent. Bitnine 17:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

::Indeed, SunStar Net, please explain why these are bad ideas. Others have cited advantages, so what are the drawbacks? —David Levy 16:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::There already is a chronological list, which does not look like a backlog along the lines of AFD, PROD, orphan, etc. There are pages that should remain protected longer, so you end up with old, old, categories with one or two pages each. —Centrx→talk • 01:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::Since when is permanently protecting a redirect a no-no? In cases of high-traffic articles it is a good solution to prevent duplicate article creation or copy and paste moves on articles where this is habitual, as well as thwarting sneaky vandalism. Absolutely no where in the Wikipedia:Protection policy does it say to not protect a redirect. Teke ^(talk) 21:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

How is this better than the current system, where a bot lists deletedpages, in a single list, by date? —Centrx→talk • 01:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:The current listing is actually more useful, as it includes links to the talk page and to the deletion log. When evaluating deleted pages, there is no reason to go the main namespace page—they are all exactly identical; the deletion log has the information appropriate for making a decision about what do with the page. —Centrx→talk • 02:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::Yes, the list is quite useful--I confess I'd forgotten about it. I've added a link to it from the template. Chick Bowen 02:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Dwain is at it again. While the offending Freemasonry page is no longer linked directly to his talk page, it is locatable in talk history and still exists on his Geocities site at the address. So, I'd like those revisions purged. Also note the issue he fomented on IMDB after a year [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427142/board/nest/35059878 here], when he started the problem in the first place. He clearly has a much larger and more long-standing anti-WP stance than he lets on, brought about mainly (it seems) because he cannot get his way and do what he likes where and how he likes. MSJapan 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:A close look at his diffs also shows he is stashing old articles he created that are now being prodded or AfDed in his userpage history: Charity Bishop (prodded for nn) is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dwain&oldid=103494199 here], and Michael Kaplan (AfD for vanity) is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dwain&oldid=103492653 here]. These are both articles he created as Pitchka, and Dwain is currently engaging in personal attacks on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Kaplan_%28actor%29 Michael Kaplan AfD]. MSJapan 00:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::The heading, in fact, should be More MSJapan! This user has a "problem" with me because I pointed out problems with articles edited by self proclaimed freemasons, which effects Wikipedia adversely by putting out mason propaganda. He has been trolling my pages and been heading a campaign against me ever since. As these exact same type of tactics have been used by freemasons for centuries it's really no surprise. This user, who has reported falsely in his statements against me in previous attacks has never denied that his statements were false after I pointed out that they were. MSJapan has made a mistake, he has identified himself as the person who as gone off Wikipedia and called me a "**bleep** idiot." I knew that if a gave a good response I had a chance of finding out who would act this. His bringing up my response is pretty good proof that drtroll and MSJapan are on in the same person. I do not ave an anti-Wikipedia stance though I do have an anti-harrassment stance. Dwain 23:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Actually, it's called Google. It's not my fault you use the same account handle on IMDB and elsewhere as you used to post your polemical page on your user space here. There was no reason then (nor is there now) for me to respond any further than I already have done. The situation has been noted by admins, which was my purpose in posting it here in the first place. MSJapan 23:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Warned Dwain for attacks. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:User_talk:24.68.229.125 bears looking at, and the reasoning should be obvious upon insapection, though I will state it. The IP address is a known vandal, and the link contained in the post is the same page Dwain was expressly prohibited from linking to on Wikipedia. MSJapan 04:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giovanni Battista Maganza - messed up AfD listing. Not sure if I can speedy a malformed AfD, so asking if an admin can delete this. --Wooty Woot? contribs 05:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:You could just tag it with {{db|mistakenly created}};no need to worry about the rules. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::No need to ignore any rule. {{tl|db-author}} handles it quite nicely. 146.186.221.141 21:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Moe me being too lazy to look up the specific db- template. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see the comment made by Roazir here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAzerbaijan&diff=103366634&oldid=103096338] Please see here where I posted my first complaint of a personal attack against me: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=103234381] These users may be the same person. I would really appreciate it if someone took care of this. I'm sick of these personal attacks.Azerbaijani 06:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:If you believe he used another account/IP to evade 3RR, you an file a Checkuser request: WP:RFCU. Otherwise, better to just ignore that kind of comment; it was hardly bannable material. 146.186.221.141 21:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

{{user:82.3.192.91}} has referred to me as a Banya[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJanjua&diff=103496751&oldid=102932454] which is a derogatory Indian term and has also made unsubstantive deletions of the Janjua article which I have reverted. Can the racist personal attack be dealt with? --Leonidus 15:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:I can't find the term on google, it is a place name, and a surname, can you show me a source that describes it's offensive meaning? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

During a dispute regarding external links on Mika (singer), Mel Etitis (talk • contribs) left the comment "Fine — I think that you're wrong, but I don't have the energy to fight more teenybopper music fans." - aimed at myself. He repeatedly restored the comment, finally claiming he was seeking admin intervention regarding my removal of the personal attack, although he has made no contributions since. Suggest user be given a warning on civility by a third party. ed g2s • talk 16:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

: Both of you go edit something else for a while? Let's not be princesses constantly on the lookout for peas. Opabinia regalis 18:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::Agreed - WP:SPIDER. Arguments happen. 146.186.221.141 21:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hellp. I am posting this too make you aware that editor Neal kydd has recently made a series of edits on the Oscar Wilde page without providing sources and which seem to me to have a touch of original research. While I could be wrong about the orig. res. aspect the message on the editors talk page seems to bring it into question. In any event the lack of sources is the bigger issue and I am wondering if you might be able to give this editor some direction in this area. It is also possible that I am out of line about this which is why I have come to you as I know that you will let me know if I am and I want to avoid a revert war. Many thanks for your time in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 16:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:Since my above message another change has been made removing some of the article as it stood wothout any comment why in the edit summary and another question has popped to mind, in that, if this editor is adding passages from their published works is there a copyvio problem on the horizon. Again, I could be off base but I wanted to make you aware of all of this. MarnetteD | Talk 17:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::We now have an edit changing a documented first meeting between Wilde and Bosie in 1891 to a possible meeting and a sentence that state that "later becoming became intimate".

Being bold is one thing but taking over an article and not allowing for any corrections is another and I hope that this editor, with some a ssistance, can become a valuable member of the wikipedia community, but, as a wikignome, I don't know where to begin to offer that help so I am hoping that you all will be able to do what is needed

I am really not sure what is going on here- User:Augmon92 is adding {{subst:Welcome}} to many pages, but, despite the fact that there have been no edits afterwards, they are coming out as displaying a strange message. Two examples of where he has done this are User_talk:Saowanee.alexander and User_talk:Exhead. I may be making a false accusation here, but something strange is going on, that needs to be stopped, preferably quickly. Those two pages are the ones I came across because I was posting on them for another reason. If you take a look at Augmon92's contributions, there have been A LOT of welcome messages of late, but the most recent few show up as normal, when I checked them. It is worth noting that Augmon92 has recieved a lot of warnings in the past. J Milburn 19:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:The editor has been blocked, someone has already dealt with it. There is still a lot of stuff that needs reverting though, we could well be scaring off new editors. J Milburn 19:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:Augmon was most likely forging automatic edit summaries, as {{tl|welcome}} has been protected for some while now. ~Crazytales (IP locations!) 19:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::He was, and I have found how- User:Augmon92/monobook.js. That needs deleting, and perhaps reviewing to make sure it can't be done again. J Milburn 19:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:::has returned as {{user|SimplyJas}}. He set it to automatically spam his message onto new user pages, telling them to copy his monobook.js (with autospam code in it). I deleted his monobook and blocked him, but keep an eye out; he spammed 25 minutes of new users before I got to him. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really sure how to handle this situation: User:The-princess-georgie and User:The-princess-georgie-gallery are apparently being used as a web site host. The former account has made 3 edits outside the userspace, and the latter has made edits only to the aforementioned user pages. The gallery page says, "This is my gallery for my site The Princess Georgie" and The Princess Georgie links to the other user page. Page also has "top affiliates" and news sections, etc., like a real fan site. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:I deleted the first and gave an explanation on the user's talk page, and Vegaswikian got the second one. Per WP:USER, WP:NOT, and plenty of precedent, these types of pages should indeed be deleted. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::I recently deleted a whole load that were expired Prods. I think that might be the least confrontational way to go forward. Waiting a few days until deletion will not hurt and it gives the editor in question time to show their nose (not much chance, but...) Agathoclea 21:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:::'tis a good idea. In this case I don't think it was necessary as the last edit was back in October, and according to the edit summaries the editor already had a website ( simply-georgie.piczo.com ), which had its last update on Jan. 27 2007 (today). The editor hasn't responded to any of the image warnings either. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a request for a community ban on the article pertaining to Cats, the musical. Vandals come in at least five times a day and mess with the page. Could you please make it so that people outside Wikipedia cannot edit it? It would be greatly apperciated.

:See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Jkelly 21:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

{{user|KyraSchon}} has just registered and has edited Kyra Schon ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kyra_Schon&diff=103641378&oldid=102202648 diff]) to remove details of her employment, which were cited properly to [http://www.ghoulnextdoor.com/aboutme2.html her own Web site], as well as her [http://rogersms.pghboe.net/Departments/visualart/schon.htm employer's]. Regardless of the availability of this information on the Internet, she added to the article the "she prefers to keep details of her employment private. She has had Night of the Living Dead enthusiasts show up where she works, and found it to be a somewhat frightening experience." Additionally, she removed the link to her article from her employer's article. I do not doubt this is Ms. Schon and have asked her to confirm this on her user page.

My concern is this: This information is significant to the article, in terms of the details of her life and is easily found online regardless of being on Wikipedia; however, I do not really want to contribute to fans' harassing this woman. Please advise me on what to do in this situation. Thanks, Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:I think the best answer is to take it out. I think we can say what she does for a living without saying where she does it. (The current version handles that well, I think.) This can sometimes be a balancing act, of course - but I think this information isn't so vital that the article can't live without it, and is sensitive enough that we should respect her concerns. --TheOtherBob 23:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::I agree with Bob here. WP:LIVING does seem to agree in this case. --Deskana (request backup) 23:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

:::I also agree. If the person doesn't feel comfortable with the information in the article, she should have a right to keep it out. → JARED ^(t)  23:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

::::Daniel Brandt would like to have a word with you on that issue. Hbdragon88 02:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::That was a different issue. Brandt asserts that he has the right to not have an article, as that is an invasion of privacy. This involves adding specifics that are not necessarily encyclopedic or affect the integrity of the article. Teke ^(talk) 04:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the :Template:Checkuserblock is seriously broken, or it is used wrongly. The template was apparently desigend to be placed on an IP's talk page by the blocker. Okay. However, checkusers these days seem frequently to be placing the template into their block log messages instead. Its code is seems not to be designed for that use. Its text contains instructions about using "{{unblock}}". When a blocked user follows the instruction given to them on the "you have been blocked" page, they will automatically have this text copied, without the "nowiki"'s, into their own {{unblock}} template, leading to multiple transclusion of the unblock template inside itself. The result is this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aepryus&diff=103646413&oldid=68431603]. It's too late now here for me to either understand the case of that particular checkuserblock victim, or to think up a way how to fix the template, but I'd be grateful if someone could have a look. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

:They copy paste; when I see it, I replace it with a link to the template ({{tl|checkuserblock}})—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at Special:Contributions/Rob_Hille

many fine public domain images.... or not...

they being watermarked, probably they being just hosted here, as after a week, no article is using them (probably due to the watermark). Maybe some one can nominate them for deletion, or just plain remove them for using wikipedia as a webhost. -- Drini 03:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

:It took me 20 minutes, but I deleted them all with the summary: "WP:NOT a webhost (watermarked image; no possible use)". Cbrown1023 03:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have protected the article Politics of Khuzestan because of the edit war there. Now I realized that I edited the article eight days ago, so I am a player.

Also assuming the User:88.109.247.27 and User:Ahwaz is the same editor and that the last version (I have locked) was a revert then it might be a 3RR violation. I personally do not see the last edit as a revert (he left all the section removals by User:Ali doostzadeh and only suggested a compromise wording on a phrase), but some editors do. Please review. Alex Bakharev 05:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

:: I have no doubt user 88.109 and user ahwaz are the same people and he has had ample enough warning not to edit war and also the 3RR is more severe (meaning it does not have to 4) if a user has been constantly doing it. Also I believe you are a good admin, I think it is wrong to take sides on a hotly debated issue without really knowing all the facts involved. Thus the article should be unlocked and I am open for discussion on the talk page as I have been so far. But certaintly I can not support sites that are not scholarly as this is OR. --alidoostzadeh 09:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am still in the middle of the database dump processing, but I managed to get the suspected spambot pages listed here. I treated all the very probable ones (the ones that have index.php somewhere in the title), but since I am falling asleep, I need a couple of hands with the possible spambot pages (the ones ending with /). There are some interesting discoveries there, like User:The-thing/underwater/f/f/f/f/f/f/f//f/f/f/f/f//f/f/f//f/f//this is cool./Is this allowed/. Someone with nothing better to do than read this noticeboard? :-) -- ReyBrujo 06:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

:Well, I read the noticeboard, but I haven't got the tools to do anything... Hbdragon88 06:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

:I'm on it. MER-C 06:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

::All suspicious pages dealt with. MER-C 07:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Could some admins please sort through :Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. I know there aren't many, but some of those requests have been there for days. Thanks.--Rudjek 14:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

:I've done a few, but there are still 9 left. Cbrown1023 14:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)