My sisters name is Julianna Mauriello. she has a page on this website where people are adding stuff that is not true. I have fixed the page to show what is true. But some of the stalkers, I mean people on this site, keep changing it to not true stuff. My sister knows about this website. She knows it is full of garbage. we either want her page removed or to show real information. she was on a show called Lazytown that finished filming in 2007. she will be attending Vasser college for elementary education in 2009. i dont know how sourced you want then that. i was told in email that her biography page was to have incorrect stuff removed asap, well i am trying to do that but a few people are fighting with me. Not coincidentaly, they are the same people who have had control of her website on here for years and have riddled it with misinformation. I, We, would like the page removed. My sister is a minor, the misinformation on the page could be considered dammaging. since i have been to this site 3 times in my life, chances are I will not be able to find my way back here so you may email me at (email address redacted by Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} thanks --Anthony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.104.242 (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Tough. We have an OTRS system which will work with her to fix or delete the article; we can't act on IP addresses' say so because we have no way to verify you're actually her brother. I've also taken the liberty of removing your email address so as to prevent people from grabbing it and sending you harassing/spam emails. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 07:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This user has been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 07:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

And extended to 48 for calling others pedophiles. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 07:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone oversight the email left in one of the edit summaries left by the IP as well? Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That diff has already been selectively deleted. Oversighting probably isn't needed. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is great. Wiki syntax however keeps most people from helping (just put ALL your coding/math/tech skills (and interests!!) aside for a minute and remember most people are like that) Is there an editor for non-coders that can be put in a not-to-miss place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.134.79 (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Title added. You may want to have a look at WP:WikiEd. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's scary stuff like this which prompted me to shut down my account and watch the goings-on from the sidelines. I've seen the sheer stupidity of garbage like the organized "Grawp" vandalism (which I was a victim of, by the way), nearly one thousand blocked socks of User:MascotGuy in a four-year stretch and the ongoing sockpuppet wars here and there but never in all the years I contributed to this site have I see something so egregious as those revolting and incessant attacks on User:Nancy. Why do all the sickos have dynamic IPs and why in hell has this been allowed to continue? I tell you, I'm at the point where I don't even want to casually surf this site, let alone contribute. I'm happy on some smaller specialized wikis which never get bothered by this insanity. If the attacks against Nancy aren't a clarion call for the Wikimedia Foundation to press charges against those responsible, I don't know what is. Heck, just a quick perusal of the new user page mostly turns up childish vandals with a penchant for fart jokes, wildly nationalistic editors with axes to grind regarding their perceived misrepresentation of their country and spammers, spammers everywhere. Very few new accounts actually seem to be constructive. That said, I fear this Nancy attack is far more dangerous than the threat posed by the bored teenagers who perpetuated Grawp. This is obsession, plain and simple. Good luck. As for me, I think it's time to just go away cold turkey and never return. Just no fun anymore.  :( Thanks for listening. Regretfully, --70.104.7.231 (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Dude. Nancy is an admin, and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, quite capable of taking care of herself. Sorry to hear that you can't stand her page being vandalised though. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, as long as there are vandal, we have plenty more good editors who will clean up their messes. Nancy's a good admin too, I'm sure she can handle the childish attacks on her page. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you guys have her back covered. My concern was over the rather obsessive behavior of this one, well, jackass if you'll pardon my French. She's made of some strong stuff if she can keep on taking that ridiculous taunting without walking away...and I wouldn't blame her if she did. Thanks for the reassurance. Sincerely, me again at work via --76.79.100.242 (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a proposal to unify the deletion delay on categories like replaceable fair use, empty category, possibly unfree images, and redundant templates, changing them all to five days. Please visit WT:CSD if you wish to discuss this. Stifle (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Rarelibra (talk · contribs) and Supparluca (talk · contribs) are at each other's throats again over lame geographical naming issues relating to South Tyrol (see Provinces of Italy and Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. This has gone on between these two users for years. I've told them both that they'd be topic-banned from this dispute, and I now ask such a topic ban to be endorsed by the community. These are otherwise constructive contributors (well, at least Rarelibra is, I can say that much), so I wouldn't want to see them blocked, but they both evidently have totally entrenched, intransigent positions on this particular conflict and need to be kept away from it.

I move that both Rarelibra and Supparluca be topic-banned from all edits (I'd say including all namespaces and talk) relating to contentious geographical naming practices relating to South Tyrol. Including but not restricted to: any changes to Wikipedia usage of the terms South Tyrol, Südtirol, Bolzano, Bozen, Alto Adige, or any other occasion where there is a choice between German-derived and Italian geographical names in that area.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the proposal is too complex. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, those two guys will know perfectly well what it pertains to, no problem there. If you want simpler wording, just call it: "Hands off of South Tyrol Alto Adige Südtirol Bolzano-Bozen" (but there you get the problem again.). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is probably too complex for the typical noticeboard thread (where everyone either overtly or covertly wants to ban everyone). Just file an RFAR. — CharlotteWebb 15:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration is the last resort and probably ArbCom would just propose a topic ban as well. I'd agree that this board has to be limited to only serious issues that has taken long to get sorted out without success. However, I have no idea about this particular case but probably mediation was not tried? -- fayssal - wiki up^® 18:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd be loath to go to arbitration over a dispute that is so relatively minor and narrowly circumscribed. It's just these two people, with one or two allies on either side perhaps, and it's just this relatively small set of articles. But it's extremely persistent, has been going on for years, shifts from one page to the next (sometimes it's an article name, then an image caption, than a map legend, then a category renaming, then a POV fork, then a merger proposal, then a page move, and so on, but always about the same underlying issue.) I'm sure there isn't a dispute resolution technique that hasn't been tried yet; I seem to remember there was some mediation attempt once, back some time, in the late pleistocene or thereabouts, but it all came to nothing. At one point Rarelibra got himself indef-banned for making rather nasty off-wiki threats of some sort, then got back on parole under the understanding he'd be topic-banned, but he ignored that once he understood the other guy wasn't being topic-banned too. They just won't stop, and there is not a shred of AGF left between these two. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

FPaS - I disagree. I cannot see where I am doing nothing more than defending the image work that I have done, in this case. You worked with me to an acceptable new image, and then Supparluca merely copied it, changed text, and uploaded it under the modified name (again - the image already exists in Commons). There was no need for Supparluca to do what he did, other than continue the agenda that was started years ago. You must admit that it has been some time now since I have participated in any disagreements about naming - simply stated, I've focused primarily on images and other geographic articles. The team you mention (Supparluca, Icsunonove, etc) all pretty much patrol those pages and focus all of their efforts on the continued push for name changing and article elimination (case in point was the valid and common usage name of "South Tyrol", an English equivalent of Sudtirol). I have avoided their name changing only up until it involved the removal of a valid image I had in place, with the substitution of the SAME IMAGE under a different file name. Rarelibra (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Support the topic ban as described in the paragraph above, "..relating to contentious geographical naming practices.." I think the above paragraph is clear enough for administrators new to the dispute to take action on it, if necessary. Any attempt by one of these editors to switch between German-derived and Italian-derived geographic names will trigger the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If I may, I would like to make a quick statement here. Supparluca did not like an image I had up there (I specialize in maps) - so he started the recent actions. The image I had was approved by admins a while ago to be applicable because it covered the various language usages of the area. Please note it used the names that, by Wiki, are to be used - the common usage and English equivalents for the area. Supparluca merely downloaded MY image from Commons and made a local image in ENG Wiki for his special POV case. I tried to restore my image, and the result was the edit war. I then made the effort to UPDATE the image, making it better with more accuracy, color use, labels, etc. Supparluca simply took the UPDATED image and, once again, modified it to copy over his preferred usage. He made no attempt to contact me in any request for modifying the image or working out any requests to update, nor was there ANY ACTION on the articles for the need or request for updating the image. He is doing this as a POV move of his own volition. I did NOTHING MORE than restore the image (as my history will show), and create an update. My history will also show that my focus has not been this topic for some time, as my focus has been in many other countries/areas. Rarelibra (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Fut Perf. I've re-read it and I think I understand what you're saying now. If you don't mind, I'd propose wording it as "Rarelibra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Supparluca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are topic banned from all edits relating to South Tyrol, broadly construed. Included in this topic ban are: edits where changes are made to the terms South Tyrol, Südtirol, Bolzano, Bozen, Alto Adige, or any other change between German-derived and Italian geographical names in that area." Is that okay? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Support: Either FutPerf's original or Ncmvocalist's revision or whatever. I happened across this endless issue by accident a long time ago and carry the scars to this day. Whatever will end it, please do. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it was over two years ago that I encountered this dispute! Wow, I could barely focus for the 60 seconds it took me to track down that discussion... I can't imagine hanging with a dispute for over two years! —Wknight94 (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• A topic-ban for these two seems reasonable. Moreschi (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I have been asked by Rarelibra (talk · contribs) to voice my opinion, I'd like to remain neutral because this topic has generated such an immense amount of ill-feeling I think it best I refrain from this discussion. Either way I have to laud Rarelibra (talk · contribs) for the innumerous constructive contributions he has done so far, a ban on him I do not consider fair. Gryffindor 20:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose. Sorry, but I just can't get behind any proposal to topic ban whose presentation is based solely upon links to account names and two articles. Future Perfect, I have the highest opinion of your judgment generally, but just isn't the sort of precedent we ought to set: AGF requires the rest of us to assume that no action is needed, and places the burden of proof upon you to demonstrate more clearly why it is. Durova^Charge! 03:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support the edit warring is pretty clearly the only issue that's a problem. If this will end the issue, it is a good solution. I can't make any sense at all out of Durova's justification for a procedural oppose. *dryly* It's as if you're saying we shouldn't take the word of trusted admins on these issues based on the evidence they put forth. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 13:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the community are not incapable or unable to look at the relevant pages and decide for themselves - I doubt this could be characterized as a case that is too hard to follow without some sort of guidance from the complainant. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • No matter how justifiable this particular request is, we should expect a substantive presentation in every request for community sanctions. The time it takes to prepare a set of specific diffs etc. is trivial compared to the effort it takes for the requesting administrator to determine that a request is necessary in the first place. We all know that wikilawyers abound: I intend to avoid setting precedents they could manipulate on future occasions. Durova^Charge! 19:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Often, those presentations are lopsided to begin with, so they're often not very reliable on their own because they don't paint the full picture - in which case, we end up having to find the relevant pages for ourselves. I agree; we should still insist on them painting a picture for every case (more than just saying 'I want him banned' or more than just 'look at this page. do something'). But if uninvolved users have looked at it for themselves, then I'm not sure about the validity of such an oppose. While Fut Perf. did not provide any diffs, there was a substantial description given by more than one user as to the duration of this dispute, and the extent of disruption it is causing, and the sorts of pages that are affected by it. If we genuinely couldn't find anything, then I'd be opposing with you on the grounds that I couldn't see anything to support the need for a sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Is a ban really necessary? I note that neither user has been blocked for many months. Can we try blocking rather than banning first? One user has no blocks at all, the other has several, but the most recent early this year. Mangojuice^talk 23:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is a block necessary? No one seems to be looking at the facts surrounding this - for me, it was only about the image. For Supparluca and others, it is pure POV pushing. This, for me, was about the image. For Supparluca it was about manipulating an image I created for his own usage. I make regular contributions - a lot of maps, actually (it may be near 1,000 total maps I've created). So a block would decapitate me from even doing that - as I do geographic sweeps, I find places that need updating or creation. This, for me, is about the image, period. Can anyone NOT see that? Rarelibra (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Question and Comment Has any form of mediation been saught? eg. MEDCAB or MEDCOM Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A cursory glance at Provinces of Italy seems to indicate that they are indeed reverting the hell out of each other. My question would be: "Has any community/expert consensus been reached on whether either, both, or neither of their proposed edits are correct?" If neither or both name variants are agreed-upon as the common-use name(s), I'd say support topic-banning them both. But if only one is agreed-upon, topic-ban only the one reverting against consensus. arimareiji (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it could be helpful to explain a bit what happened:

• 22/09 User:Supparluca ("S") edited the Provinces of Italy article, putting this image (A1) instead of this (B1), without explanation.
• 23/09 User:Rarelibra (R) reverted the edit without explanation.
• 23/09 S restored his version, saying that image A1, unlike image B1, contained the names used in the English wikipedia [check: [1]-[2]-[3]].
• 23/09 R reverted without explanation.
• 25/09 S reverted with a more detailed explanation.
• 25/09 R reverted without explanation.
• 25/09 R proposed image A1 for deletion, saying that S wanted "to push a POV agenda".
• 29/09 An unregistered user supported S's version without explanation.
• 29/09 R reverted without explanation.
• 01/10 Image A1 was kept, and R said to User:Future Perfect at Sunrise (F) that F doesn't "see his agenda".
• 01/10 R uploaded a new version of image B1 (B2) with better graphics and the same problem of image B1.
• 01/10 S uploaded a new version of image A1 (A2) with better graphics but with more alternative names than image A1.
• 01/10 S reverted R's last edit writing "new image" in the edit summary.
• 02/10 R reverted without explanation.
• 04/10 - 06/10 2 reverts by S and 1 by R followed without explanation.
• 06/10 F said to R and S that he would propose a topic ban.
• 06/10 R reverted the Provinces of Italy article without explanation.
• 11/10 S wrote this summary.
• 12/10 User:Arimareiji (ARI) supported S's version without explanation.
• 12/10 R reverted without explanation.
• 14/10 Another unregistered user supported S's version writing "grow up ross..." in the edit summary.
• 14/10 R reverted writing "stfu and keep to yourself in VA" in the edit summary.

R has 6 blocks, S has 0 blocks.--Supparluca 17:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Having more blocks is certainly circumstantial evidence that a user is not AGF, and has already come up in the thread. But without either 1) a cite of the nomenclature discussion/resolution or 2) an uninvolved (i.e. neither "R" or "S") expert speaking up, I don't think the fundamental question has really been answered. If one is correct by consensus, topic-ban the other. If neither or both are correct by consensus, topic-ban both.> arimareiji (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

After looking into it more thoroughly, I'd like to reword my statement as having been incorrect. If using both names is correct, topic-ban R. If using only South Tyrol is correct, topic-ban S. If neither of the above has been chosen by consensus to be correct, topic-ban both. Anecdotally, I'd note that when I did a Google search:

"Alto Adige" - 25m hits.

"Südtirol" - 8m hits.

"Suedtirol" - 1m hits.

"South Tyrol" - 1m hits. arimareiji (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I need to note that I can no longer consider myself an uninvolved party, as I just reverted the page myself to Supparluca's last version. I don't consider this to be the final word by any means; this is only meant to stand until the matter can be resolved. Supperluca's version seems more likely to be the one supported by consensus, and the page shouldn't be left uncorrected just to make a point. arimareiji (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact I forgot to put the relevant links: Region: Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol; provinces: Province of Trento, Province of Bolzano-Bozen. Note that image A2 has more alternative names than needed (especially if you compare that with the other images in Provinces of Italy), and I would agree on using the same names as image A1.--Supparluca 06:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no desire to become another edit warrior. But as soon as I changed the Alto Adige / Südtirol / South Tyrol map in Provinces of Italy back to what reasonably appears to be the more-likely consensus version, Rarelibra changed it back. If anyone other than Rarelibra or Supperluca who is familiar with this issue could speak up, it would go a long way towards establishing which should be kept up transitionally. I hope that once there's agreement from people other than the two fighting parties, both of them will be civil enough to let the page stand until the dispute can be permanently resolved. arimareiji (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a key fundamental for me... Supparluca did not contact me regarding the image. He requested no name changes, nothing. The image I created was agreed upon for the multi-name usage and was in place for a long time. Supparluca then decided to, on his own agenda (there is no record on even the Projects of Italy page of the need to replace or rename the image) simply copy my image and upload against it. So he even broke Commons rules when a valid image already exists (and I don't see any rules against image names - they are simply reference names to the image). If it is a valid issue with the image names, Supparluca could have brought it up with the Projects of Italy talk page, or on the Provinces of Italy talk page, or on the Province talk page itself. It could then have been voted on and I would have made the necessary changes as the image creator. As it is, I improved the image, and all Supparluca did is copy my image (again) into a different image name.

If the image I created is a problem, fine. If it is voted upon that it is not consensus, I accept. But the original reason for edit war was because of the way he approached it selfishly without consultation. As far as pointing out blocks, I have made mistakes - but you cannot use my history against me. One can see I have contributed over possibly 1,000 maps or more - in many different articles. As opposed to Supparluca's POV push. My involvement with that topic has been very little since the last episode until now. But I do believe that both Supparluca and myself should be topic banned for the year because we are both guilty of something. Rarelibra (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Rarelibra, your insinuation of consensus pretty flatly contradicts the contributions of other editors at Talk:Provinces_of_Italy#Trentino-Alto_Adige.2FSuditirol.2C_etc., continuing to the rest of the page. In fact, your insistence on using South Tyrol as the only name contradicts your own wording from when the dispute first started. And it's extremely hard to AGF when you say "Okay, you win, ban us both for a year" when you've stated elsewhere that you're about to be deployed to Iraq for 400 days, and the page is presently on your revert version. arimareiji (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Arimareiji - it doesn't matter where the page is (now YOU fail to AGF). And where I go has nothing to do with it. Keep that in mind. Rarelibra (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Hilarious to see all this going on again, especially with the accusations of POV pushing and picking out who is good and who is evil. Look, I'll propose a simple fix and this circus can be closed down. First, do not use the image name Trentino-Alto Adige Provinces.png OR Trentino-South Tyrol Provinces.png. Make everyone happy, as we did on Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, by making the file name Trentino-Alto Adige-South Tyrol Provinces.png. Is that really so difficult to do? Did half of you not learn now to share when you were in kindergarten??  :) Next, the map image should certainly have the provincial names (Trento and Bolzano-Bozen) and also the regional terms (Trentino and Alto Adige-South Tyrol). In that case, the current file Trentino-Alto Adige Provinces.png is the most all-inclusive, so rename that file, and be done with it. The users who insist to only use South Tyrol to describe this province need to finally learn to compromise; there is just no other way around it. They do not seem to comprehend that they are explicitly working towards removing the term Alto Adige from English Wikipedia. As in the article Province of Bolzano-Bozen there is obviously room for both terms derived from Italian and German. Now, I definitely Oppose a topic ban, because if you look at the user Supparluca, his passion is obviously for updating the pages of this topic. You ban him, that hurts his work on here. The other user, Rarelibra is enthusiastic in making maps, but has seemingly turned the Provinces of Italy maps into some sort of last stand. It will not be an equivalent punishment if he is banned from this topic, and that is why he doesn't care about such a ban; he will simply be "taking one for his team" and removing an editor he considers on the "evil" side. :-). He supported topic bans before that include himself, you have to ask yourself why he accepts it so easily. :) If you ban Supparluca for one year from this topic, then you have to ban Rarelibra from making maps for one year -after- he returns from military deployment. Anyway, I don't think anyone needs to be banned. If you all are really interested in a long-term solution to these prolonged arguments, simply make it an implicit rule that if there are such naming moves in the future, that a few unbiased admin mediators help form a compromise (Lar, for example). Somehow I'm guessing if Lar was here now, he would agree with the proposal I've made above. Share folks! Aren't there more important things to be concerned about??? No one is asking for only Alto Adige, the vast majority are asking for simply both terms, and that's it. If you look at Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol and Province of Bolzano-Bozen, those pages have been so very peaceful after the compromise solutions, it is indeed amazing! That is opposed to the Trentino-South Tyrol and South Tyrol that Gryfindor pushed for three years ago -- which ignited all these bad feelings. I noticed that Gryfindor had modified this image earlier [4] with this same tired agenda. That is water under the bridge now.. at least for most. Icsunonove (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the name of the file was a problem; simply, you have to use different names if you don't want to block one image. And I think you can't use the slash, so using a name like 1-2-3, when in fact you mean 1-(2-3), and not (1-2)-3 or (1-2-3), would be confusing.--Supparluca 17:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Hi Icsunonove. Thanks SO MUCH for bringing me here! :) The last time I tried to mediate this, I got so confused by all these names that I don't think anything useful got done. Even Giano couldn't explain it to me. You don't want me mediating it again, trust me. I hate to see people get banned, or even topic banned. I'd rather Rarelibra and Suparluca figured out a compromise between themselves that everyone can live with. (like what Icsunonove suggests, use both names for everything. Why not?) My suggestion would be that they need to go off and work through how they are going to work together, bring it here for discussion, and if it's approved, do it. If they can't... THEN topic ban them. Dunno if that would work. ++Lar: t/c 22:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose any ban for both Rarelibra and Supparluca and substantially agree with Icsunonove. --Checco (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• As someone who has been involved in those discussion before (under my old account), I can approve Icsunonove's assessment and oppose this. Also per Durova, much more in-depth evidence including diffs should be provided before I could even consider as drastic a measure as a topic ban. Everyme 22:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I will say this - the only thing I have a problem with is Icsunonove and his mention of my military deployment. There was an anon user who posted hateful statements here (and was subsequently removed and warned). The same anon user posted to my talk page (and was removed). That anon user referred to myself and Gryffindor by personal name, in some lame attempt of insult. The same anon user also sent me a personal email using an anon email server (old DOS trick) - not realizing that you leave an IP trail, also not realizing that certain resources can be used to find out the ISP and name/address of the subscriber. So now I will make it public - Icsunonove is the only one mentioning my military deployment because HE is the anon user that made the comments here and in my own mailbox. If he challenges this offline, I will provide the proof pointing this out. We all know it isn't hard to NOT log on to wiki and run an anon comment.

I want to caution Icsunonove about his previous anon comments and his being the only one mentioning my upcoming military deployment. It is not a factor in this at all - so the statement of banning me from making maps (and contributing to wiki)... let alone waiting until after a return (in 2010, mind you) is a personal attack and desperate measure at best. You should know something, Icsunonove - I VOLUNTEERED to go on the deployment. Karma is not a 'b*#ch' like you mention - though one day we may all meet her face to face. And while I appreciate your article on Nazi hunters in my mailbox, next time I also would appreciate it if you left to yourself. Not even Supparluca - for as much as we disagree - would stoop to the level that you did when you acted as you have.

As has happened before with many editors in the past, I concede and go on my way - I have better, more positive, more productive things to do than to be involved in this mess. But let us plainly recognize the actions that have taken place.

• 1 - Supparluca felt that an image needed to be changed or altered, without merit or request on either the Projects of Italy page, the talk page of the Provinces of Italy, nor the talk page of the province in question.

• 2 - Supparluca used GNU capability to copy an image already existing (rather than contact myself - the creator - to ask about updating it) and upload it into a new name. An IMAGE NAME is NEVER an issue on wiki or Commons, as many photos have weird or uncommon names that are not required for an article to be complete. It was an issue, rather, for the geographic names IN the image in question. By creating an extra image, Supparluca did, in effect, violate Commons rules and created a duplicate of sorts. It would have been a lot easier to update the image itself, or to update it and request a move to a new name, or to move to the new name and update the image, etc. So he went about it the wrong way.

• 3 - I acted the way I did to defend the image that was already created, including updating the detail of the image. I agree with Icsunonove that we can change the geographic names ON THE IMAGE to whatever is best for the article, but the creation of a very similar image (near duplicate) under a different filename is NOT the answer, and that is the crux of the problem.

• 4 - So my suggestion is - if agreed upon solution by what Icsunonove suggests, we delete all occurrences of the image except for the one that was originally created. Again - the IMAGE NAME is not a problem (nor are they argued about on wiki as seen here) - it is the names ON THE IMAGE that are an issue. So I can alter the image to have the necessary names desired ON the image. But certainly admins/editors can realize that the filename of the image should not be an issue as it seems to be here? Rarelibra (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Rarelibra - If you have evidence of your assertion that Icsunonove is anony-socking you, you need to take it up directly rather than claiming it in multiple threads and inserting Icsunonove's name as a signature. And Icsunonove was not the one who first mentioned your impending deployment, you were. After that, I mentioned it myself earlier in this thread (as evidence of arguable bad faith in your request to be banned along with Supparluca). Icsunonove isn't the first to mention it, he//she's the third. arimareiji (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Arimareiji - you've missed the boat on this one. I have provided sufficient explanation to someone offline who may decide to pursue this online. I will point out to you the obvious - the anonymous user commented earlier in the history of this thread (check the history if you need to) an was quickly removed and warned. The same anon user did so on my talk page and was removed. The same anon user also sent an anon email to my inbox - but email leaves more than just an IP trail (you should know this, Arimareiji). Go ahead and check Icsunonove's IP address and see how closely it resembles the anon IP. I also don't hear any rebuttal or evidence from Icsunonove as to his innocence - this is most likely because he knows I have already had it traced via email and corporate security. So yes, he was the first to mention it (anonymously) - you mentioned it, then I corrected you that it has nothing to do with this situation (after you made a biased judgment of 'bad faith' where you were incorrect), then it was mentioned more maliciously by Icsunonove. As I said, I agree with his assessment for the possible solution, I disagree with his lack of judgment and clearly poor approach in a personal attack that ended up in my inbox. You definitely want to stay out of this one. Rarelibra (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If what you're saying about having evidence is true, then you're doing yourself no favors by trying it in the court of public opinion instead of letting procedure run its course. And I don't follow you... are you saying that he hacked your account to post that you're being deployed? Because I see your name under that first mention of it on 10/6, not his or an anonymous IP's. Finally, I don't take kindly to veiled threats to "stay out of this one," or dumb implications that I should be careful of email trails. Whether or not your past targets have had anything to be scared of, I know I don't. Stop skirting the boundaries of WP:LEGAL, and either say it directly or be quiet. arimareiji (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. What I am saying IS true. There isn't any "court" here, so get off the high horse. I won't explain it again - you seen too confused to understand. I didn't issue any threat - as you obviously don't understand I told you it is best you remain detached. There's no skirting here whatsoever, I have said it quite directly, indeed. So you need to stop pushing the issue and remain quiet. Rarelibra (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Woaa there cowboy. Rarelibra, you really have anger-management and paranoia issues. That is not my IP address and I don't even use a commercial ISP! So, if you can trace that IP to me with your DOS, or whatever you are babbling about, you are truly talented. I have no clue what your real name is (how the hell would I?), nor do I have the time or desire to know anything about you. That you have managed to get so many people pissed at your behavior on just this website, is your issue, not mine. You can make accusations until you are blue in the face, but as most people remember on here, you are the one who has made all these strange threats of legal attacks or getting your government or corporate buddies to hunt people down Wikipedia. It looks like you are resorting to threats on here yet again, and THAT is what must and will be reported. Why don't you, for just once, stop implying all your foes on here are evil, and just discuss the issue with regard to this TOPIC. Lar above mentioned that there is no reason not to use multiple names as is currently used in the pages. I can't figure out why you think you are going to 'win' something on here by pushing out the other valid terms. So you can both quit the revert wars, and just use an image that has the provincial and regional names on it, and then go your own ways. I haven't been on Wikipedia now for months, and coming on here for a couple days makes me remember why. Icsunonove (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop it, Icsunonove. Please. You and I communicated quite a bit via email when you were under the username of Taalo. Thus, you (of few people before) know my name. There weren't any threats made. There are facts. Trust me on this one.

You've caught yourself in a deep trap, Icsunonove. You and I communicated quite a bit offline when you were under the username of Taalo. Funny how you forget that the history is captured here. At one point you even added an entry to my userpage [5], and you later updated it when you changed your username [6]. Remember now? If you want I will pull the emails and present them too, but the above proof should suffice. Rarelibra (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Rarelibra, that is absolutely false. I swear to you and anyone else on here that we've never exchanged e-mails in real-life or through Wikipedia. The only e-mail I've ever received from you was through the Wikipedia e-mail service; that was anonymous, and I certainly did not reply. I have no clue what your real name is. I can't believe that you delete all your e-mails... please how me a single e-mail where either of us have corresponded using our real names? Man, it is just unbelievable the direction you take things on here. Listen, I don't care about your threats or your self-perceived facts, you've made all these before. You know what, I honestly hope you can deal with these anger issues, I do hope you have a safe trip to wherever you are being deployed, and that you somehow once and for all realize that we are not all evil on here because we advocated for these bilingual compromises. You never seem to realize that people on "our" side of the argument could have pushed only for Trentino-Alto Adige and Province of Bolzano, but we didn't. Yet the other side pushes only for South Tyrol. Think about that, will you? You really need to stop threatening people on here with WP:LEGAL or that you are going to hunt them down. Think about what you do to the Wikipedia environment by saying these things on here. You've done this to more than just me on two occasions now. Icsunonove (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

All I am going to say is I am quite surprised that you continue down the path of denial. I don't care about your words, insults, or otherwise. We really are here to find a solution - one that you have mentioned above and I responded positively to. All of the words in between (your judgments and insults about anger issues, etc) do nothing to contribute to a positive atmosphere as well. So stop dictating to me, I will stop things with you, and let us carry on with a solution, yes? Rarelibra (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I'm fine with focusing on just getting a solution about this map and everything else on this topic for that matter (future debates, etc.). That is why I even bothered to take the time to post above. You were the one who came on here with this huge post making all these accusations. You say I e-mailed you, I know your name, and we've had e-mail correspondence off-line -- but you know that just isn't true. If I've had some really bad case of amnesia, and you can show me these e-mail threads we've exchanged, then I'll accept you accusing me of denying things. But, come on now. Icsunonove (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I cannot stress enough a simple pointer to when you even added an entry to my userpage [7], and you later updated it when you changed your username [8]. This, in of itself, may not qualify substantial to some - but is a strong indicator. Nevertheless, as we have said, let us move on, yes? As we are getting nowhere attempting to stand each other's ground. Right? Rarelibra (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to say... :-) A dozen users know I changed my username. I'm not even sure what this is a "strong indicator" of. o_O But, yes, lets move on, again. :) I'm going offline now for the weekend, I'll try to see how things are going with regard to this debate sometime next week. I'll wait for you to post our e-mail threads too. just kidding! :) I'll state again that I don't think any editor on here needs to be banned; they all contribute a lot to Wikipedia. My idea for the way forward is simple: 1) maps with both the provincial (Bolzano-Bozen) and regional (Alto Adige-South Tyrol) names, per the Province of Bolzano-Bozen page. Same for Trento and Trentino. Name the file something that also causes no friction or bad feelings. Call it provinces-of-trento-and-bolzano-bozen-bulsan-alto-adige-south-tyrol provinces.png. Whatever! Then, lets agree that before we get into these childish fights or month-long revert wars, we cool down and ask someone like Lar to mediate. He is actually pretty fun when he points out the stupid arguments we make. Who knows, one day we may all be friends again, even with Gryf, and finally have our Forsts. Doubt it, but anyway! hah. Have a good weekend everyone. Icsunonove (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Can/should a user who has voted on an XfD close the XfD or would that represent a conflict of interest? I'm asking here because I do non-admin closures on AfDs and am thinking that maybe I shouldn't vote on them if I'm going to close them (provided it's a keep of course). I ask here because (hopefully) some admins will know the answer. Thanks and happy editing! Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 08:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would definitely recommend that a user not close any XFD in which he has participated, with the possible exception of where he is closing based on an almost-unanimous decision which is against his own point of view. Goes double for non-admins. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Non-admin closures says "Non-admin closure is not appropriate when the non-admin ... expressed an opinion in the deletion debate." -- Suntag ☼ 09:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Opps, didn't see that one :-) Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 09:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's fine to close an XfD you participated in if the nominator has withdrawn and there are no extant delete !votes, or if the page has been speedy deleted. the skomorokh 09:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Other than that, no one, admin or otherwise, should close a debate/rfa/xfd/etc they participated in. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Another quick question[edit]

Also, would it be alright if I started to close AfDs (unanimous or very close) from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 13 now? Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 09:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:OAFD for debates that have been open long enough to close. the skomorokh 09:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen users close pages before 5 days is up (usually late in day 4), is this alright? E.g. this AfD was closed on the 16th at 3:28 (UTC), when it was opened on the 12th at 22:46 (UTC), making it listed for roughly 3 days and 5 hours (I think). Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 11:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking that close was naughty, but Z-man is an admin and it did look like a snowclose. Early closing may be appropriate in the case of snow, nominations withdrawn, XfD's opened very soon after a previous XfD on the same page, speedy deletions and bad faith/banner user nominations, but really there is no deadline and non-admins such as yourself are best advised to leave things run for the full period as early closes often lead to unnecessary drama. the skomorokh 11:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-administrators should wait the whole five days until closing, or else I or someone else will likely rollback the close. Daniel (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Please full protect this page. Numerous editors are inserting material that is attacking this person. Primarily editors are trying to link him to the Keating Five scandal because he has the last name as one involved. Even though there is no proof at this time that he is related or has anything to do with this scandal. Additionally, people are inserting his tax problems into his bio which have no relevance to the article. Arzel (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:RPP, please. I'm not taking this as I have very strong political views and do not want to have them displayed on Wikipedia. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 22:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, wasn't the AfD for Joe the plumber closed as redirect due to WP:BLP1E? This seems to be a recreation of the same material. Of course WP:CCC. VG ☎ 23:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You missed the second AFD where the brilliant close was to keep it temporarily.[9]--Cube lurker (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I see the new policy is to keep articles around until "the spotlight has moved to another political talking point". My mistake. VG ☎ 23:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally love the closing admin's statement: "While yes, his article violates the BLP policy, there is no deadline and exception can be made". Really? We make exceptions for the BLP policy? All my respect goes to whichever admin deletes this article. - auburnpilot talk 23:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm just as little impressed with the close on the AFD, but I think rather then wheel war and cause havoc, the best thing to do is get it to DRV, which I've already done. SirFozzie (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi folks, not sure if this is just my end, but I can't seem to revert to the revision of 7 (number) which doesn't have "OVER 9000" spewed all over it. The rev I want to get to is here; I've tried "undo", "edit" and even manually copy/pasting. What am I doing wrong? Thanks. SMC (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The undo buttons aren't going to work. I've reverted back to the last good edit. —kurykh 01:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a big deal, but when attempting to create a redirect from John Henderson McConnell to John H. McConnell, I found that the former page was blacklisted. Since this is his full name, I believe it could be useful as a redirect because he is sometimes referred to by his full name to distinguish, and I have yet to find any other such uses with notability for Wikipedia, I am requesting that it be removed from the blacklist for the purpose of creating this redirect. Thank you. – Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 05:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

In the future, you want WP:RFUP for requests like these. However, I see no protection currently in place, and nothing in the page logs... am I missing something? Tan | 39 05:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to match either the local or global blacklists, either. What exactly is the error message you get when you try to create it? --Carnildo (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, interestingly enough, I am no longer getting an error message. The one I was getting in a red box above the edit field told me to post here to "request removal from the blacklist", which it was on. Oh well, I got it done. Thanks for the help! – Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 06:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

If it mentions "blacklist", it'll be the title blacklist or possibly the spam blacklist. If it continues to be an issue, post again with the full exact message. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we ever get concerned when someone writes something like this? I hate to think it's an actual threat, and it's probably just a joke edit, but maybe it's better to find out what's going on. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:SUICIDE recommends action, although it's not a policy. Tan | 39 06:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It says that admins should handle this. I'm a health-care professional, and we have a policy that every threat should be taken seriously. Someone needs to handle this. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Submitting checkuser request. Tan | 39 06:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

See request here. Tan | 39 06:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Copy of my post to the RFCU case:  Confirmed this user is editing as an IP and as the named user. Both IP and named user edits are very child like and even several vandalism in nature. I can tell what city this seems to be coming from but did not find enough to contact any authority about. In my personal opinion, this is some kid fooling around. I've even blocked the named account as a vandal only account. I want to say the users reporting this to AN and RFCU did the right thing. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)...PS someone already blocked indef for vandalism. Blocked IP for a week. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've used accounts in the past that have got blocked, but I don't know if that constitutes a WP:BAN. You don't need to revert my edits or try to censor what I say; I'm not dangerous.--BlockDropper (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably, What were your previous accounts? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't really matter. The problem is that the personal temptation to edit Wikipedia when I'm bored is still there, and I will still do it, albeit not necessarily in a particularly helpful way. If you, the administrators, stopped with your censorship and totalitarianism, then this place might be fun to edit.--BlockDropper (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to vandalise, edit Encyclopedia Dramatica - it's vandal-city. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is an encyclopedia Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 13:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Indef'ed. And in less than one minute after I blocked, he requested unblock. seicer | talk | contribs 13:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

User moved user talk page to article space talk page. -- Suntag ☼ 16:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

And AFD closed as a WP:CSD#A7. --Rodhullandemu 16:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 16:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I should know how to fix this but I don't. I used Twinkle by the way. The deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanford Holst is showing up as a red link, and when you look at the template via edit it says 'keep'. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That's actually fairly common. It's not a problem with Twinkle or how you did anything. Sometimes it just takes a while for the MediaWiki software to catch up and realize that the AFD discussion page has actually been created and display it as a bluelink instead of a redlink. Purging the cache of the page with the AFD template on it fixes the problem too. If you'll look at Sanford Holst now you'll see that nobody has edited the article, but the discussion page is now a bluelink. Heh, unless I'm misunderstanding your problem. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Or just press the Refresh button in the browser. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It was actually someone else who mentioned it. Thanks for the explanations. Doug Weller (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I made an improved version of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:SVG.svg (visually almost the same, details neater now, file size down a lot, source bit more readable)

I temporarily put it at http://steltenpower.com/svg.svg (careful with case/caps) Please tell me at svg@steltenpower.com when you fixed it.

---

Wouldn't it be a lot easier if the world could just edit the SVG source code right on Wikipedia? Of course not allowing the edit if it's not valid SVG.

---

Thank you for your effort to improve Wikipedia. That image is hosted at Wikipedia Commons, their administrators' noticeboard is here. I also opened your image and at least in my browser (Firefox 3) the source now runs off the background page, which I would not consider to be an improvement. Thanks again for your interest and effort.  ★  Bigr Tex 19:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I get the same thing, but it looks like a simple font issue. Debugging images is a bit off-topic for the admin noticeboard, I realize, but I believe steltenpower could fix it by converting the text to a path (something you need to do to most SVGs when you put them on the Web). rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, either convert text to paths or use the MediaWiki default, Bitstream Vera Sans. The latter is better when the look of the text is not so important as the information it conveys. Image:NYCS map A.svg is an example of this; it's easier to change text that way. --NE2 05:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

BillCJ (talk · contribs) left a really uncivil comment on the page accusing me of ownership with the article after working around the clock since, well September really, to clean-up cites and expanding in line with various good film articles, released and unreleased. Bill clearly doesn't want to discuss this any further, and apart from this he seems like a great editor (look at all those Barnstars), so I'm just concerned about him suddenly going on the warpath with the usual "fan" insult and brazen rudeness. Should I have just undid his comment which had nothing to do with improving the article regardless of his good past form? Alientraveller (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Per above, "These pages are not the place to raise disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour." BillCJ indicated that he is de-watching the article and the talk page and won't respond to comments about it. While probably uncivil, I think you should just archive the discussion and let it go, but I'll notify him anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, per this, I think we are done. Mark as resolved and move on? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

In otherwords, no Vulcan nerve pinch required. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I made an improved version of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:SVG.svg (visually almost the same, details neater now, file size down a lot, source bit more readable)

I temporarily put it at http://steltenpower.com/svg.svg (careful with case/caps) Please tell me at svg@steltenpower.com when you fixed it.

---

Wouldn't it be a lot easier if the world could just edit the SVG source code right on Wikipedia? Of course not allowing the edit if it's not valid SVG.

---

Thank you for your effort to improve Wikipedia. That image is hosted at Wikipedia Commons, their administrators' noticeboard is here. I also opened your image and at least in my browser (Firefox 3) the source now runs off the background page, which I would not consider to be an improvement. Thanks again for your interest and effort.  ★  Bigr Tex 19:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I get the same thing, but it looks like a simple font issue. Debugging images is a bit off-topic for the admin noticeboard, I realize, but I believe steltenpower could fix it by converting the text to a path (something you need to do to most SVGs when you put them on the Web). rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, either convert text to paths or use the MediaWiki default, Bitstream Vera Sans. The latter is better when the look of the text is not so important as the information it conveys. Image:NYCS map A.svg is an example of this; it's easier to change text that way. --NE2 05:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

BillCJ (talk · contribs) left a really uncivil comment on the page accusing me of ownership with the article after working around the clock since, well September really, to clean-up cites and expanding in line with various good film articles, released and unreleased. Bill clearly doesn't want to discuss this any further, and apart from this he seems like a great editor (look at all those Barnstars), so I'm just concerned about him suddenly going on the warpath with the usual "fan" insult and brazen rudeness. Should I have just undid his comment which had nothing to do with improving the article regardless of his good past form? Alientraveller (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Per above, "These pages are not the place to raise disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour." BillCJ indicated that he is de-watching the article and the talk page and won't respond to comments about it. While probably uncivil, I think you should just archive the discussion and let it go, but I'll notify him anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, per this, I think we are done. Mark as resolved and move on? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

In otherwords, no Vulcan nerve pinch required. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please update Did You Know, it's two hours overdue. Thanks very much! -- How do you turn this on (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done by Royalbroil (talk · contribs). Now resolved, thanks, – RyanCross (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is considering granting Oversight access to:

• Jayvdb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  (also known on-wiki as "John Vandenberg")

Comments and impressions of an impartial and salient nature are invited from the community, prior to finalizing any decision, and may be submitted by email only to FT2 (email) or any of the members of the Arbitration Committee for circulation amongst the sitting arbitrators.

Users submitting their views should be prepared to discuss those views thoughtfully and carefully with Arbitrators. All people who e-mail FT2 will have their emails forwarded to the Arbitration Committee impartially, and exactly as written.

Please note that this is one of the most serious matters within the remit of the Arbitration Committee, and the final decision does therefore rest with the Arbitration Committee alone. The background to this post is below, in some detail, since many users are unfamiliar with Oversight. Please send any e-mails promptly, as we hope to make a decision within the next few days.

For the Arbitration Committee,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Click "Show" for background

Oversight (Wikipedia:Oversight) is a form of extreme deletion, used for posted private information and defamatory material that should not be accessible even to administrators. It is also used (although rarely) by Wikimedia Office for certain copyright matters that cannot be adequately addressed any other way. As such, it is essential that Oversight is promptly responded to - ideally only minutes from being reported, although that can vary. Oversighters on a wiki also have access to the Oversight log, which allows them to check the validity of other oversights - and they often do. Oversight is not a time consuming role; rather it is responsiveness and trust that is the issue. The Arbitration Committee recently polled all enwiki users with Oversight access, and also the Oversight mailing list, to check whether our coverage of Oversight was adequate. It was decided to appoint one or more Oversighters from Australia/New Zealand/Far East, or similar time zones, to re-enforce our coverage across all time zones. Jayvdb (talk · contribs) is seen as an excellent candidate. He is a long term and highly trusted Wikipedian, active across many projects and in Wikimedia Australia, and well known for the quality of his work and his complete integrity as a hard working Wiki editor and administrator. He is already identified to Office as a Checkuser on English Wikisource. He has an excellent sense of discretion, as evidenced in the cross-wiki "Poetlister" case, where due to the above, he (along with Rlevse) was one of the main non-arbitrators trusted to be "in the loop" for consultation and discussion purposes. The addition of Oversight access is seen as suiting him well, as Oversight requests require a high level of trust and responsiveness but are not likely to take time from his activities on this and other projects. Internal voting on the provisional decision has reached 8 votes in support, including one inactive Arbitrator, and no opposes. (Views are awaited from FayssalF, Kirill, Morven, and Sam Blacketer.) This posting to the community has therefore been proposed and seconded. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should give him back his ArbCom clerk position? --NE2 08:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I am busy enough without resuming that position of muck-mashing. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Email sent to FT2 with my opinion. For transparency: I believe John to be very trustworthy, and believe his appointment would be an overall 'good move.' Anthøny (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Opponents of politician John Olver seem to have had a free hand in the direction of his Wikipedia article since at least July 2008. Unfortunately, the article recently was in the news and it's less than accurate, now removed content was cited. I took a stab at fixing the article, but it would help if someone would place the article on their watch list, at least until the election is over. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 15:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Removing administrator rights/Proposal#Straw poll. There's a straw poll on a proposal to give crats the power to remove admin rights. People might want to comment.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed User:Smiv's page included material that isn't exactly normal for a User Page. However, this is his only edit and I am unsure whether the page qualifies for an MfD. Can anyone assist? \ / (⁂) 02:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Policy is that users have considerable laxity over their own user pages; at present, all we can do is to assume good faith and that this editor is who he claims to be (although there is nothing to indicate a real-life identity), and if he wants to out himself, that is his affair. On the other hand, if the account is created as an attack, it is insufficently specific to be effective. I wouldn't worry unless disruption ensues. You may want to drop a {{ANI}}on his talk page, but I wouldn't expect much to follow. --Rodhullandemu 03:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I notice that this "new user" hasn't edited anything but his/her user page. I think this is just an attack page "mistakenly" created in "user" namespace instead of the main namespace (and I point out that if this was created in the main namespace, it would be deleted as CSD:G10 immediately), so I think that maybe the "G10" (attack page) CSD applies, anybody??? 131.111.223.43 (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You might be logged out accidentally. Most IP editors are not more familiar with CSD criteria than I am. This page could match somebody's nickname and could rank first in Google, and could be an attack. It serves no useful purpose, so I suggest deleting it to be safe, but will not do so unless there is a consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 04:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have blanked the page. Wikipedia is not a free webhost, userpages are suppose to be useful Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but I am genuinely a good-intentioned anon!!! (There are some, even if very rare.) All I wanted to say, that if the page with this content was created in the main namespace, then it would definitely be qualified for "attack page" (CSD G10). I also note that the new editor in question has not edited anything but his/her own user page. Well, there are many possible interpretations of this; I am most willing to assume good faith. Anyway -- none of my business -- sorry to bother you. 131.111.223.43 (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Mayalld seems to be on a crusade against Nepal-related article on English Wikipedia. He put {{notability}} tag on "Image Channel", a notable Nepali channel. When I removed the tag, he issued warning on my talkpage threatening block. He has also tried to harass User:Nepaliboy7. Can someone warn him? 202.63.240.6 (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably not - he rightly added the notability tag, which you then removed claiming that you were reverting vandalism - he reinserted it again, and you removed it again, so he rightly warned you not to remove maintenance templates without resolving the underlying problem. As for the allegation of harrassment, all I see is his nominating a number of related articles for deletion, and (correctly) informing the main contributors. I have left him a note (as you should have done) drawing his attention to this discussion, but I can't actually see that there's anything in his behaviour that even remotely merits a warning... _Gb^T/c 13:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and describing someone as a "jerk" is a bit of a no-no. _Gb^T/c 13:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Gb! I tagged Image Channel, having found an article that consisted of two lines of text, and was completely without sources. I searched for sources, and found nothing that appeared reliable. Indeed, everything that I found seemed to indicate that the channel was a very minor niche channel, that was only broadcast on satelite. As I hadn't reviewed all the sources, I tagged the article for notability. Twice that tag addition was reverted by the complainant here, complaining of vandalism. Twice it was returned (once by me, and once by another editor). If notability tagging unsourced one-line articles is vandalism, then I'm a bowl of petunias. If removing a notability tag from such an article isn't vandalism, then I'm Elvis!

I'm also not harrassing anybody, or on an anti-Nepal crusade. User:NepaliBoy7 appears to be on a mission to create articles about every two-bit beauty contest, and reality TV show (and their utterly non-notable contestants) in Nepal, and has been warned by a number of editors about his tenditious article creation. He seems determined to go on creating such articles. What would the complainant suggest other Wikipedians do. Does he believe that if somebody creates enough junk articles, we should let some stay, lest we be accused of harassment? Mayalld (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed User:Smiv's page included material that isn't exactly normal for a User Page. However, this is his only edit and I am unsure whether the page qualifies for an MfD. Can anyone assist? \ / (⁂) 02:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Policy is that users have considerable laxity over their own user pages; at present, all we can do is to assume good faith and that this editor is who he claims to be (although there is nothing to indicate a real-life identity), and if he wants to out himself, that is his affair. On the other hand, if the account is created as an attack, it is insufficently specific to be effective. I wouldn't worry unless disruption ensues. You may want to drop a {{ANI}}on his talk page, but I wouldn't expect much to follow. --Rodhullandemu 03:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I notice that this "new user" hasn't edited anything but his/her user page. I think this is just an attack page "mistakenly" created in "user" namespace instead of the main namespace (and I point out that if this was created in the main namespace, it would be deleted as CSD:G10 immediately), so I think that maybe the "G10" (attack page) CSD applies, anybody??? 131.111.223.43 (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You might be logged out accidentally. Most IP editors are not more familiar with CSD criteria than I am. This page could match somebody's nickname and could rank first in Google, and could be an attack. It serves no useful purpose, so I suggest deleting it to be safe, but will not do so unless there is a consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 04:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have blanked the page. Wikipedia is not a free webhost, userpages are suppose to be useful Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but I am genuinely a good-intentioned anon!!! (There are some, even if very rare.) All I wanted to say, that if the page with this content was created in the main namespace, then it would definitely be qualified for "attack page" (CSD G10). I also note that the new editor in question has not edited anything but his/her own user page. Well, there are many possible interpretations of this; I am most willing to assume good faith. Anyway -- none of my business -- sorry to bother you. 131.111.223.43 (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Mayalld seems to be on a crusade against Nepal-related article on English Wikipedia. He put {{notability}} tag on "Image Channel", a notable Nepali channel. When I removed the tag, he issued warning on my talkpage threatening block. He has also tried to harass User:Nepaliboy7. Can someone warn him? 202.63.240.6 (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably not - he rightly added the notability tag, which you then removed claiming that you were reverting vandalism - he reinserted it again, and you removed it again, so he rightly warned you not to remove maintenance templates without resolving the underlying problem. As for the allegation of harrassment, all I see is his nominating a number of related articles for deletion, and (correctly) informing the main contributors. I have left him a note (as you should have done) drawing his attention to this discussion, but I can't actually see that there's anything in his behaviour that even remotely merits a warning... _Gb^T/c 13:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and describing someone as a "jerk" is a bit of a no-no. _Gb^T/c 13:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Gb! I tagged Image Channel, having found an article that consisted of two lines of text, and was completely without sources. I searched for sources, and found nothing that appeared reliable. Indeed, everything that I found seemed to indicate that the channel was a very minor niche channel, that was only broadcast on satelite. As I hadn't reviewed all the sources, I tagged the article for notability. Twice that tag addition was reverted by the complainant here, complaining of vandalism. Twice it was returned (once by me, and once by another editor). If notability tagging unsourced one-line articles is vandalism, then I'm a bowl of petunias. If removing a notability tag from such an article isn't vandalism, then I'm Elvis!

I'm also not harrassing anybody, or on an anti-Nepal crusade. User:NepaliBoy7 appears to be on a mission to create articles about every two-bit beauty contest, and reality TV show (and their utterly non-notable contestants) in Nepal, and has been warned by a number of editors about his tenditious article creation. He seems determined to go on creating such articles. What would the complainant suggest other Wikipedians do. Does he believe that if somebody creates enough junk articles, we should let some stay, lest we be accused of harassment? Mayalld (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping this article can avoid semi-protection. If you look at the anon edits over the last hour they're mostly pretty good. Let's all keep an eye on it, and try not to protect it, at least for the next few hours while things are developing quickly. Thanks. Chick Bowen 16:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone unprotect it, vandalism is not excessive and it seems like a populer article atm.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

A popular article for his recent endorsement of Obama, yes. But the attention is mostly in the form of vandalism. Semi-protection seems like a good idea. Grsz^Review! 04:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please use WP:RFPP to request unprotection of articles in future. As for this case, I agree on the assessment of the protecting admin, vandalism is heavy on this article at the moment. Regards SoWhy 18:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Bringing this here from WP:WQA. User:It Is Me Here makes a convincing case here that Hemanshu is being totally unresponsive in the face of arguably counterproductive edits (and certainly non-consensus edits).

Hopefully this can be resolved without involving the Arbcom.. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think ArbCom is necessary just yet, nor that anything can be accomplished here right now. But if he continues with such edits and remains entirely unresponsive, a block may become necessary, and should he then proceed to unblock himself despite consensus to the contrary, an emergency desysop by ArbCom may be the way to go. Weird stuff. At any rate, I've notified him of this thread, as should always be done. Here's also a permlink to the WQA section. Everyme 00:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• I see. Please note that Hemanshu's (contributions) last edit to his talk page was in April 2006 and it was to delete some messages. The last time he replied to a post on his talk page was in 2005 (which does also show, incidentally, that he does know how to do it). It Is Me Here (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

He also never uses edit summaries, something I have mentioned to him on his talk page. I think we need to try for a few days to discuss this on his talk page and if he doesn't respond and continue, I agree that he should be blocked. Doug Weller (talk) 07:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I heard he also eats puppies. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

He's an Admin, we should expect certain standards of Admins. Doug Weller (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Note he's been editing for almost 5 years, things were different back then (not that that is an excuse). John Reaves 08:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Point of note: he is an administrator, yes, but he has not used his administrator tools for some years (with a single exception in February 2008: one, bog-standard anonymous vandal block). Whether that means he should be held to the same extent to the same standards of conduct as an active administrator is, of course, a parallel—but important—debate. – Anthøny (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone thought of emailing him their concerns? He does have email enabled. MBisanz ^talk 09:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, this is just like the CSCWEM mess. Everyone's like, "Well, let's give him a chance to respond first." "No, uh, we already did that." "Well... do it again." "Okay". (time passes) "CSCWEM is not responding to talk page messages." "Well, let's give him a chance to respond first." etcetra ;D

Anyway, yes, MBisanz is right, e-mail is the next step. If after a couple of weeks he doesn't respond to the e-mail and/or continues disruptive edits despite the e-mail, I agree next step would be a block. If he unblocks himself without responding, only then would be ArbCom. I only mentioned ArbCom in my initial comment because I don't imagine it will ever come to that point.

I guess I'll fire off the e-mail. I was sorta hoping someone who knew him would, but it doesn't look like anybody knows him. heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the full text of the e-mail I sent:

Hi Hemanshu. Please be aware of the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_User:Hemanshu_making_non-MOS_edits_and_refusing_to_answer_talk_page

I'm sorry if my initial report came across confrontationally, I was mentioning what I hoped did NOT happen and I guess it came across as if I was suggesting it SHOULD happen. heh, oh well... Anyway, there are legitimate concerns over your Wikifying of dates (appears to be contraindicated by MoS) and multiple attempts to contact you on your talk page have not been successful. If you could just weigh in with an explanation of what's up, that would be appreciated. Thanks!

---Jay Sweet

Hopefully he'll see that and we can get this all sorted out with no mess! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

According to SUL Tool he has accounts on other wikis, we might try posting to his talk pages there and emailing there (if he has a different email registered at enwiki and ennews for instance). Jaysweet, since you did the initial email, could you do these as well? MBisanz ^talk 15:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me. Since when did MOS become policy? If you disagree with his edits, fix them. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

In many situation, you would be correct. But adding links to dates is rarely useful and therefore has been largely abandoned, which means it's really not so much a matter of case-by-case editor discretion (although datelinks are sometimes useful) but of basic formatting. People just have to run around and clean up after him and the fact that he doesn't use edit summaries nor respond at all makes it a bit difficult to actually see the good intentions in his editing beyond simply assuming good faith as we all do. Everyme 21:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Although the "delete all date links" crowd has run roughshod over the opposition, it's not basic formatting, it's opinion. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Mindless overlinking and things like flagicon overkill are objectively bad. Some people just keep not getting it. Everyme 22:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Violating MoS is not a reason to block, of course. Making a non-consensus edit (which, presumably, would be a valid way to classify any non-MoS edit), having another editor call you out on it, and then continuing to make the same/similar non-consensus edits without responding on the talk page... that's not an insta-block, but if it persists, it is blockable. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears Hemanshu castes a decent internet presence. Jaysweet, I'm going to send you a list of alternate emails he uses that you might try him at. MBisanz ^talk 21:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, Jaysweet, it appears your email is disabled. Is there another way I can send you his email addresses? MBisanz ^talk 21:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is another fresh addition of date links, still with no talk page response or edit summary. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This is totally inappropriate behavior; he's acting against consensus on a mass scale and is unwilling to reply and explain himself. If he does this again, he should be blocked. Everyking (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

He made two edits to Odwalla, solely for the purpose of linking dates, just two hours ago. He is ignoring consensus and ignoring the concerns that have been raised. I don't think anything less than a block will get the message across at this point. Everyking (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Diff. It Is Me Here (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to try one more thing tonight or tomorrow to try and contact him. If not, then we may have to block. MBisanz ^talk 08:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If [24] doesn't do anything, well, its self-explanatory the next steps. MBisanz ^talk 21:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This edit [25] seems to indicate he clearly knows what he is doing when he edits. Odd. MBisanz ^talk 01:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I would call this blatant disregard for all of the attempts to communicate. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 02:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, I will begin filing the desysop paperwork. MBisanz ^talk 02:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Filed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_desysop_and_block_of_administrator_Hemanshu. MBisanz ^talk 02:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Since he's not using his admin rights, this is just a blocking situation, not a desysopping one. There is no need to file for arbitration. If it is agreed he should be blocked, just block. This specifically falls outside of what should be requested for arbitration. Your claim is that an admin can unblock themselves. If he does that only then does this become a desysopping situation. It doesn't become one pre-emptively. - Taxman ^Talk 02:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be better to block now, pending communication, and then if he still fails to communicate, the argument for desysopping would be stronger. The immediate problem is editorial, which a block would fix; the refusal to communicate, combined with low-level editing in defiance of consensus, suggests a good case for desysopping, but that case would be stronger if he was blocked and never asked for it to be lifted—and if he unblocked himself, then there'd be no question about it at all. Everyking (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The Arbcom's members are universally rejecting this RfA, as they should. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't see as this is a de-sysopping matter, since he's not abusing admin tools. If he's editing against consensus though, and he has been non-responsive, then a block would be in order. If I extend a lot of good faith, it might be possible that he's just using some odd device to connect, which is not clearly displaying the "you have a message" banner, and he may be no longer checking email at whichever address he has registered. So a brief 24-hour block might get his attention. Then if he responds with, "Oops, sorry, didn't see the messages, okay, I'll engage in discussion now", the block can be lifted. If not, then longer blocks can be issued as needed. If he uses his sysop access to override the block, then the arbs may need to get involved, but it's probably best if we just take things one step at a time. --Elonka 01:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, per FloNight's advice I opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hemanshu, it still needs a second certifier. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What is this IP doing: [26]? Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Reasonable editing? WilyD 12:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Huggling, by the looks of things, and doing it perfectly well. I didn't think you could use Huggle without an account though, which is the odd part. ~ mazca ^t|c 12:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• A good job? Seriously, all they have done is revert a bunch of vandalism. Isn't it generally a Good Thing ^TM for people to remove vandalism when they find it? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The seven edits I looked at were all reverts of vandalism (although one carelessly reverted back to more vandalism). Taken altogether, I think it's helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The edits are helpful, though how an IP is using Huggle is odd. Wizardman 13:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Behold the pros and cons of open source software . Awesome though. — CharlotteWebb 13:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, since Huggle is just an external browser with some fun extra stuff, couldn't it just be modified to work without the .css extension in ones account? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not hard to modify the source for Huggle (and AWB for that matter) to not check for logged in status or the existence of the huggle.css page but I always thought Huggle used rollback to revert the edits? Now I guess not. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 13:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The main point is that, while this use of huggle may be slightly sketchy, the IP is doing good work, so I see no impending doom. If he were using Huggle in some ultimately destructive way, that would be one thing, but really, where there is no harm to the encyclopedia, there is no foul... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no point in punishing this user for using Huggle in a useful way, but the security should really be upped. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 13:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I (cynically) suspect that most of the moral panic is in the order of "they shouldn't be doing this because we have no way to take away their rollback when they abuse it". Sure we do, just block the son of a bitch if they don't knock it off. Let's remember this thread next time somebody yells "OMG plz subtract their user-rights" every time there is a complaint about a logged-in user using huggle/twinkle/fickle/boggle/smuggle/wrinkle/flügel/scroogle/wriggle/burgle/shruggle/bugle/sniggle/fondle/juggle/gaggle/AWB/whatever abusively. — CharlotteWebb 13:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You mis-spelt Buggle SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Edits speak louder than. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it is odd seeing an IP REMOVING vandalism, rather that causing it. I applaud their efforts, we need a lot more users like this doing this kind of work. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's quite common to see a passing-by IP removing vandalism. Many of them do not know how to find the undo button, though, and remove only part of the sillyness. – Sadalmelik ☎ 13:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This is just someone who was using huggle, got logged out and didn't notice. It's happened to me once --Chris 13:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Does that still happen with the current versions of Huggle? I think rollback is now required for reverting -- it's a different link from undo/normal editing, and I'm not sure if there is a fallback mechanism anymore. Of course the IP could have been using an older version of Huggle. – Sadalmelik ☎ 13:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Only to remind, almost half the IP edits I see on my watchlist are helpful, often very much so. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that entirely though it's very easy to get into a "IP=vandal" mindset (I know I do sometimes). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Half is good. It's about 10% for mine. Looie496 (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have messed up a move - Rhinemaidens (Wagner) was supposed to be moved to Rhinemaidens and the two edit histories merged. I have somehow screwed this up - not enough sleep and/or practice. Could someone please fix my mess? Sorry and thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

PS See this and this too. Sorry again Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, I believe - check and see if that's what was intended. You needed to revert the "move" edit at the destination page to complete the merge process. CIreland (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much, that is what I wanted to do. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is viewable through the above link.

Jossi and MZMcBride are both separately admonished for their conduct in this matter—the Sarah Palin wheel war—and are warned that any future, similar actions are likely to lead to the suspension or revocation of their administrator privileges.

The community is strongly urged to continue ongoing discussions at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons regarding how the BLP policy and its enforcement can be further improved.

Additionally, all parties to this case are instructed to review carefully the principles and findings of fact which were also passed in this decision (click to read), and to adjust their conduct and future behaviour accordingly.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thst's good reading, particularly for newer admins. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

IAR now has rules. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 03:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

IAR always had a rule — that part about improving the encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Could people here please have a look at this category deletion discussion? I think such a big change needs wide input. I'll leave a note there saying that I lest a note here. If people here think it needs to be widely advertised, could they suggest places to mention it and what level of advertising of the discussion is acceptable? Carcharoth (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Carcharoth. I was thinking of dropping a note at the Wikiproject Biography as well, and on the BLP noticeboard, as two places with obviously interested parties. I haven't done this yet though... Fram (talk) 07:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So.. Saw VI has been confirmed; details are Saw V#Sequel. Problem is that Saw VI, the article, has been salted since last August for WP:CRYSTAL. Can it be unprotected and linked? We're eventually going to have to create an article on it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems odd to me that it would be salted as long as there hadn't been multiple attempts to recreate it. I see no such attempts. in the deletion log of the page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The reasons appear to be explained in the AFD. In any event, per HelloAnnyong's reasoning, I've unsalted it. Note that RFPP is thataway, though, for future reference. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. I think of RFPP for vandalism, but I guess this would have been something for them to do. I'll remember that for next time. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

We also had Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saw VII already. No sightings for Saw VIII so far, though :) – Sadalmelik ☎ 08:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Note - the current relevant policy on future film notability will preclude an independent article until filming is confirmed to have begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I just happened to check on the list of blocked User:MascotGuy socks and that list is showing a total of 990 blocked socks in a four-year period. There's no doubt we'll be hitting the magic 1000 mark in a week or two. There have been checkusers galore and yet this unsupervised child and his dynamic IP continue to pop up every so often and wreak havoc on the same basic list of articles. It's clear that the Foundation isn't interested in taking action, but it seems to me that simply blocking the dozen or so keywords and phrases he's placed on every sockpuppet name, this case can be solved or at least abated somewhat. There should also be a modification to this site's basic software which prevents logged-on users from creating new accounts. That's his MO. He creates one account which he uses to make several more. He's been quiet for a couple of days, but I fear it's only a matter of time before he sneaks online without his mommy's knowledge and start in again on his never-ending litany of cartoon subjects. If the Atomic Betty, Wilbur Hardee and Eloise: The Animated Series articles were on paper, he'd have worn out that paper a long time ago. I strongly believe that four years of this kid's antics are quite enough and something drastic needs to happen. I even tried to get him to agree to allowing me to tutor him, but in all this time, he has yet to place a single keystroke on a talk page. I'd welcome your comments. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And why was he originally blocked? --CyclePat (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And why should we "advertising this"? Have you ever heard of do not feed the trolls. Maybe this is a search for fame of some sort? And in the worst case, maybe it's not just the sock-puppet that is looking for fame but a little bit of the admins ourself that want to get notoriety. Let me say this once. NO! It's not a good idea. Simply put, from an outside point of view, without any involvement what so ever (I bet, I just got 5 paranoid admins to do a check-user on me!), this sounds like an example of bad Dispute Resolution or management on behalf of administrators; a lack of complacency to do what I formally use to call Associate Members Advocacy. --CyclePat (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And what could admins do other than RBI? MascotGuy has in the past used a vastly dynamic IPs, which means effective rangeblocks would also block a couple of cities as collateral damage. But to the topic in hand, does anybody know whether a checkuser has been done since IPBlock exempt become available? Other than that the only thing I could think of would be trying to convince his parents to get a static IP. – Sadalmelik ☎ 06:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this account isn't a matter of "fame" or even malice on the part of this individual. He was blocked primarily because of inaccurate and totally bogus information with a smattering of truth thrown in, not to mention a complete lack of interaction with other users. By no malice, I mean that one of his original sockpuppets early on in the game (mind you, this is four years ago) was named after his mother's e-mail account. Under my previous username, I actually made successful contact with this boy's mother via that e-mail address. She told me that he was autistic and she tried to limit his time spent online due to her rightful fear of predators. I was unable to make any further contact. What we have here is a young man in his late teens living in a fantasy world and, quite possibly, trying to help in his own strange way. When he was nicknamed "MascotGuy" by another user, this individual seems to have taken it as a compliment and uses he suffix "Guy" on quite a few socks. If not for my one-time contact, it would seem like we're dealing with a very determined troll when in fact we're dealing with a special needs kid with a dynamic IP and a skewed vision of what this site is about. In short, this is a special case IMO which needs special handling. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly disagree with blocking the keywords he uses in most of his account names - I severely doubt it would in any way stop him, and right now having a short list of likely names makes noticing his socks much, much easier. ~ mazca ^t|c 06:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with that suggestion: it's hard to imagine that he would see that his preferred username could not be registered and react by simply giving up and going away. Is it reasonable to hope that such an astonishingly persistent individual could be deterred by something so trivial? Furthermore, this would affect many other users, because you're talking about common words like "guy". I suspect there is no technical solution to this problem (beyond the "revert, block, ignore" cycle), but perhaps his mother could be contacted again and notified that her son is still regularly damaging Wikipedia after four years. Realistically, I can't see anything else that would work. Everyking (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: I've been informed that we are well past the one thousand mark. Not all of the blocked socks have been arichived or tagged as blocked. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I heard that his mother responded. I have an idea: "If Mascotguy is unable to civilly abide by Wikipedia's rules, his mother needs to be at his side when he edits Wikipedia. She should guide him and/or change his words whenever possible. If he acts uncivilly and/or violates policies he may be blocked." Perhaps Mascotguy and his mom could be an editor team working under one name, with his mother there to ensure that he follows policies. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This woman has not replied at all since the initial contact. Is he really on that dynamic a system that we could not try to work with the ISP or simply block the range so where he cannot access Wikipedia at all?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

While a dynamic IP is obviously a problem, surely if he's exclusively editing from home it will all be through a particular ISP? Perhaps working with that ISP to contact his parents could prove profitable, and if not a rangeblock (anon, account creation blocked) could be considered - if his edits do make up a substantial proportion of the traffic from that ISP, it could be necessary to require legitimate users from it to go through the account-creator system. But yeah, a sticky situation. ~ mazca ^t|c 09:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

We can block fragments from usernames using the title blacklist but I agree with the foregoing that this would be a nuclear option. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Call me cynical, but perhaps the new must-have accessory for Wikipedia trolls will be the mother who takes part in a brief email correspondence detailing the reasons (Asperger's, autism, whatever) for that editor's disruption. The editors, mothers, and emails in this post are fictitious and any resemblance to real editors, mothers, or emails is pure coinkydink. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, having dealt with MascotGuy a few times myself, I wouldn't go too far in believing that was his mother. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point, Gwen. Ditto Sheffield Steel. If we assume you're right, then what we do have is someone with some real mental issues who treats this as an occasional game. The last thing I want to do is put this site on some sort of slippery slope toward more creative vandalism than what we're currently facing. It's just that the problem has gone on for far too long and it hasn't been handled directly with the ISP. I've raised my voice to the foundation and nothing has been done of which I'm aware. Until it does, all we can do is tag and bag. Another thought: On the assumption he's treating this as a game as evidenced by some of the links to damage he's done to other sites (up to and including the claim that his mother beats him and he vandalizes this site as a result), perhaps it's time to remove the long-tern abuse and discussion pages relating to the guy. He's on a world stage and he knows it. I think it's time to start to bring down the curtain one way or another. Thanks for the feedback. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Has the ISP been contacted? Behavior like this probably violates their terms of services. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little late to the discussion but as the apparent minder of MG (or at least WP:LTA/MG), I thought I'd share my thoughts. One quick thing out of the way first: I filled a CheckUser through side channels a few weeks ago and the two IPs used by the last two batches of accounts have been blocked for three months.

I don't think adding all of his account variations to the account blacklist or HBC NameWatcherBot would be helpful due to the large possibility of false positives. The only name that might be reasonable to add would be the "'s Glowball" or "5000" variations since they're unusual. Adding in "Guy" would be a disaster.

I think that what people are not realizing here is that we're all discussing MG as rational people who are willing to discuss things. MG is neither. His unwillingness to communicate is what got him banned in the first place. So discussions about contacting his mother, reaching out to him to be a better editor, or any type of two-way communication with him is pointless. In the four years that he's been around, he's made next to zero attempts at communicating and that is not likely to change any time soon. If his mental illness is true, then that just adds to not being able to communicate with him.

Contacting his ISP is an interesting thought, but convincing the abuse department there that his seemingly benign edits are bad would be a challenge. Taken in isolation and without context, his edits are really not bad compared to the obvious uhhh... colorful vandals out there.

I'm hoping that perhaps the discussed WP:Abuse filter may be of help with him if it ever gets enabled.

Really, MG is fairly benign as far as vandals go. I think we're just stuck doing the RBI thing. He's fairly obvious to find, block, and cleanup after (if you can catch him within a day). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add the following iframe to my user page and to the article Ottawa.

<iframe src="http://free.timeanddate.com/clock/i18xuati/n188/fn2/fs16/ftb/tt0/tw1/tm1" frameborder="0" width="303" height="25"></iframe>

http://free.timeanddate.com/clock/i18xuati/n188/fn2/fs16/ftb/tt0/tw1/tm1

This page says that "CSO_iFrame is secure if the page is protected; so, only a wiki adminstrator with Sysop privileges can modify it." The proper extension for this MediaWiki code is now http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/CSO_iFrame_tag_and_extension. Thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Though there is a Mediawiki extension dealing with iframes, it is not enabled on Wikipedia and is unlikely to be enabled do to the potential abuse risks, sorry. Dragons flight (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay! Thank you. I understand. (In this case it's perhaps to bad... but in general I can understand, even from a non-technical point of view where someone might add links to porn or other nasty pop-up stuff.) --CyclePat (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Would somebody with admin rights please help me clean up the older versions for the following images?

w:Image:Beatles Blackbird.jpg
w:Image:Martha My Dear.jpg
w:Image:Let It Be.jpg

What I want is to delete older versions of the images pointed out above , leaving only the current one standing. Is this possible? Administrators have an option visible for each image in the history of the uploads, that allows them to delete older versions in the history record, that appears at the end of the page, containing the current image. Thank You.Fefogomez (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The process is slightly different (there isn't a way to selectively delete, just selectively restore), but it can be done. I've got no problem doing it for you, but I'd like to know why first. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Image revisions can be selectively deleted. BJ^Talk 22:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Great! There are two main reasons: 1- The process of arriving to the most accurate scorelet left a trail of slightly different versions, that may rest credibility to the final 'product'. 2- It hurts the presentation of the images' page by lending itself to confusion and being a factor of distraction to the careful viewer.

Many thanks in advance! Fefogomez (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If image revisions can be selectively deleted, I don't know how to do it. Anyways, I'm  Done with the request. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, life. Regards: Fefogomez (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I started up a sockpuppet case on the 9th of October but there has been no movement so far. Is there simply an extended backlog of sockpuppet cases? Mrshaba (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem could be that you've made it more work than it ought to be by incorrectly formatting the user names and diffs, so that they can't be clicked on. You might consider fixing your report. Looie496 (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks. Will try to make it easier. Mrshaba (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Looie496, Wknight94 and Icewedge for identifying/fixing my incorrectly formatted report. Hopefully the issue can now get some attention. Mrshaba (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There are two other problems with this:

1. You did not transclude it to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
2. There are other cases filed before yours still not finished. Longer harder cases take longer. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK... I transcluded. Thank you. I understand this could talk a while so I'll be patient from here out. Mrshaba (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked about this elsewhere, but someone spammed it and it never got answered. A DS remake of a generally unknown game was released and revealed to have glitches and extra content that had been promised removed. This upset many of the fans, including myself. Shortly after joining Wikipedia, I read on the official forum for the company that released the game that someone was messing around with the page for this game. Checking it out, I saw that information about the glitches and the fan-reaction to them and the removed content was repeatedly being removed by two editors. The information was cited, and as a player and frequenter of the official forum, I knew it to be true as well. I re-added the information, editing it a bit, and even went as far as to add and extra reference-containing specific information of the glitches, removed content, and the fan reaction. However, those two editors removed it repeatedly, claiming they thought that the fan opinion was not notable. I disagree, as almost every game/movie/tv show article on here has a section for "Reception" and even seperate sections for "Fan-reaction". They also remove the specific information about the glitches. While I could understand if the fan-opinion was biased, offensive, or unreferenced, it is none of these things. That's why I wanted to get some other opinions. Is fan-opinion acceptable/notable in articles? I don't mean my opinion or anyone's specific opinion, but a general statement, such as "fans of the original game are displeased with this remake, due to...". Thoughts? TheScrappedPrincess (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the article in question? Stifle (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be Rhapsody: A Musical Adventure. Erigu (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither of your sources are what we'd generally think of as reliable - they're effectively blog posts. Can you source these statements to something reliable (for instance, the website of a print magazine)? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 11:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

RPGFan is not a good source? They are a very reliable RPG website and even emailed the creators of the game personally. That is how they were ablt to post that article. It's unlikely you'll find places other than that and forums/blogs expressing the fan's reactions or glitches. Even magazine articles are arguably just blogs in the end. It's really impossible to deny any of the stuff printed in the RPGFan article. The only way to get things confirmed is to talk directly to the creators, which RPGFan has done. And the only way to find glitches is to play the game, like that blogger has done. How many companies officially announce the glitches they left in the game? It just doesn't happen. And the fan-reaction is mentioned in that article, not to mention visible anywhere they are talking about the game. TheScrappedPrincess (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I kinda agree with the latest sockpuppet of Fragments of Jade, here... For some relatively obscure games, I don't think you can expect much information in print magazines and such. Besides, RPGFan has been around for a while (ten years?).

Other than that, like I explained in my comments, I really don't think such specific details about the glitches have their place in the article. Same thing about the fan reaction. Advertised content is missing and some glitches were found? Of course fans are disappointed/angry/upset. That's a bit like talking about some celebrity's death and adding the sentence "some were saddened". Erigu (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that every single reference on that page is a "blog" or a site like RPGFan. Are you telling me I should delete everything they're references for as a result? The article is going to be very empty if that is done. A lot of articles would be if such references were considered not good enough. I mentioned this whole problem in my post over in the New Users section. This site is against original research, but in the end, that's mostly what it's made up of. Blogs, reviews, sites...almost always made up of original research. You think any company is going to officially release a statement giving away their movie's entire plot? No. A person has to watch so they can add it here. But then, because there's not reference, it could just be deleted if someone wanted to start trouble. And that's really all that's going on here. It's such a ridiculous thing to start a war over, but for some reason, the edit just won't be left alone. And I believe Erigu's uncalled for and false insult just proved my point. The edit is only being undone to pick a fight. TheScrappedPrincess (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You're missing my point here, TSP/FoJ: the burden of proof lies upon the person adding the material. If you can add the material with a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia, then people really can't argue with the inclusion. If all you've got is blog posts, the chances are it will be challenged and removed until sourced reliably. I hear what you are saying about the other sources, but just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that's not a reason to downgrade Wikipedia standards when the information you're providing isn't sourced reliably. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 12:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Your little insult was not appreciated, and it was false. Please to not make such accusations just because you are being disagreed with. And there's nothing wrong with that proof. RPGFan is a respected site, they communicate with and relay information from numerous game developers, and their information comes from NISA itself. Hundreds of blogs and forum posts all back up the glitches, NISA has officially stated in their email to RPGFan and on their forums that the content was removed, and the fan-reaction is in that same RPGFan article and visible everywhere you look. The whole Rhapsody article will need to be deleted if you try and say those sources aren't reliable. RPGDreamer is a site just like RPGFan, but nowhere near as good. It's doubtful anything in the article can be backed up with an "acceptable resource". Picking fights just for the sake of fighting is lame. TheScrappedPrincess (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Then stop. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 12:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I recognize this user as being indistinguishably similar to User:Fragments of Jade and her army of sockpuppets. While we're always interested in making our articles about video games better, this particular editor was blocked for editing disruptively, for edit-warring, refusing to collaborate, and making personal attacks, so I've taken the liberty of blocking her again. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_McKenty_and_the_Spades, Because I don't know your rules, I don't know, must it first to discuss if will create same article again or what.--Musamies (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted per G4 and salted. Nancy ^talk 14:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Same for the other two. - auburnpilot talk 14:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

.... and to answer your question Musamies, no it is not necessary to have a discussion before creating the article so long as the new article addresses the concerns raised in the deletion discussion, otherwise, if the recreation is substantially the same as the deleted copy then it qualifies for speedy deletion. Nancy ^talk 14:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And to spread some more news, there is now a speedy deletion criterion A9 according to which other albums of the deleted band that do not assert any importance such as Restless Soul (album) can be deleted speedily delted as well.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Skylar Deleon (AfD discussion)
• Jennifer Deleon (AfD discussion)

This is advance notice to avoid a wheel war. On BLP1E grounds, I'm about to take on these two and speedily merge and refactor them into an article about the crime at Murder of Thomas and Jackie Hawks. I'm going to leave the first AFD discussion open, to discuss the refactored article, and close the second. Please note that these two have hit the headlines today, hence the sudden surge of interest. I expect that the resultant redirects will need protection for a while, as no doubt someone will edit war over them. Your coöperation would be appreciated. Uncle G (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks fair to me. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Per discussion here and here, some of the editors believed that consensus existed to change the film infobox. A protected edit request was made, but there has been some concern that the admin has misread the consensus. Any fresh eyes willing to look this all over would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that things have changed a lot since 2006, people have retired, harassers have gotten more diligent, etc, I'm planning to run a roll call of Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks to ask the admins listed if they would re-add themselves if they want to remain on the list. Any objections? MBisanz ^talk 16:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• If you're doing it by email, mine is flaky at the moment; so I'll say here that my "Aye" to this category is still the same. Black Kite 18:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

  Actually I was going to leave a message on user talk pages, any opinions on email v. user talk? MBisanz ^talk 18:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Usertalk would probably be better, actually - you'd get a better idea of who's active. Black Kite 18:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You could just remove any admin who is on the inactive admins list, and leave them a note telling them so. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• This is a good idea. I'd advise sending the messages to the user_talk page of the current category members, rather than via email; it's ultimately your choice, however. Anthøny (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm still willing. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the general purpose of this list is to provide a list of admins who can be contacted privately about touchy matters, I think it would be better to make this contact via email. That way, you can not only see who's active, but who actually checks their email often enough to be useful for this purpose. If they get removed from the list for failing to respond, then a talk page note would be in order, I think. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have just now reaffirmed my support and willingness to assist. Best wishes --VS ^talk 20:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

In regards to a certain IP user, see: User_talk:168.169.215.149. there has been vandalism going on every few months for years now. This user has apparently been warned repeatedly and even blocked once, but I just reverted vandalism from them on the Twitches Too article. Just thought I'd bring this to someone's attention. Maybe another, permanent block is in order? TheScrappedPrincess (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think permablocking an IP is allowed. Reyk _YO! 01:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 01:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it's not. Additionally, it's quite likely that the IP has changed over the past months, and it's not the same person. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Just one block and we go all the way to indef for an IP? No. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Why would you say that? And I've heard of quite a few people having their IPs blocked permanently, so how can it not be allowed? And for reference, most of these people never got any other blocks. TheScrappedPrincess (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? The only time IP's are indef blocked is when we're absolutely-positively sure that when we indef the IP, we don't block someone else who picks up the IP when they try to edit. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:IP. IPs can change hands, and when they're indef'd they generally get unblocked again because it's usually excessive and affects good editors. This IP is a school and so is multiple users, it hasn't been warned for six months, so it's likely no user has ever seen any warnings, and the IP made less than 50 edits in total in the last two years, which is fairly low. There's still a chance that someday someone will use it constructively. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

User:TheScrappedPrincess has been blocked indefinitely, as a sockpuppet of User:Fragments of Jade SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen school IPs indef blocked before (such as one old Lee County Public Schools IP), so we apparently will indef block even a shared IP as a last resort, but that is a last resort in the event that nothing else solves the problem. This IP doesn't even appear to be eligible for WP:ABUSE, which will be considered before an indef block. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Not so long ago, I discovered that the public library in Port Charlotte, Florida was using IP address 76.7.95.112, and based on the low amount of edits from that IP, I assumed that the IP was exclusively registered to the library. However, someone else says that the IP belongs to the entire Charlotte County Government, and (s)he is freaking out about rape victums now being able to be tracked down by their stalkers. I'm not sure, but I think that the person kicking up all the fuss might in fact one of these victums or something; who else would think of such a crazy idea? The reason I'm bringing this here is because I don't know how to handle this issue, and I'm not sure if we need admin, or even foundation attention here. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess I don't really see the issue here. All a shared-IP template does is post the name of the assigned user of an IP address, and that information is available to anyone on the Internet via WHOIS. Am I missing something? --MCB (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, kind of. This IP shows up as Embarq DSL in WHOIS. But personally, I don't see the issue either. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the instructions on the page where you upload images are not very user friendly. I've been working with administrator Stifle, who has been very helpful, but I'm sure that I'm not the only person having trouble. Information about uploading images should not be spread out over four or five pages. For example, I'm told that I should not save the image as a jpg, but that info is not on the save image page. I'm told that the image must be low resolution, but not what low resolution. Is 50 dpi acceptable? How about 25 dpi? I'm told by ww2censor that a prose rationale is no longer acceptable, that I must use a template, but that template is on yet another page. Also, once I cut and paste the template, it is not clear where the template goes on the image page. I've had more problems, but you get the idea. The image in question is Image:Reflection in a Pool by Walter Anderson.jpg but the problems are general, and would apply to almost any uploaded image. Uploaded images improve the appearance of Wikipedia. The process should be streamlined. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's sort-of semi-intentional that non-free image uploads are made difficult: their use is a copyright infringement, relying on a bit of case law to let us use, infrequently, some images. Before we made this harder (I date from before we really even had rules about this much at all) it was a free-for-all, with high-resolution images of copyright works appearing on user pages and multiple times across different articles. Slowly but surely we've tightened up on this, in the face of very agressive opposition from many in the community. The complexity you've found lies in many ways on how we've made these changes slowly and carefully. You might like to poke around at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use to see if anyone agrees about streamlining the process. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The use of non-free images is most decidely not "copyright enfringement" - if it were, it wouldn't be legal. And it is legal in the U.S. because of the concept of fair use, which is not some kind of loophole or a "bit of case law", but a longstanding concept with many years of case law and precedent behind it, stemming, ultimately, from the Supreme Court. You may not like it, possibly you are in favor of Wikipedia taking a hard line and not allowing any fair-use images, (if so, neither consensus nor policy is with you) but please don't misprepresent the facts.

Also, if you are saying that the poor design of the upload area in regard to non-free images is intentional in order to confuse people into not uploading them, that is an exceedingly silly concept. If people want to upload, people are going to upload, no matter how badly they're jerkled around when they try to do so, so all that is being done is guaranteeing that people will essentially ignore all that endless boilerplate and upload images that may be non-compliant with policy, making more work for everyone when they have to be deleted or re-edited to come into compliance. What's needed is not unnecessary complexity, but a clear and straight forward non-confrontational statement of policy and helpful shortcuts to guarantee compliance. Unfortunately, because a significant percentage of image workers seem to harbor a deep animosity toward the concept of fair use, as well as holding the idea that only they can interpret image policy because only they understand it correctly, that seems unlikely to happen anytime soon. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 05:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of new image uploads are incorrect, per Wikipedia policy. Regardless of what individuals think about US copyright law, Wikipedia policy is stricter than that. If you want to call for an expansion of fair-use usage on Wikipedia, that's a separate point, but making it easier to upload images has always resulted in more and more problematic images that are later deleted. Calling everyone who disagrees with you and would rather have a "free-licensed" encyclopedia having "deep animosity" towards fair use isn't very productive. I'd rather encourage the use of free licenses and encouraging fair use tends to distract from that. Also, I think that we require autoconfirmation before allowing uploads. There is really no good reason for a new user to be making uploads for their first edits. So, is there a place Rick where you are discussing the image upload process as a whole? It might be better to centralize. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi I wanted to write an article about jOG but every time I do it gets deleted. could someone help me?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaranikane (talk • contribs) 15:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll take this to the editor's talk page. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And the message about the editor being a seller shows up right after I leave the guy a message on how to deal with this situation. I'm not sure what to say about that. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to remark that Slash2k01 (talk · contribs) has also tried adding an article on this product. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Kindly note that I was checking our company name in Wikipedia and I noticed that it come under KIPCO as one of its subsidies. What I would kindly request Wikipedia administrators to do is to activate the link to our website such as what they did with United Real Estate Company which is in the same level of United Industries Company And if possible, we can please add the following summary about UIC as it is industrial arm of KIPCO United Industries Company (UIC) is one of the companies of Kuwait Projects Company (KIPCO) Group and is considered as the Group’s investment arm in the industrial sector.

Established in 1979, United Industries Company is a closed shareholding company based in the State of Kuwait. It was listed on Kuwait Stock Exchange (KSE) in 1997.

UIC invests in the downstream industries sector in Kuwait and the GCC states. The Company’s authorized and paid up capital is KD 24,773,437.500 (USD 93,484,669). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.43.23.1 (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It would have been easier if you had mentioned the web site, but anyway I looked it up and made the link. Looie496 (talk) 06:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/75.171.190.1 User appears today and appears to only contribute to AfD's with a pretty consistent WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Not sure that's particularly damaging, but it certainly seems odd. Definitely seems like an experienced Wikipedian incognito. Positng here in case anyone sees it as worth intervening. Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I left a note for him/her to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Certainly seems like they're trying to make a point, but I'm not sure that anything could be or needs done. Grsz^Review! 03:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, inserting the same idiotic line into numerous AfDs is surely disruption if it continues. Looie496 (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Duff Beer, where a similar IP makes a similar comment. I am not certain it's an experienced editor. fish&karate 14:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Brendatucker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I received an email from the above user late yesterday. Apparently "[she] will be trying to send this [email] to others who have worked on assessing theosophy and Blavatsky's writings to see if [she] can find anyone willing to help me in this crusade." The email goes on to self-promote

http://spam.theosophy.homestead.com

• theosophy.homestead.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I haven't edited theosophy articles in any significant way. Anyone else getting these? I'd swing the banhammer based on the bit I quoted above alone. MER-C 10:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef by Viridae. MER-C 12:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the introduction of Barack Obama the early years, child was on the site, the lanuage is outrages and it will be reportes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trenide (talk • contribs) 15:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if there was any vandalism/rude text in the header, though this site is subject to a disclaimer that such material may be there and children read Wikipedia at their parents' risk. Out of interest, who are you planning to report it to? ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 15:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Curious. That makes at least two SPAs created apparently just to point out IP vandalism on Barack Obama or Talk:Barack Obama. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC).

You know what's more curious? We have a new editor who's first and ONLY edit is to WP:AN... Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism that Trenide is complaining about was self-reverted, too... curiouser and curiouser. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 16:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, very strange... First edit on WP:ANI... I smell sockpuppets! --Mixwell!^Talk 17:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Not to breakup the conspiracies, but I know the first time I saw vandalism on this site, my first thought was to report it to administrators. It's not always sinister, and admins on most other sites admit to holding a position of authority. - auburnpilot talk 17:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Well "officially" admins have no authority here, but whether that's actually the case is another matter ;-) -- How do you turn this on (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What can I say, Clue Bot down, no huggler's online, and those reporting to AIV continue to vandalize. Please can I get some help --Flewis^(talk) 09:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Empty, as of 12 minutes later. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 09:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick question for an admin's attention, if somebody could point me in the right direction I would appreciate it. Over at List of web application frameworks, the list has contained at various times quite a few examples which did not have their own Wikipedia page, and instead only served as pointer links to the websites for those applications (or redlinks). I brought this up on the talk page here [34], and received a grand total of one response. What's the proper thing to do here? Should we purge the list, or leave the redlinks and website links up? Thanks in advance for the attention. Dayewalker (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of external links in the body of articles, especially in the body of lists. My instinct is: see if a source out there lists these frameworks and make a list with plain text for nn entries (there should be a list in an RS out there, this is a common "Oh crap we need some copy" type of topic). WP:EL and WP:NOTDIR both frown on leaving this as a list of external links, for what it is worth. Protonk (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• I've trimmed a lot of those entries per WP:EL. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• It is normal and quite acceptable to prune those which do not have articles, perWP:LINKFARM. We can link to an appropriate DMOZ category for those who wish to promote their new freshmeat project. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Darren Meade (bodybuilder) (AfD discussion)
• Samanthadecanta (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Special:Undelete/Image:N630806210 6404.jpg (and diff)
• User talk:Samanthadecanta#Writing good neutral biographies
• diff
• diff
• diff

Thank you. Uncle G (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading that correctly, the user should be blocked immediately under WP:NLT, with an explanation of WP:NLT thrown in. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Note Thread already on ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threats_from_User_talk:Samanthadecanta. Pedro :  Chat  11:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, try this new tool and if you will have a time, please clean it.--Sevela.p (talk) 12:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone block User:Merkinsmum and revert their edits Gnevin (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

For what reason? What have they done to warrant a block? Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

[[35]] Whoa, looks like the account was compromised in the recent set of edits. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's just everyone's favorite page move vandal, who sharked up an old username of someone who got renamed. MER-C 13:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

RMHED (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has recently blanked a number of pages on well-known holocaust deniers and other living people on WP:BLP grounds,[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] claiming that they are poorly sourced. This follows WP:PROD-ing a number of unsourced BLPs, most of which have been reverted. Some believe that the editor is going too far.[47]

The editor claims to operate on a theory that all unsourced material in a BLP is inherently contentious[48]. However, that seems plainly at odds with BLP. If that that the case BLP would be quite brief - it would simply say "delete everything about a living person that is uncited" and we all go home. In reality BLP includes in its preamble (but does not define) as "contentious" material that is "positive, negative, or merely questionable". Much of what the editor is neither negative nor positive, and is not reasonably questionable either because it is well sourced, is obvious or readily verifiable, or is well-accepted or uncontroversial. Opposing a claim on procedural grounds having to do with citation links does not make the claim itself questionable. Others would disagree about policy, and clearly support RMHED's interpretation that everything unsourced is fair game[49].

Although sourcing is a debatable point bigger than a single AN/I thread, the wholesale blanking of pages is potentially disruptive so I propose that we discuss the matter sooner rather than later. The problem is really the edits, not the theory behind them. I'm bringing it here as a stopgap in hopes that we ask RMHED to put some thought into the matter rather than playing the human BLP-bot. Many or of the claims he is blanking are sourced, but not in typical style. There are articles that claims inline that so-and-so published book X in which he said Y, or that A claims B about C, than person N is in rock band O that released album P, or that Q "hit the headlines" over incident R. Those are all in fact sourced claims, but simply not in approved Wikipedia footnote format. A quick google search would easily find the actual citation links for these claims in most cases. Further, much of what is in fact unsourced is uncontentious. If we don't address this, there's a risk of losing a significant chunk of holocaust-related material for now, and whatever section of our encyclopedia RMHED wants to pacman-chomp next. If editors oppose this we may get into edit wars over BLP versus claims of blanking/vandalism. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• At a quick glance his removals look perfectly proper. Indeed good stuff. Any suggestion that someone is linked with holocaust denial needs cast-iron sourcing and if such is not there the claim and any implication of it needs immediately removed. Anyone wanting to put it back needs to properly source it. Give the man a barnstar.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • A barnstar for this?[50] Please don't encourage it. BLP is meant to improve the encyclopedia, not destroy it. But again, most of the material deleted was of the form "X said Y in book Z".Wikidemon (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, a barnstar for that. If you want to replace it, find some good secondary sourcing. That is exactly what BLP is for.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I have to agree with Scott, especially on the Carlo Mattogno article. I don't think we should be condoning articles where the entire content is a bunch of descriptions about the person (especially such negative ones) based on the fact that another wiki wrote them a while ago. We should be having sources of our own. WP:BLP seems clear to me: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable - should be removed.... "-- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Ridiculous and offensive. Carlo Mattongo is obviously a significant holocaust denier. Please spend five seconds on google finding the sourcing that is in the blanked article. The point of BLP is to protect Wikipedia from legal liability and avoid undue harm to living individuals, not to facilitate holocaust denial (which is a much greater harm, incidentally). Wikidemon (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
          • First, why is he "obviously" a significant holocaust denier? There are 80 people in Category:Holocaust deniers right now. Are all of the living ones obviously deniers as well? While I don't agree with the hit-and-run blanking, I did the same thing to John Gudenus here which had a source that no longer existed (and probably wasn't on point). If you can find sources, provide them into the articles (as I did). The fact that you feel that these articles are special and those facts don't require sources is an issue. BLP should be applied universally, if it is going to applied at all. It's not like he's blanking David Irving -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
          • (ec)"Obvious" to you is not good enough. The point of BLP is to prevent harm by prohibiting poorly sourced critical material on any living individual. You want negative stuff - the onus is on YOU to source it properly, not on the BLP enforcer. The minute we caveat such protections for living people with "except people we decide beforehand are not worth it" we open a dangerous door. There are no untermensch with BLP - no exceptions because we decide they are vile people who don't get rights. We protect one, we protect all. That's the essence of it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
          • And if you're talking about legal liability, wrongly accusing someone of holocaust denial is grounds for a pretty strong libel case: your source has to be absolutely bulletproof if you're going to do so. If it's so obvious, go out and find a good, reliable source, and then add it to the article. BLP always applies - it doesn't matter who someone is. Ale_Jrb^talk 11:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Please don't get silly on the BLP kool-aid. I'm not stupid and no onus is on me. No, my argument is not to advocate that "don't deny the holocaust" is more important than BLP. If you read my post it is about the misuse of BLP for "hit-and-run" blanking, as Ricky81682 puts it. The editor I mentioned may be setting out on that course. Eleven articles today on the holocuast. Perhaps a hundred tomorrow on some other subject, perhaps baseball or automotive design? Better to deal with this before it becomes a blow-up. It goes to the "five seconds on google" comment. The only contentious claim in the article is the summary/lead statement that Carlo Mattongo is a holocaust denier. That's where the editor's WP:POINT is strongest but even there one can solidly meet the challenge. To claim the rest of the article is a BLP violation that has to be deleted to the point where it reads simply "Carlo Mattongo is an Italian" is ludicrous - why not delete "Italian" as an unsourced cultural slight, and "is" as metaphysically uncertain? Back to the lead, it's normally perfectly fine to summarize a person's main claim to fame without a source because the lead is the summary of the article, not independent material. The article, which is sourced, establishes clearly that Mattongo's main claim to fame is that he is a holocaust denier. How else can one interpret an author whose main literary output is a series of books, and articles in holocaust revisionist journals, saying Auschwitz is a myth, nobody was gassed, the alleged "eyewitnesses" are liars, etc. But yes, an especially strong claim in the lead ought to be sourced even if it's clearly established in the article. If the article's inline attributions aren't enough, a few moments of googling instantly reveals a breathtaking array of holocaust denial in Mattongo's own words, on holocaust denial websites, and on websites devoted to combatting holocaust denial. Blanking these articles without bothering to spend a few minutes verifying them is pretty close to vandalism. 90-95% of the material that was blanked is sourced or simply not controversial - that he published a given book? That he lives near rome? That he knows Latin and Hebrew? I didn't write that in the first place. If I did I would have sourced them properly. But as an editor and reader of Wikipedia, it is not my job to single-handedly repair all the damage by chasing after every half-cocked WP:POINT someone is making by mindlessly deleting content. If someone wants to go on a rampage in a china shop, it's fair to bring up the commotion on a notice board rather than running ahead of the vandal clearing the shelves of dishes. Blanking entire articles is an extreme interpretation of BLP, and something that ought to be taken up at an administrative level before it blows up into a serious problem.Wikidemon (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
              • Wikidemon, you obviously don't understand the BLP policy. BLP demands proper sourcing for claims - sourcing that all the articles he blanked lacked (and he didn't actually blank them). It is not good enough to say "the sources are there if you google". What you call "a bull in a china shop" is exactly what we want people to do. If you see unsourced or poorly sourced critical material, then remove it. All of it, and immediately. The onus is on those who want it replaced to do the googling, not the remover. Calling people doing what we ask them to do "almost vandals" is wrong, unhelpful, and verging on a personal attack. No WP:POINT has been made here, since wikipedia was not disrupted, but improved by the enforcement of one of our more important policies. That's the non-disruptive point that you are failing to get.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
                • I understand BLP policy just fine. In the past I contributed to making that policy. You seem to share the editor's interpretation of BLP, which is fine. Everyone has a right to their opinion. I brought the issue here for discussion. Back to the subject, the material is sourced in the article. That's the issue. 90-95% of what is removed is not unsourced and/or not controversial. And regarding the other 5-10% BLP is not about deleting all unsourced material, it is about deleting "contentious" unsourced material. The only place where you may have a point is the single claim, that the author is a holocaust denier - something best fixed by a five second google search, not disrupting an article. As for the rest, that author X published book Y is not contentious. Stubbifying an article to say "'''Carlo Mattogno''' (born in 1951 in [[Orvieto]], [[Italy]]) is an Italian {{DEFAULTSORT:Mattogno, Carlo}}" is pointy blanking. What about that are you not getting? We had the same fight a year ago over WP:NFCC and WP:TRIVIA. Running around the encyclopedia blanking things because you think you are doing the work of the Foundation is a big mistake and turns into huge Wikidrama - constant AN/I threads, de-sysops, arbitration cases, WR fodder. Best to keep cool and edit rationally. Wikidemon (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
                  • So, source the material and replace it, if it is that easy. It only leads to "constant AN/I threads" because people start them. So, don't.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
                  • (edit conflict) That seems to contradict the lede of BLP; "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately ...". As in, it says "removed immediately", not "removed after doing a Google search to ascertain if it true or not". ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 11:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
                    • Please direct the "source material" comment to the one who is blanking articles. My commenting on these articles does not mean I own them. Again, that's the same issue with NFCC and TRIVIA. I don't have to find sources for fifty thousand images or two hundred pop culture articles to point out that people are going about it the wrong way. Regarding the BLP preamble, the "should be removed immediately" is a bit of Jimbo's trademark hyperbole and not a realistic editing suggestion. But that's not the point. Again, most of the blanked material was sourced and not contentious.Wikidemon (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
                      • I don't know about "most", but for Günter Deckert, which I've just expanded from sources, most of the material blanked in this edit was most certainly contentious (it relating to the subject's participation in the NPD) and unsourced (the article at the time citing no sources whatsoever). It still is unsourced. I've not been able to find any English language sources to support that content at all. (Any editors who are capable of reading German well are invited to flesh out the article with details of the subject's political career — provided that they cite good sources from the get-go.) Based upon what sources I've found upon actually going and looking for them, as a removal of unsourced controversial content under the BLP, it was quite proper. Uncle G (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
                        • what do English language sources have to do with it? We do not require sources in English for BLP or anything else. If I were to remove all the material in BLPs cited by sources in languages I did not read, there would be little content left for some geographic areas. DGG (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
                          • Please read the part in parentheses that immediately followed that, again. I said nothing about requiring that sources be in English, and indeed invited those who were capable of reading German well, and who thus could distinguish good sources, to do so, and use them to expand the article. As a matter of fact, I even cited one German language source in the article. I simply didn't trust my ability to translate it enough to base BLP content on it. So it's in Further Reading.

                            However, I translated it well enough to know that it, too, does not document the subject's political career. My point stands: The controversial content that was removed was unsourced and still is unsourced. And until someone finds a good, reliable, independent German language source for it, it will remain unsourced. The removal was quite proper. Uncle G (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If I can make a suggestion[edit]

The point is not to undermine BLP or pit it against anything else, merely to note what may be harm to the encyclopedia from its overzealous application. When deleting seeming BLP violations it is always best to be civil, precise, and helpful. One can pick any of the eleven cases in point but Carlo Mattogno has been the most discussed here. It would have been far better to replace Italian "holocaust denier" with Italian "author" or "writer about the holocaust" or something neutral, with an edit summary of "per BLP, a claim like this should be sourced." And it would have been better not to delete uncontroversial claims like that the author published a book, studied Latin, or lives near Rome. Beyond that, BLP permits deletion but doing the bare minimum of what policy permits does not make good editing. It is far better to improve than break weak material. Nearly everything deleted from the articles has a source, or is sourceable. Low effort article policing is fine on a case by case basis, but when it becomes a big campaign across many articles, it can be a big problem. A single editor on a policy enforcement roll can in ten minutes create a day's clean-up work for more careful editors, and that work often doesn't get done for weeks or months. Article cleanup is done with a broom and a mop, not a fire hose.Wikidemon (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Various points of varying length:

• Carlo Mattogno would have been a valid WP:CSD#G10 tagging.
• "Sources can be found" and arguments of this nature are over-simplistic, and ignore the responsibility this places on the editor doing the BLP clean up.
• Simply sourcing the contentious statements in a biography is utterly inadequate and completely misses the point - I have summarily deleted a number of well-sourced BLPs in which I had no reason to doubt the veracity of the statements made. Verifiability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition.
• The editor editing outside his/her area of expertise may legitimately feel very uncomfortable putting his/her name to any edit to a contentious BLP when they do not feel qualified to judge the neutrality of the article, regardless of what they can source. Yet, when the alternative of not editing the article would be clearly unacceptable, deletion or sub-stubbing are the only reasonable options.

CIreland (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

G10?? This is an encyclopedia. Editors who want to help should probably concentrate their efforts where they know what they are doing. Not knowing what you are doing is fine on an article-by-article basis, but not when hacking away entire families of articles on important subjects. Wikidemon (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Every editor is asked to help the project by removing unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from BLPs. You don't have to understand the field, or be willing to contribute to the article. If you see material that's negative and the sourcing looks wobbly, remove it. Someone who knows something about it can replace it with sourcing later. However it is always better that we exclude such material until and unless someone is willing to sort it. The subjects of wikipedia's biographies are living people - and wikipedia can have real life damaging consequences where we get it wrong. Excluding all poorly sourced allegations is really the least we can do.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree with what ahs been said so far in this thread, BLP is a bright-line urgency focused policy. It requires immediate removal and places the bar for re-insertion on finding sources. It is not a "lets leave it in while we debate it" situation, it is a "remove it until we are sure it can be included" situation. MBisanz ^talk 15:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. BLP like everything else is subject to some degree of reasonable judgment, and if carried to the extremity of the letter becomes ridiculous. Not everything about a person is controversial. Using the excuse of BLP to remove noncontroversial material, or to blank or delete whole articles where lesser measures suffice, is abusing the policy. You do have to understand the field a little in most cases to know what material is controversial. Even in BLP, it is more helpful to source than to delete. The ease in finding adequate sources for the material under discussion illustrates the harmfulness of these blankings. Not every BLP case is an emergency--we have a noticeboard for the purpose of discussing them and asking for sources. The response should be proportionate to the possible harmfulness. BLP if over-interpreted will be discredited. The actions here were, in my opinion, a pretty remarkable over-interpretation. DGG (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

How on earth is it harmful to remove something for a bit when it can be replaced with a source as soon as anyone is ready to do it? Who is harmed if we've got a bit less info on a neo-nazi for a bit? "Harm" is a really easy word to bandy about, but ultimately the "harm" of some unsourced and potentially unreliable information missing for a bit (and still in the edit history) is no harm at all, compared to some untruth remaining because we relaxed our guard. Yes, source when you can, yes discuss, but in the meantime if the information is likely to be damaging if untrue (and associating people with far-right organisations and holocaust denial will be) then take it out. If it is true and sourcable then "eventually" it will be restored or replaced. Little, or no, real harm is caused by that, plenty potentially by the opposite.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) English language sources have a good deal to do with it. Wikipedia has no fact-checking mechanism. If someone posts something it is published globally. Our only fact-checking mechanism is that someone says "hm, I'm not sure about that", so they click on the source that's referenced at the end of the statement and say "oh, it's fine - that's a good source and it clearly supports the claim" or "nope, not in the source, or not a good source, take it out". Now, with BLPs and negative claims we need brilliant sourcing, so that any bad stuff has a hope of identified. Foreign language sources can be fine - but are not going to be adequate to support strongly negative BLP claims, simply because there's a lesser chance of bad stuff being spotted - also if there are no english language sources claiming that Joe is a paedophile, then we really need to ask ourself whether the claim is really noteworthy at all. If we allow people to insert "Joe was convicted of paedophilia" and reference some Chinese source, then any hope of quality control just left the building.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• But wouldn't that also be true for print sources? You can't just check those, either, especially if you're British and want to check an American print source (or vice versa). --Conti|✉ 00:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately yes. Any source that is not online, or otherwise readily available, ultimately leaves us having to trust the editor who says "This books states he's a pedophile". The best conditions are where we can cite a printed source and also an online one that states "this is what this book says". Think of it this way, if you had a wikibio, would you want me to be able to alleged that you'd murdered your mother and put a citation to some obscure book, and your only chance of it being removed was if someone a) got suspicious b) checked the book at some well-stocked university library?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Several hoax articles have come up at AFD where the creators have tried to be clever and cited books. The experience of AFD is that it actually makes it a lot easier to check. False citations work heavily against the hoaxer, the malicious editor, and the vandal. Wikipedia editors are far from being incapable of checking books. Uncle G (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely. We should not succumb to "FUTON bias", many editors are at universities with extensive libraries. I recall the case of Tuatafa Hori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) here, where the hoaxer cited a book reference that was rapidly proven to be bogus. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• • I think Scott is totally wrong here. The English Wikipedia fortunately has editors who can handle essentially every language in which sources are likely to exist--there are at least a hundred active editors, for example, who can read German; any of them can be consulted. we can further assume the deWP to have taken some care in its judgements, though we are not bound by them. I would require pretty strong evidence that a German source they accept is not acceptable here. We are not the encyclopedia of the online world only. Choosing an example of "pedophile" is a version of Godwin's fallacy. DGG (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

RMHED making a point? That's never happened. There's a difference between questioning the reliability of a source or questioning the accuracy of an article, and blanking the page. If they've published a book about their positions, it isn't a BLP violation to state those positions. If they didn't want those positions to be known, they probably wouldn't have published the book. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

right--to take almost the most drastic of possible actions is what makes these really questionable. DGG (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If someone removes unsourced material from any article on the basis that it is unsourced the easiest thing to do is find a source and add it back in, if a source can't be found then it's questionable whether the material should be included in the first place. WP:BLP and WP:V make it pretty clear that if it would take a ten second Google search to find a source, do that search don't just put the material back in on the basis that such a search would be possible. The burden of evidence falls on those wishing to include material that has been challenged - as the material has been in this case. Guest9999 (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If any article on a holocaust denier is challenged on the grounds that "this article uses only German-language sources", feel free to drop me a line on my Talk page and I will be happy to check out what the source says and report on it. This offer goes for on-line sources as well as for print sources. The city I live in is home to the Deutsche Bibliothek, which keeps a copy of every book that is printed in German, as well as periodicals.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I keep finding petitions linked in articles. Sites like petitions.pm.gov.uk (see Special:LinkSearch/petitions.pm.gov.uk) and gopetition (Special:LinkSearch/*.gopetition.co.uk). In every case I would say the the link exists for one of two purposes: attracting signatures, or original research, as in "an online petition gained 50,000 signatures", which is inappropriate unless cited from an independent source which contextualises it and maybe tells you that this was only because it was spammed on Wikipedia.

Here's a pretty standard example: [51] - "On May 31st 2008, a petition was created asking the producers, Kevin Wallace Limited, to release the show on DVD for those who wanted to enjoy the show again or for those who could not afford to see it.<ref>Petition: http://www.gopetition.co.uk/online/19670.html</ref> It is yet to be confirmed from the Producers whether or not the petition will pass through." Not a surprise that it was "yet to be confirmed" since the text was added on May 31 2008, the same day the petition was started.

I think that petition sites should be blacklisted due to systematic abuse. I know that each petition is added by a different user or group of users, and I know that the petitions may be significant in that they may gain media coverage, but the way to cover petitions both before and after the event is through the filter of independent media coverage. I really am uncomfortable with the idea of linking direct to petitions in this way. What do others think? Guy (Help!) 22:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Makes good sense to me. (Leaves to set up a web petition in support of this idea.) alanyst ^/talk/ 22:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds sensible, if a petition becomes notable - an independent source will report on it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Guy. There have been some notable petitions online, but even when reporting them we would link to sources talking about the petition in question first and the petition itself at the end, if at all. But in a general article, all petitions are non-notable events until they have significant third-party sources. And the link to the sources should suffice. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 23:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Petitions are often associated with POV pushing and soapboxing, and lead to obnoxious talkpage exchanges. See Talk:Venlafaxine for a prime example - lengthy explanations against and handwringing in support of a link to a petition (just hit CTRL-F and navigate thusly - it permeates 100k+ of conversation). I particularly advocate blacklisting petitiononline.com as well as the above sites. In general, online petitions fail WP:EL without independent sourcing. Skinwalker (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Oh, and while we're on the subject, how many of the several thousand links to freewebs.com are legitimate, I wonder? [52] Guy (Help!) 23:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Or indeed all the links to wikia.com [53]. RMHED (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to filter by article space. Pity that doesn't seem to be an option. Carcharoth (talk) 04:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

← Agree with blacklisting the petition sites. Freewebs and Wikia may be harder. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

XLinkBot would be appropriate in that case. MER-C 09:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

XLinkBot won't revert refs, though, and I think freewebs is mostly used as such. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Whack it on the User:XLinkBot/OverrideList and it will. There's also the issue of links on legitimate Wikipedian's user pages. MER-C 11:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Gopetition isn't linked from any mainspace page. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Not any more it isn't, no. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It was linked from a number of mainstream pages, I examined the links and removed them. Not a single one was required for the article or notable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know freewebs. I've just clicked on a link [54] and I really don't like it because I got a message at the top of the page saying I'd been selected as the winner of an Audi and to click on selected-winner.co.uk -- I don't think we allow links like that, do we? Doug Weller (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with blacklisting petition sites. Durova^Charge! 16:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with any combination of blacklisting and documenting in WP:RS and/or WP:PSTS that they are in general not desirable sources. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In re: the the discussion about User:Youknowbest, said user has continued disruptive editing (See user's last edit to Aaron). Normally I'd just keep reverting & warning the user until I escalate to report to admin for vandalism, but since we've started a discussion here, I guess the right thing to do is bring it up here again. The specific edits involved now are regarding the user's continual replacement of Hebrew Bible with Sefer Torah, which is factually incorrect. Not sure where to go from here. Shirulashem (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

For those who aren't Jewish, the Hebrew Bible refers to the content, to the words, whereas the Sefer Torah refers to the actual physical scroll. I think that a block is necessary; he's rude, abusive, a POV-warrior. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought he was already blocked, via his IP account posting -yesterday-. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You guys should ease up already. If you want a decent conversation send me a message. But please, you are setting a bad example to the public and the use of this valuable toolYouknowbest (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to do a checkuser without knowing what the alternate accounts might be? The level of trolling here is much too skillful for this to be as new a user as the history indicates. Looie496 (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

We should start with a block on the account in question now, though, to start! But I agree, a CU might be insightful. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

< He's just gone way over 3RR on Aaron, too. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

When there's a bull in a china shop, after a while you don't really care what the bull's motivation is; you just want him out of the china shop. After watching out of the corner of my eye (via the constant updates to the User:Youknowbest ANI threads on my watchlist) at this disruption for the last day, I think Youknowbest is disrupting multiple articles and discussion threads, making very questionable edits and rants mixed in with some inarguably good edits.

If he is a troll, we'll know soon enough. Assuming he is not a troll, but a well-intentioned newcomer jumping into everything feet first, I think it's time for me (a 100% uninvolved admin) to say:

• No, really, slow down. Discuss, calmly, before repeating more of the edits that are getting everyone excited. Please try to be more coherent; a lot of what you say doesn't appear to make sense. Avoid posts to ANI that appear to be trolling. If you continue to edit the way you've been editing up until now, a block may be in order, and will very likely be issued immediately if this continues.

Then, see what happens, and act accordingly. I won't be around this afternoon to act on it, but I really think this has been going on long enough. --barneca (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

He's been blocked 24hrs by FisherQueen for the edit-war. Let's say that if he comes back and still starts making trouble (we can "mentor" him while he's blocked) then he goes for longer - 3 days upwards? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I declined the unblock before even coming here, mainly because the request was more of a rant than anything else. I did take the opportunity to provide a few guidelines links for him to read, so hopefully that'll help him figure out what's going on. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone seen his edits to his talk page recently? I'm tempted to block him from editing it, what do others think? Doug Weller (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen them. His talk-page edits are turning into hate-mongering. I'd let the Administrators decide on wheither to block or not. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

His talk page is an absolute hoot. The gay anti-Semitic editors of Wikipedia - you know, all of us - are out to get him. But don't worry, he has The Truth^TM on his side, care of his own translation of the Torah. So that's nice then. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk page protected for remainder of block (~40 hours, give or take). Enough is enough, let's move on. Tan | 39 20:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

His block was extended to a week. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at User:Yahel Guhan. Is there racism on Wikipedia? If yes, why so much? 66.56.26.75 (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(Although this is not the place for such a discussion) A bit - but most gets wiped quickly. This is an internationally viewed space that can be edited by anyone; racists find other areas of mass communication rather unreceptive to their desire to broadcast their small minded hate, so they hijack this one (for a while). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This user is evidently a single purpose account whose goal seems to be to get The Living Word Fellowship deleted despite much evidence tha the organization is notable. On the 15th, they accidentally blanked an older afd and over-wrote it with a new reasoning. I reverted this and, in good faith, moved the discussion to a proper "(2nd nomination)" page, which was closed as a speedy keep. Just today, this user nominated the page for a third time, which I also non-admin closed as a speedy keep. I would ask that others please help me with this user, who seems to be fairly insistent and WP:POINTy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you a hand and keep an eye on any nominations. I'm coming onto IRC now, you can alert me there if there are any major problems occurring! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The speedy tag was removed. Could an admin evaluate this and delete the article if it meets the A7 criteria. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 20:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I am just posting this here to inform you that User:Alison, an oversighter, checkuser and administrator, has posted dangerous personal information about a banned user off-wiki. Alison, who also has many posts on the Wikipedia Review, has recently (and yes, it has been confirmed to be her) signed up for Encyclopedia Dramatica and is contributing there regularly with personal attacks against a certain banned user. Whilst I am in no way condoning the behavior of JarlaxleArtemis, which is highly deplorable and has included disgusting threats, the way that Alison has insulted this user by taunting him with his personal information shows a complete disregard for the exceptional level of community trust placed on people who handle sensitive data relating to oversight and checkuser functions. Here are some of the things she has said (and I am omitting where she has given the user's real name and personal info in edit summaries there, and bowlderizing when necessary):

• "F**k off, G***p, you pestilant little child"
• "G***p, will you quit this s**t. We all know who you are, and "[name redacted]" has to be one of the faggiest names I've ever encountered"
• "[first name] FREAKIN' [surname]'S 1" PIECE OF TWITCHING MANHOOD - lawl!"

Her contribs on ED can be found at [address redacted - some indication of malware (see below)]

Because of this, I would like to instigate a discussion over whether her checkuser and oversight tools could be removed as she appears to have abused the trust that the community has put in her, and if she's willing to insult people with their private, non-public personal information on another website, there is no reason to believe she is trustworthy with the data she has the priviledge of access to in her position as a checkuser and more particularly an oversighter.--African Violin (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this about the anon who's been threatening Alison? GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that this is African Violin's fifth contribution. D.M.N. (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but it's African Violin's last contribution. Blocked as trolling-only account. Nothing to see here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Seems that Grawp would never leave Wikipedia in peace for a moment... BUT, as Porky Pig would say: "A-ba-lee, a-ba-lee, gnat's all folks!". XD ...Dave1185 (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This is about Grawp. Nothing to be concerned about. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I was just reaching for a — African Violin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. tag..._Gb^T/c 17:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you have a checkuser report from ED proving that this is Alison, right? ;o) Resolute 17:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

He just posted an unblock request--since this is more than likely Grawp/Jarlaxle, I locked his talk page down and redirected it to his userpage. Blueboy96 18:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Grawp-a-like! Nice try .... :) That may be my account, or it may not. Nobody seems to know - not even the great Grawp. Still, if there has been any publication of privacy or checkuser-related information over there, someone will surely provide diffs .... right? - Alison ^❤ 18:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Bahahahaha nice one grawp, thanks for the lulz.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This failed so hard even 4chan doesn't want it. :D -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 03:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What a waste of a fine username... bibliomaniac15 03:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Two words. Guys, it's one of the weirdest applications of BADSITES that I've ever seen. In an astounding moment of bass-ackwardness, a vandal comes to ANI to complain about an admin saying mean things on Encyclopedia Dramatica. In Soviet Russia, vandals complain about you! - Alison ^❤ 04:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, I have personally redacted large quantities of personally identifying information on JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp from enwiki. Grawp has never requested information be oversighted on enwiki, though he could if he wanted. Note also, that this deletion review from last week was set to overturn until I requested it stay deleted in deference to Grawp's own privacy. The person closing the DRV (Spartaz) commented, "Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis – Since this was nominated on the basis that the page may be useful to coordinate crosswiki responses to Grawp and given that Alison has confirmed that this is not necessary and cited the privacy policy I'm going to call this as no consensus to undelete". Rather than complaining, it might be nice to just say "thanks" every so often, y'know? - Alison ^❤ 05:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Next thing you know they'll be knocking at your home door asking to have a little chat, or threatening to go to the "authorities". Or worse, maybe they'll even start calling your boss at work asking to get you fired or threatening you with bodily injury. No matter the many assumptions, which I think are way overboard, (just like this whoever put in this silly request), I believe there's a fine line that must be respected in between different organizations, and eventually real life. I trust it won't go too far in real life, but if they do start to harass you, I know a friend in Russia that works for the Hells Angels, they can go have a chat with them too and even put a bomb on their car if they start really harassing you. --CyclePat (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've had all of the things you mentioned above as a result of my work on Wikipedia (well, they didn't find my home, but showed up at my workplace). I'm still here and since the last guy was sent back to jail, I got prepared. So I'm not worried, trust me - Alison ^❤ 07:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] -By the way, I strongly urge people not to visit that link posted by the grawp/troll/sock who posted this report. I think it leads to malware (so said my Norton). Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Bahaha, thats the cherry on top. The link is harmless however i find it amusing how ED is classified as malware   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No, really, something tried to shove a download down my throat. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

NCL, the same thing happened to me. There was definitely something there, but my AV knocked it down. Dayewalker (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That isn't how web browsers work... unless you are using Internet Explorer. BJ^Talk 10:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, please delete the damn link, it grabbed my computer and yes I have IE and serious security. I didn't understand what was going on until it was too late, stupid me. My husband is still having to work my computer today since he still hasn't gottem all the malware gone. He found 5 copies of it yesterday and Norton is still screaming that there is more to be taken care of. So please oversight it or whatever to remove it from the site so others, like me that don't know much about computers don't get bit. This is a nasty malware! I am using my husband's laptop for the first time and it's weird to use. Thanks in advance for removing it, and knock yourselves out with the jokes that I did this, I deserve it for my stupidity plus right about now I could use some laughs. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Firefox. BJ^Talk 11:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's everyone-make-fun-of-the-clueless time. I followed a link from Wikipedia Review to ED not long ago and ended up having to restore my system to an earlier version to get rid of the resulting junk. Ha, ha, what a sap! Deor (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Firefox with noscript and ABP will be way more efficient than IE and Norton to protect you from malwares. AVs are needed when a malware is in but are bad at prevention. Use a non-administrator or temporary session if you want more security. I've been on ED a couple of times and had no problem. Though I surely don't advise to use ED in IE, or registering there if you don't want your IP exposed.   Cenarium ^Talk 13:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I just went to the ED link originally posted with IE 7.0 and had no problems except for some annoying ads and an attempt to open a PDF. A check of the running processes and a scan with Ad-aware afterwards confirmed that nothing was wrong. I did run Windows Update just the other day. (There's another possibility I've thought of but I won't speculate.) --NE2 20:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Two things. For me, IE6 survived trawling about on ED for a while. And the big question: Isn't conduct on ED supposed to be improper? Now maybe if the OP had accused her of not being witty enough - or offensive enough - maybe there'd be a case to answer. Just sayin'. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If you care to read Wikipedia Review (which is certainly not malwared), apparently there is something from an adserver that the ED people are attempting to fix: [55]. So don't go there with IE, at least non-updated. --NE2 03:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

My personal favourite was:

• You ARE a middle-aged Irish b*tch.

--Enric Naval (talk) 05:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Protected pages - the text box area now shows up in light RED when edited.

This should help to avoid the occasional problem when an administrator edits such a page and for whatever reason, doesn't realize or notice it's been protected (despite the header). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Having been the victim of having a page protected when you weren't looking, I think this is an excellent idea. Shell ^babelfish 01:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It happened to me once to, I simply didn't notice it was protected. 68.10.122.209 (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. No. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 07:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth I believe the above IP is in fact an admin not logged in. If you're reading this, I recommend one of these gadgets. — CharlotteWebb 17:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't work for me: I just tried editing the main page, and didn't see anything out of the ordinary. A couple of possibilities: I'm using Opera and I'm using the Classic skin. --Carnildo (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Might be the skin - I've tested it in Opera (windows) and it seems to work there as well. Did this change only happen to the css for monobook? Shell ^babelfish 07:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you bypass your local cache? The change was made to Common.css, so it should affect all skins, though that page is cached for 30 days unless bypassed explicitly. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I just tried to edit the main page also -- a quick flash of red which I could have missed, then I was down the page in the Edit field. Maybe that's what happened to Carnildo? Doug Weller (talk) 08:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This should be fixed so it works for pages which are transcluded in cascade-protected pages - the current signpost, for example.

That didn't last long. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 14:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested to be discussed by a user to confirm there is consensus - see MediaWiki_talk:Common.css#Red tinting of edit box on fully protected pages. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus reached and tint re-established. However, to quote Carcharoth: "If any admins accidentally edit a protected page and claim they didn't see the tinting, it is worth remembering that they may not have cleared their cache." So AGF for about 30 days, please. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 07:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What if they started editing before it was protected? How hard would it be to tweak the software so that protecting a page automatically gives everyone an edit conflict? — CharlotteWebb 17:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Random question[edit]

I changed MediaWiki:Cascadeprotectedwarning to the new format, but I don't know how (or what) to change in Common.css to make the edit window show up with that awesome red background thingy when you try editing a cascade-protected page. Can someone who does know change it? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to mention it at the beginning, it is neither my intention to criticise someone personally nor to criticise a particular person. However I feel there is a need to bring up this matter here. I have been watching (and helping out at) Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback for a while now. To put it bluntly: Regretfully there are made, sorry, quite bad decisions far too frequently. I have seen that a lot of users who had reverted good faith edits were granted rollback. Honestly I think this can just happen because the review of users before granting rollback is not always sufficient/too fluffy/inaccurately. Again, it is neither my intention to criticise someone personally nor to criticise a particular person. I just would like to ask for taking a bit more time when reviewing rollback requests and doing an appropriate, sufficient and reasonable review. Needless to say, such a review can simply not be done within 5 minutes. Thanks in advance. —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: Often there is even no time to comment on a request, as the request is “reviewed/decided” that fast. —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I think the real thing is that each and every admin have their own set of requirements when granting rollback, and some are very low. I also know a few admins who just go around handing out rollback to users who they think would do a good job with it even when they do file a request. So, while you can ask admins to take more time reviewing, it does not mean they are going to make a different decision simply because they took longer. As for the archive time, I agree the bot needs to slow down a bit and leave a request up for at least 2 hours for administrative review. Tiptoety ^talk 16:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the requests ought to stay open for a certain set amount of time? Best, --Cameron* 16:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c x2)This is somewhat intentional. Rollback is supposed to be an "easy come, easy go" tool. Unlike adminship, this really is no big deal. If people spend half an hour digging through users' contribution histories looking for any possible hint of improper reversions or we mandate a minimum review level, it starts to become a big deal. Obviously if they have problems recently with bad reverting or edit warring, it wouldn't be a good idea to grant it, but there's no reason to go back more than a month or so in their contribs looking for a reason to deny them. What would you suggest be a reasonable review? Mr.Z-man 16:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the whole idea behind rollback is that if abused, even unintentionally it just simply gets removed with a note left on the users talk and a option for them to reapply later. Tiptoety ^talk 16:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

@Mr.Z-man: Of course it is no big deal. And there is absolutely no need to spend half an hour for a review. Ten minutes are normally more than sufficient. To answer your question: Normally I review the reverts within the last 50 contributions at least, preferably the reverts within the last 100 contributions (if I'm not quite sure after having reviewed the first 50 contributions). Just this morning there was a user who had reverted one clear good faith edit within the last 50 contributions and two good faith edits in the last 100 contributions. I would have not done the request, but I planned to ask for another admin opinon before declining it. However I was not even able to comment on this request, as it was already done when I tried to save my comment. —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole request process is by design very open, and it allows for any administrator to simply undo the others actions (this should not bee seen as a invitation to wheel war though). If you come across a request that has been marked {{done}}, and you feel it should not have, comment directly below the closing administrator and strike {{done}} to ensure the bot does not archive. Gain some consensus and remove rollback if that is the correct course of action. Tiptoety ^talk 16:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, generally I would not undo another administrator's action/decision if there is no really serious reason... —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You must have thought there was some serious to this, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up here. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said several times above: It was not my intention to criticise a particular person/a particular case. I just think there is a need to discuss about the general situation. This is the reason why I brought it up here. —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As likely the reason he brought this here, I'll just say this - rollback really is not a big deal - You commented recently after I gave a user rollback and said you disagreed with it. Well, maybe you're making it into too much of a big deal. The wiki will not shut down if a user uses rollback and reverts a couple of edits that should not have been reverted. We simply remove the tool, and it is as simple as giving it to them. Why not let people try it...you never know. Of course there are some users who definitely shouldn't be trusted - those who have demonstrated a history of abuse - but the particular user I'm thinking of hasn't, to my knowledge. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Administrative rollback[edit]

I've seen administrators frequently abuse rollback for good faith edits. Why is it a problem if a non-admin rollbacker starts using it for non-vandalism? Rollback was created to revert edits quickly, not necessarily just for vandalism. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not the point here, sorry. Besides: It's not very civil/polite to revert a good faith edit using rollback. WP:BITE. :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

BITE is for newcomers, not regulars. I honestly don't see the issue. The only reason rollback should be taken away is if it's used for edit warring, or if it's clearly being used maliciously (e.g. if this edit was reverted on purpose, I'd count that as malicious). -- How do you turn this on (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

While we rarely call out admins for abuse of rollback (probably an internal failing more than condoning their behavior), Arbcom has ruled that administrative abuse of rollback is wrong Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dbachmann#Rollback MBisanz ^talk 16:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh, just block people who revert good edits for no discernable reason, whether they're using rollback or not. — CharlotteWebb 16:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is different people have different standards for granting it, and what counts as misuse. I, for example, have rolled back good faith edits. I then went straight to the user in question's talk page explaining why I did. Does that count as misuse? How many reverts should a user have before getting rollback? And it is all rather trivial because scripts could just be used instead of rollback. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with using rollback on good-faith edits is the edit-summary. While a (basically) meaningless summary is fine for vandalism, if you're undoing (reverting) something that someone thought was useful, it's better if it says why in the edit summary: that's sort of what it's there for. Your example isn't really misuse, but it still might have been better if you'd used an informative edit summary and explained in detail. Of course, the problem isn't you - it's people who use rollback, and then don't explain why they've done it, so the person who's contributions have been removed is left with Revert edits by you to last version by me as the explanation, which isn't great. Ale_Jrb^talk 16:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the edit summary is what matters at all. Whether it says "Undid edits by John Doe (revision 235463634)" or "Reverted good-faith edits by Jane Doe using popups" or whatever, it's all the same really. The point is, rollback is quick and easy. If you're ready to explain your revert, there's no problem. The problem isn't when edits are rolled back, it's the lack of explanation to the user in question afterwards. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Really, you shouldn't be using pop-ups to revert edits anyway, but at least they say that the revert was a good-faith edit. Most people, when seeing the rollback summary, assume vandalism was reverted. They shouldn't have to check if that was the case. Undo is different, because you edit the edit-summary (or at least, ideally you should) providing a reason, just as you would if you reverted manually by opening and saving an old version. And explanations (especially on a user talk page rather than an article talk page) don't show up, or really help, when viewing a page history or a user contributions. There, Reverting good faith edit: addition of factually inaccurate information. is much, much better than Reverted edits by someone to someone-else. Personally, I think people should use both. But an edit summary is better than nothing, which is what usually happens when people rollback good-faith edits using rollback (admin or no). Ale_Jrb^talk 17:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm struggling to think of somewhat common situations where reverting good faith edits with rollback would be okay. The only things I can think of would be instances where we would warn users with templates like {{uw-test1}} for possibly-good-faith but unconstructive edits, bot screw-ups, and cases where you have permission from the user/community to do so. Rollback is not a 100% substitute for "undo," if the reason for the revert is non-obvious or would not be considered a minor edit, it generally shouldn't be done with rollback. Leaving a note on the user's talk page is okay, but what about other users who see that revert in the page history later? Without knowing the details for this specific case it may not matter, but reasons for making an edit should generally go in the edit summary. People shouldn't generallly have to dig through talk archives or ask users why an edit was done, if the reason could be condensed into 255 characters (though the article talk page with a summary of "see talk" is still better than a user talk page). Mr.Z-man 17:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Undo does the same thing as rollback, except it's more adaptable (as in, you can write an edit summary, or remove old edits in the history, or one at a time). I'm not sure why we need to make a distinction; simply put, one is faster and less adaptable. If people saw the revert in the history, and checked the diff, they'd see exactly why it was reverted. If the revert was a bad one, the revert would get reverted.

Also, some new users have no idea how to look at diffs, or history pages. Reverting them, and explaining in the edit summary isn't particularly helpful to them is it? Communication should take place on talk pages, not edit summaries. That's what starts an edit war. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If its obvious why it was reverted, then it doesn't need an edit summary, I think I said that. What's the point of asking for an edit summary if we didn't want people to summarize their edit? Certainly if you don't think a user who should know the reason for the edit won't see the summary for whatever reason you should notify them, but that's no reason to make it more inconvenient for everyone else to figure out why you made an edit. Mr.Z-man 18:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here. There's absolutely nothing wrong with reverting good-faith edits, so long as a meaningful justification for the revert is given. There is, arguably, something wrong with using rollback to revert good-faith edits, but that's a different story. Thus, having reverted good-faith edits should not automatically count against getting rollback. Looie496 (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Looie; I wanted to say that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it depends on the sort of good-faith edit as well; there are plenty of good faith edits that are fine to rollback. Test edits in particular come to mind but there are others. The main thing is that if an edit summary is needed, rollback isn't an adequate or acceptable tool. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Are self-reverts OK? (things like "oh crap I just messed up this template and need to fix it asap") ffm 23:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ok and encouraged. Protonk (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to bring this redirect to attention: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sparkling_Wiggles&redirect=no. The phrase "Sparkling Wiggles" derives from a video of a little girl who is told by her parents to say "sparkling wiggles", but sounds like "fucking (n-word); If you unaware of the video, Google will show you. The redirect redirects to, well... African American. I find this highly offensive to African Americans, I think an administrator needs to delete this redirect and salt it. I would have speedied it, but wasn't sure under what criteria to fit it under and it might not be clear to whoever is reviewing it, so I brought it here instead. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 06:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the redirect as vandalism. Would other administrators please take a look at The T (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? The user's good-faith contributions along with the creation of this bad redirect seem to show that the account was briefly compromised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ice Cold Beer (talk • contribs) 24 October 2008

First of all, sorry if this belongs at AIV, but it's not specific to a single vandal. Anyway, today's Achewood strip ([56]) is prompting a series of unhelpful edits to What Happened and its talk page. Although the vandalism hasn't been too severe thus far, it is likely to continue for a while at least. Deleting Image:What_happened.png, which, except when unhelpfully placed in the What Happened article, is an orphaned non-free image (uploaded just for vandalism) and I assume a non-controversial deletion (but not a speedy candidate), would certainly be helpful. Just a heads up, since I assume that article doesn't see a whole lot of traffic under normal circumstances. -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There's only been a couple of incidents today as far as I can tell, but if it continues I think s-protecting the article for a few days would certainly be justified. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

I semiprotected for 24 hours due to continued vandalism. How often does Achewood come out? I suspect once another strip is released, the vandalism will die down. Note: this is my first s-protect, so I apologise in advance if I've screwed anything up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

There should be a new one in one to three days, and yes, I agree that its release will put an end to this for the most part. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I raised an issue a few days ago concerning the activities of an editor on this particular article - see here: [57]. The basic argument was that this editor was adding unsourced, POV, fan material to this and related articles - the editor had been previously blocked for 24 hours for this activity and, in this instance, a 72-hour block was imposed. Checking the article today, I see that an anonymous IP editor had restored the POV/fan material. I've reverted the article back, but would it be possible to see if there's any instance of sockpuppetry at work, or is it just a huge coincidence that the restored article was phrased identically. Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked 203.123.34.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for obvious block evasion and disruption. Some more diffs (e.g which IP) and links next time make it still easier to figure out for whoever is new to the scene.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

... to determine consensus and close and archive the discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Arthur_Rubin with a clear and neutral statement of consensus. I think the productive part of the discussion is over. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks a "Wikiquette alerts" page is pure silliness? Furthering its silliness, how does one even pronounce "Wikiquette"? --MZMcBride (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been pronouncing it like "WIKI-kett." I'm not sure if there is an official pronunciation. Mr.Z-man 16:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

IPA: [ɑbˈsɛk.wi.əs ˈtoʊ.di̯.iŋ]. — CharlotteWebb 16:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, the IPA. Problem: many people have difficulty reading pronunciation guides, because they are written in such a way as to be understandable by people from only one country or region. Solution: a truly global pronunciation guide, written in such a way as to be understandable by no one. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Jesus F. Christ, my head hurts. Access the reliability of your sources and somebody will report you for racism. Make a political joke and somebody will report you for "BLP". Yet people still argue that we need more noticeboards? May as well lynch everybody who's ever disagreed with anybody and be done with it. P.S. there was no productive part, I looked. — CharlotteWebb 16:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for lynching? I must be psychic! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Not an admin, but fits the rest of the description. Anyway, closed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks! SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• The WQA noticeboard is far older than PAIN/CSN/BLPN/COIN/RSN/ORN (as I remember, it was part of Esperanza) but perhaps it should go the way of the first two. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Administrators. Kindly restore deleted article on Kumar Vishwas. This person is notable and available on Hindi wikipedia. Please refer to link http://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/कुमार_विश्वास

Aminami (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted as a result of this discussion. If you want to overturn the deletion you should go here. Hut 8.5 14:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Recent changes, there are a lot of cases of page blanking and vandalism by IP addresses, which are not being caught by the bots which usually catch such things. Are they not running? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha... I hope you don't mind I renamed your thread. Confusion and generally hilarity may have ensued... Moving on, it seems ClueBot is not operational at this time- last edit was October 19. According to its page it is undergoing a code rewrite. :\ ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 23:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The code rewrite's been going on for a while. The problem is that the server it runs on is down. Xclamation point 00:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Now's the chance to Huggle for a while without conflicting with ClueBot! :-) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I see what you mean.  :) OK, it's probably incumbent on people to keep a closer eye on the Recent changes page, then. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're doing our best- you know how many edits happen every minute? We have literally hundreds of users who do nothing but fight vandalism... It's extremely difficult to check every edit, especially using the RC page. If you're interested in helping out, check WP:HUGGLE. : ) ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 00:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Not that it's really important, but ClueBot is actually back online according to Special:Contributions/ClueBot. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 01:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I pinged cobi about it, and he restarted it. Apparently it had crashed. Xclamation point 03:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

/me high fives X!. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 06:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a mostly-inactive admin but came upon some questionable edits to the page for baseball umpire Kerwin Danley. He made some controversial calls in last night's game, and angry Phillie fans are peppering his page with vandalism (easy to fix) but also with sourced but in my opinion inappropriate content on the game. An umpire making a bad call isn't exactly notable or unusual, and the new content (which I deleted) appears to be an attack on Danley rather than any attempt to provide information on him. Anyway, I'm posting here to ask other admins to keep an eye on the page, which I semi-protected, and perhaps weigh in on what, if anything, is appropriate for inclusion in the article. I don't want to be involved in an edit war and would rather step back into the shadows where it's nice and quiet. Thanks. Mr. Darcy talk 17:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably worth mentioning that the user in question, YerYeller, has made nothing but unproductive edits since getting his username. Mr. Darcy talk 17:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good call on the semi-protect. Now on my watchlist, for what that's worth. --barneca (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

YerYeller blocked indef. --barneca (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm pretty sure MagicSales08 is the same person, but I suppose we can wait to see if he edits further. Mr. Darcy talk 18:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at User:MagicSales08 earlier, and actually blocked them indef a while ago, but then saw that someone else was engaging with them on their talk page (they have a dubious explanation for their edits), so I lifted the block to see what happens. At the very least, it looks like MagicSales08 is editing from a different computer; he edited 1 minute after I blocked User:YerYeller, so autoblock didn't happen. My own pet theory is that they're buddies sitting at adjacent computers in a computer lab somewhere, along with another account who's name I forget User:Jydog, goofing around together. I'm watching MagicSales08 and will re-block if they don't fly right. --barneca (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

YerYeller is requesting an unblock. He made a quasi-personal attack in his first request, which I declined for that reason. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't even control my edits so don't blame me. on his User page, as well as some BLP violations there, should be dealt with. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

New user TheRealMrDarcy just arrived. Could be a coincidence, but it's funny that he should show up on the first day in months when I do anything of substance on Wikipedia. Mr. Darcy talk 00:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please soft block 204.193.211.158 (talk · contribs · logs), this IP has comitted five vandalistic edits to various sports scheduls--Ipatrol (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

AIV is thataway. Tan | 39 01:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

material reverted, user blocked by vigilant admin; block independantly reviewed. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

(resolved again)... reopened to address question of new BLP issues, and ask for block review. ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Open Indefinite block under review. ++Lar: t/c 16:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Is this diff a cause for concern vis a vis libel? Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

NEW, AFTER FURTHER REVIEW: The user has now posted links to articles here, avoiding the copyright problem, but potentially still raising a BLP/libel issues. Is this appropriate? Non Curat Lex (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

How does posting links to reputable news articles raise BLP/libel issues? Looie496 (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The articles themselves attack a public figure and do not contain or discose independant sources. It may be a reach, but there could still be libel liability issues. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

These are reliable sources. There's no BLP issue here. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Used on a user page, they pose an undue weight problem. The user is welcome to disclose that they have had prior conflict with that judge, but not to present biased viewpoints, even if they are reliable sources, (see WP:COATRACK as well). WP is not a blog or a forum for continuing conflict from elsewhere. Admins should review the deleted edits on this user's page for more insight into why this is problematic. ++Lar: t/c 15:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, as few people will have the background on this situation: On her userpage, this editor posted (1) a copyright news report and then (after it was removed and she was warned not to do it again), (2) a series of links to news reports with respect to the same person, with the edit summaries "my good news hurrah hurrah". It should be noted that this editor has a real-world adversarial relationship with the subject of these news articles (administrators can see her description of it in the first version of her userpage, now deleted in part for BLP reasons). The links were not proposed for article space, they were put in userspace by a user who has been asked repeatedly to leave the external battles behind. Behaviour like this is exactly why WP:BLP applies throughout all areas of the project. Risker (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Risker. Since we're here, let me ask for review of my block of Kay Sieverding (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). See my talk page recently... (topic "Query": User_talk:Lar#Query). I blocked this editor for a week (the next step up from 3 days) after my initial removal of the BLPvio/Copyvio text was undone by placing these links. Those who know me know that I am very reluctant to block, in general, and quick to give second chances and try to find other ways to deal with issues. This user is intransigent and either cannot or will not work within our norms and it's time to cut our losses and reduce the disruptive effect this user has. So far everyone who has reviewed it on my talk page has concurred with it, except Elonka. She has engaged in rather a long dialog with somewhat shifting goals as we've refuted various points raised. Right now I think she wants the block undone (since she doesn't agree it is a BLP violation to cite sources showing a clear adversary in a negative light without a chance to make them balanced as we do in an article) and redone under some other pretext. I'm not sure that's a good use of anyone's time and I ask that my block be endorsed, and her going to the user's page to contradict what I said be pointed out to her as less than helpful. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like everyone on Lar's page agrees that a block is called for, leaving the only area of disagreement the reason for the block. My two pennies - given her history here, the statements she has made regarding her case and the judge in the past, and the seeming agenda with which she edits Wikipedia in general... it is reasonable to interpret her posting the bit about the judge with the edit summary "my good news, hurrah hurrah" as violating BLP. Folks might disagree with how serious a violation it is, given the news has apparently been covered in reliable sources, but the presentation of the material is not irrelevant in considering the BLP policy.

Kay has been blocked before, and has had the full attention of two administrators and a number of editors for quite awhile because of her disruptive and at times combative editing style. She has been warned repeatedly about soapboxing about her personal legal history, and a block is warranted this time around solely on that basis. Whether BLP was the best of the various reasons to use in the log is irrelevant - the block is good, and Elonkas suggestion to unblock and reblock with a different reason is a nonstarter. Avruch ^T 15:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Kay's unblock request doesn't help matters at all either. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I echo Avruch's evaluation of this matter, and concur that Lar's original block was warranted. Anthøny (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. I've had my fair share of differences with Lar on many previous occasions, but not on this occasion - I am in complete agreement with Avruch's view. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block Proper block, within discretion, no need to unblock at this time, let it run its course. MBisanz ^talk 18:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. User pages should not be used as a soapbox in real world legal battles. Also I do not consider some of these sources as reliable(e.g. [58]); they are breaking news (i.e. wild speculation), without a named journalist. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kay Sieverding. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I am in agreement that a block was appropriate, though I disagree that there was a clear BLP violation here. A better block rationale might have been "disruption", "soapboxing", "inappropriate use of userpage", "tendentious editing", or "Wikipedia is not a battleground". Choosing a BLP rationale was fairly weak, and it is evident that not everyone is in agreement that there was an obvious BLP violation here. I would also like to say that I am very disappointed with how Lar has been behaving when his block was challenged at his talkpage. When independent editors/administrators expressed concerns to him about the block rationale, his response was to react with defensiveness, incivility, accusations of bad faith, and name-calling. Someone with steward access should be reacting with a far higher standard of behavior, and I hope Lar will take some time to think about how he could have handled this better. --Elonka 19:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm always open to feedback, but I thought this matter was resolved, as far as AN/I is concerned, anyway. I think your characterizations of how I handled the discussion at my talk are extremely wide of the mark (anyone else interested should feel free to review the entire thread and judge for themselves) and do you no credit. ++Lar: t/c 00:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm always in favor of supporting accusations like "incivility, accusations of bad faith, and name calling" with diffs so that other readers can make an informed opinion. I thought we just dealt with the issue (in an ArbCom) of admins who make such charges about fellow editors at AN/I without substantiating diffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the link is already in this thread, but here it is again: User talk:Lar#Query. --Elonka 20:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not a diff (but surely you know that). I'd like to see a specific diff to back up each of these charges: 1) incivility, 2) accusations of bad faith, and 3) name calling. These kinds of broadbrush accusations about other editors should always be backed by diffs, and we shouldn't fall into the habit of taking one person's "opinion" as evidence. Again, I thought we just went through that at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI Sandy, there is an RfC/User re: the editor's alleged misdeeds, with more diffs than you can shake a stick at. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record I do not believe Sandy was referring to Kay. ++Lar: t/c 00:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, there is very little gain to be had in carrying this discussion forward in this manner. If there is a need for a user or admin conduct RfC, or a more structured discussion, then have it in the appropriate place. But the underlying issue of this section, and the purpose for its existence on this page, seems to have been resolved. I think the best thing for everyone to do at this point is to let it go, and move on to more productive pursuits. Avruch ^T 23:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I always welcome constructive review of my actions, and more specifically, I am always open to recall if someone feels the need. Elonka would have to find someone else to start the petition though, per my eligibility requirements, since she's not open to recall. ++Lar: t/c 00:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a recall matter, but for the record, yes, I am open to recall. My standards are listed along with everyone else's at Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria. --Elonka 02:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw your last "recall". You're not open to recall. At least not as I would define it. That's OK, you don't have to be, most admins aren't, and there's nothing wrong or dishonorable about that. But it's disingenious to say you are. ++Lar: t/c 03:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Lar, that's kind of the point of our voluntary recall process, is that each admin can set their own criteria. Looking through the list, there are vastly different standards from admin to admin. Now, if you want your own standards to say, "Elonka can't ask me to resign," that's fine, that's up to you. In fact, some admins even go the other way, saying, only someone from a certain list that they provide, is allowed to initiate a recall. It's really up to each admin what they choose. But if the criterion is, "an admin open to recall", well, I'm open to recall. I don't have to be, but I choose to be. --Elonka 03:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, lecturing me on the point of a process I was instrumental in developing and promoting probably isn't going to earn you any style points with anyone. You do have a bit of a tendency to lecture others about stuff, don't you? Anyway, maybe you are recallable now. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that, and gladly. But you weren't before, when your last "recall" went down. Not in my view anyway, and not in the view of quite a few other people (or perhaps you forgot the hue and cry about it, culminating in an attempt to get ArbCom to get involved to make you stick to your supposed terms, which attempt failed only because ArbCom had the good sense to say they weren't going to get involved in a voluntary process? Remember? ) Hence my comment that you're not recallable. But this is all irrelevant. You were asked to provide diffs, but your last two posts have focused on irrelevancy. That means this matter's closed, as far as I am concerned. The block stands, the BLP violation isn't there on the page any more, and you've accused yet another editor of bad faith. All par for the course, and everything is business as usual. We're done. You can have the last word, and then let's archive it. ++Lar: t/c 03:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

An update[edit]

Kay has not quit with her BLP violation-ating ways... see Special:Undelete/User_talk:Kay_Sieverding. She then deleted Risker's warning about it, which I restored, and followed up with a stern warning that she is about out of chances. I left the latest contribution though, at least for now. It may be time to cut losses here and just indefinitely block her and move on. Being the softie that I am, though, I'd probably let this block run out and see if by then she's gotten the drift yet. The wikiversity suggestion made in her RfC is a good one, perhaps there she could happily edit up a long instruction manual on how to self represent. But she already spurned that idea once. ++Lar: t/c 04:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This thread is currently flagged both resolved, and not resolved. Which one is it?--Tznkai (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved. --Elonka 20:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. But for the record Risker has just stubbbed out Kay's page, again after taking a good look at all the ... material that had ... accumulated there, and warned Kay again. I predict we'll be back here soon enough, to get yet another block endorsed. Sorry, but I'm about out of GF with this user. So I wouldn't be in any rush to archive this. It'll likely be back to unresolved shortly. (It would be awesome were I wrong!) ++Lar: t/c 18:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This is all over... a dispute with a neighbor? Sheesh. Maybe it should be added to the appropriate policy page that warns against escalating blocks --NE2 19:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

eh? Could you elaborate on that? Fairly routine escalating blocks have been employed here so what is the warning you're thinking of? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 19:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm saying the way a minor dispute between neighbors became a major thing would be a good analogy to how a minor block sometimes escalates. But I wasn't saying it seriously. --NE2 00:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we want to re-open this, I think the main thing that needs to be decided is the scope of the restrictions to place on Kay's editing. This has been discussed a bit at Lar's talkpage, and if I can be so bold as to try and express the current consensus, it's that Kay Sieverding should be topic-banned from the entire law-related topic area on Wikipedia, to include all articles about law, jurisdictions, or any legal professionals. If she violates this ban, she is to be blocked indefinitely. What we haven't quite got nailed down yet, is some of the scope of the ban, meaning:

• Should the ban include articles, or both articles and talkpages?
• If talkpages are included in the ban, would this mean that Kay would even be restricted from suggesting reliable sources at her own talkpage? (see WP:COIC)
• How long should the ban be for?

--Elonka 04:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No longer relevant. User has been blocked indefinitely for this edit which was in direct contravention of the restrictions already placed. As always I invite review. ++Lar: t/c 14:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Fully endorse Totally blows by all restrictions, good block. MBisanz ^talk 14:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)e
• Endorse block - Kay's post to her talk page this morning left no doubt that her intention is to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for her cause. Her insinuation that some editors were working against her because of their own financial self-interest is beyond the pale. Risker (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm having trouble figuring out how this edit triggered an indefinite block?[59] I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying it's a long post and I'm not finding the sentence that was problematic? --Elonka 17:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  The pro se page currently contains these unsupported or untrue statements that is discussing a legal topic related to what she's been discussing before, without even going further, that alone is a clear violation of the restrictions. MBisanz ^talk 17:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  Sorry, what restrictions? There was discussion about a topic ban, but to my knowledge it had not been implemented yet. --Elonka 17:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  Please see the restrictions detailed here. MBisanz ^talk 17:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, I saw that post by Risker, in an initial attempt to place a topic ban, but to my knowledge that post had no force. Admins can't go around placing topic bans willy-nilly. There are only three circumstances in which a ban can be placed: (1) With prior community consensus, and a link to such consensus; (2) With a user who is under ArbCom restrictions; or (3) In a topic area that is within the scope of ArbCom discretionary sanctions (see Wikipedia:General sanctions). There was no indication of any of these. And I'm not just arguing here to be arguing: This is an important point: Admins cannot place topic bans in non-ArbCom areas, unless they first have a clear community consensus to do so. Now, we were indeed discussing a community ban, and it's probable that there would have been consensus, but let's make sure we do things right here, without putting the cart before the horse. In other words: First let's get consensus for a ban, then let's implement the ban, and then if she violates the ban, we block. But just blocking someone for violating a ban that didn't even exist in the first place? No, bad idea. --Elonka 17:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  Eh, I see it more as counseling a user on BLP by detailing how it applies to them, the user refusing to hear it, and being rightfully blocked as a result. Right now I don't see anyone supporting an unblock btw. MBisanz ^talk 17:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• endorse - as a bystander to this, the user really seems unable to understand what we are trying to do here as a project. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• endorse (for whatever it's worth). That guy is using Wikipedia to petition the government (his words). Classic WP:BATTLE and WP:SOAPBOX. He can start a blog, ask for support from EFF, ACLU, and NAMI, but Wikipedia is not the place to broadcast his grievances. VG ☎ 09:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block and I hope we can consider this closed now. As for the above, I think the issue is not so much that the user technically violated or did not violate a topic ban, but that her edits after the first block consisted entirely of soapboxing, argument, and an attack on another editor (Non Curat Lex). --MCB (talk) 05:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I got banned from editing Macedonian talk page and article under "recent disruptive editing" just few things to point out:

• The Atricle page edit warrning from 10:33, 19 October 2008 was closed after 1h with 11:42, 19 October 2008 the last edit of the page. the page has not been edited since. We have found an agreement with the admin BalkanFever as you can see on his talk page section n°74 Request assistance Macedonian article and n°81 Bold thingy and the matter was definitely closed on 09:58, 20 October 2008.

So whats the point of bannig me at 23:28, 21 October on "Long-term edit-warring" when it was a long closed matter?

the admin also noted "talkpage stirring" as the reason for the ban.

• First thing to note is that finding a consensus with some hot headed greeks over Macedonian issues is very very very hard, hence the necessity to write so much arguments in many sections that resulted

in the article improvement from this [60] to the the current revision Macedonian. The price of this improvement? + 39,1 KB, the talk page sections: n°28 Macedonian, n°29 Macedonian improvement suggestions, n°30 Previous version, n°31 Diaspora question; and my ban (lol). Yes things got a little out of hand (and off topic btw). But if we ban people for Macedonian "talkpage stirring" perhaps first on the list should be the off topic racial personal attacks by people like User:ΚΕΚΡΩΨ like "That's rather rich coming from a Slav" and similar dont you think?

In the bottom line id like to ask a withdrawal of this senseless and useless ban thank you Alex Makedon (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Although this ban may very well be deserved, Moreschi does not appear to have acted in full accordance with WP:ARBMAC, which requires a warning before sanctions are imposed. I see no evidence of any warning being given to this editor since April. Looie496 (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

They were notified. See this warning and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alexander Mak which connects the accounts, and also mentions the case. Claim of unawareness are not reasonable here. Jehochman ^Talk 01:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That warning was over ten months ago and from the way I read the ARBCOM remedy it it says the user should receive a direct warning before any ban, not just that they must be aware of WP:ARBMAC. Icewedge (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I read it the other way. Once people are aware of the case, they're aware of it. Stifle (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Alex was aware of the case and had been blocked for two weeks in April. Why should any further warning be necessary? Doug Weller (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The last part of the relevant sentence, "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.", indicates that the intention of the warning is to bring to the attention of the editor in question, the decision under which they can be banned. Hence, I don't see any problems with the lack of recent notification. Daniel (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(In reply to Doug) Because article probation and discretionary sanctions was, imo, never intended by ArbCom to allow admins to use draconian measures. If a warning is placed by an uninvolved admin that the user is going to be re-sanctioned if the recent misconduct continues, and that warning is sufficient to persuade that user to refrain from editing like that, then that should be used as a first resort. (Speaking from experience, I cannot emphasize enough how important this step can be in a lot of cases.) April is a long time ago in terms of wiki-time, so it's a question worth asking. I personally think that the (problematic) nature of editing by the sanctioned user was such that a warning wouldn't be enough to prevent it. He needs to take a break from that area for at least a few months. If he can demonstrate that he can edit constructively in the long term without abusive/disruptive edits in other areas, then appealing to the community may not be so much of a bad idea. I'm not sure if Moreschi or others will agree with me on the last sentence, so some input would be helpful. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please, please point out some "abusive" and "disruptive" edits i have made before talking about sanctions versus me, since i have not made any such thing and as you all know any normal constructive editing is automatically problematic if its related to Macedonia topics. per example taking the messed up article from here [61] to the the current revision Macedonian was the abusive and disruptive editing you are talking about? Alex Makedon (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I recently issued an indef block against User:Kurfürst in order to end a long-term pattern of abuse and disruption that was affecting a range of articles connected to the Battle of Britain. This followed my own (inept and miserable) attempts to broker a peace, and a voluntary mediation regarding the content dispute which unfortunately only seemed to inflame the situation but which was still open when I issued the block.

Unfortunately, User:Kurfürst has chosen to interpret this as my taking a side in the content dispute; which I strenuously deny. However, since I had previously been involved in the negotiations, and was participating in the mediation at the invitation of the mediator, I acknowledge with the benefit of hindsight that choosing to place the block myself rather than raise the issue at ANI has placed me in a compromising position.

Could someone here please take a look?

I have come to deeply regret entering this minefield at all. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The comments that the user made were clearly out of line and unacceptable, but an indef block does strike me as a little over the top. I think that perhaps a probationary period for the editor (with an emphasis on civility and working constructively) would have been best. From the user's contributions at this mediation, it looks like this is a good faith editor who unfortunately has a knack for getting tangled in content disputes. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

Sigh... acting in an administrative function in a case you are involved in never ends well. In any case, what's done is done. I've reviewed your block and decided to shorten it to one month, with the express understanding that if the user comes back and continues the behavior, I will be more than happy to indefinitely reblock him myself. Try not to beat yourself up about it, mmkay? ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 07:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I guess an apology is in order. I won't be making that mistake again. --Rlandmann (talk) 07:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, you'll know for next time =). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

A good faith editor? Are you kidding? User:Kurfürst has edit warred since the moment he started editing. He produces "citations" that are no verifiable, as they are not in published sources, and claims they are primary sources! A number of editors have come to the correct conclusion that he cannot and will not work with others, spread his agenda-driven editing of the Spitfire and Battle of Britain related articles, and will systematically engage in edit warring with anyone who gets in his way. After this block has expired, he will return to the same old User:Kurfürst. It seems like you have been taken in by this guy. Dapi89 (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I will not pretend to be over the whole history of this dispute, but he appears quite reasonable on the mediation page. Edit warring has no doubt occured, from both sides, but if User:Kurfürst and other involved editors (including yourself) cooled down and discussed this rationally, I have no doubt that a compromise could be worked out. Personal attacks, edit warring, and insults will not get this solved. And if User:Kurfürst continues acting aggressively and rudely upon his return, he can always be indef blocked. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

What he does and what he says are two very different things. He has promised to compromise before, but then does that exact opposite, particularly over sources. He acknowledged on the archive page of the Spitfire operational History that using a particular website and self published sources was unacceptable (his comments on 10 September), but then continues to use them afterwards. He can't be trusted. You will find, upon his return, that the articles will fall back to their old state as he strives to distort history again. My own position, in relation to blocks, was that each and everyone nvolved this editor, and were in response to direct abuse received from the above user. Dapi89 (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That is what the Mediation is there for. This is not the cause of his block, though: it's an unacceptable level of civility while these problems are worked out. While you may have a hard time working out your differences in Mediation (let's face it, if it was easy, mediation wouldn't have been neccessary), he should only be prevented from participating in it to the extent that he is being unhelpful. For instance, I would favor an unblock if the parties agreed to work everything out in mediation and not edit the article(s) in question. Mangojuice^talk 15:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This is point, he won't. He has already made several comments on his user talk page post block, that he has every intention of readding these "citaiotns and sources" once he is able to. Dapi89 (talk) 12:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I created an account for User:StellaHudgens about four days ago. I noticed nothing untoward about the request, but the user's first few edits were creating a page about herself, then making it a redirect to Vanessa Hudgens. On Vanessa's page, it does say she has a sister named Stella. While I was willing to let it go as a hoax, USer:StellaHudgens has been continuously editing and updating her userpage. I left her a friendly note with a link to WP:MYSPACE [62], but I'm more concerned about the legitimacy of this person. Stella would be 12 or 13, and I don't know what the correct course of action is - could it be her? :) \ / (⁂) 12:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Cold be - I started editing when I was about 11. There's a chance, but it's not terribly likely. Is there any real need to find out anyway? DendodgeTalk^Contribs 12:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the thing - I don't know whether anything 'needs' to be done. \ / (⁂) 12:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm tempted to just say ignore, maybe keep an eye on. Whether or not she's actually Stella, she's not editing non-constructively, technically. Since Stella is a minor, some of the data she's posted could be considered a privacy issue if she's not Stella... but that just complicates things. If you created the account through the ACC tool we could pull her IP address and see if it resolves to California. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 13:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you know that Stella Hudgens lives in Asia? Neither did I. Blocked, blanked, referred to OTRS. Thatcher 13:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

At the Jennifer Hudson article, a number of links to the news of the death of Jennifer Hudson's mother and brother keeps getting deleted by User:Dryamaka. This person is vandalizing the article. Please help. 66.56.26.75 (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know if there are any tools to delete articles, I am write to wikipedia portuguese and several of my articles disappeared along with his history, How could be happen? thanks for your help --Eduardo Corrêa (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. --Rodhullandemu 15:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I tried to redirect the lowercase Windows 7 starter to Windows 7 editions, but was informed that the page is blocked. I redirected the uppercase Windows 7 Starter with no issues. Thanks, LafinJack (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)