My IP is being repeatedly blocked because of vandals and keeps stopping me from editing at inoppurtune times, help would be appreciated--Gw099 01:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

155.232.250.51 is a shared IP, which has repeatedly been blocked, preventing me from editing. Please help. --moxon 09:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

But you are editting now, and the block log shows that IP to never have been directly blocked. --pgk^(talk) 10:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and every other time I try I get:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Freakofnurture for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "206514901". The reason given for 206514901's block is: "please contact an administrator for verification purposes, as described on this page"."

Your IP address is 155.232.250.51...

I wouldn't complain for nothing! --moxon 16:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not (you are still editting though), but I'm not psychic either. I will remove the autoblocks outstanding for that user name. --17:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Recently, I came across the user page Khant zaw aung (talk · contribs). He says he's an admin, but I have my doubts, because his user page only excists for one day. So I looked him up as a sysop on Special:Listusers, and look, nothing comes up. So I could now leave a message that he isn't, but, I don't know how he would respond. Does anyone know how to handle this? color probe ^{·Talk ·Contribs ·@} _RCP 17:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he copied Stifle's userpage as his own. Flattery, I guess. Sure, he shouldn't be saying he's an admin, though. Friday (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

PS. I left him a (hopefully friendly) note explaining the situation. Friday (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. color probe ^{·Talk ·Contribs ·@} _RCP 18:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Well, it might be a GFDL violation because he hasn't credited me, but I'm more amused than angry. I added a userbox to celebrate. Stifle (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and WP:LA is the place to check if a user is an sysop or otherwise. - Mailer Diablo 01:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, anybody can edit that page, or they can forget to edit it, so it will probably be inaccurate most of the time. Please refer to Special:Listusers/sysop if you really need to check on some username. — Apr. 21, '06 [01:53] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

A "clueless newbie" wouldn't copy an administrator's userpage onto his own. Or even know how to for that matter. I'm sorry Stifle, but if you do the category math at the bottom of your page, the intersection is exactly one. You're a unique editor (I mean that in a good way), that's all I got to say. That and some of you folks aren't thinking in realistic terms. — Apr. 21, '06 [01:57] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Actually, I had someone copy my page a bit ago (I should check on that, actually) but they were nice enough to leave a big note at the top saying they were just using it as a template, and that it was not accurate. I personally consider it flattering. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 20:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to shed light on so called facts given on this website which clearly are not true. Chinamanjoe has been spreading lies throughout this website and it is quite easy to prove that he is lying. He claims to be the great-nephew of Annie Besant, however if he were he would be over 90 years old. However on the Justin Besant page, (Chinamanjoe is Justin Besant) he makes not that he is a high school student with a few albums recently put out. There is no possible way that these two facts could both be true. Also, all of his albums are named things like Stuart or Nubice, which are both inside jokes from his high school. When searching up Justin Besant on google, you will find that the only records of him are on sites which are self-editable such as wikipedia and last.fm. There are also recent pictures of him on his last.fm website which will help support my claims. Chinamanjoe has also been deleting talk from the discussion pages in order to keep these truths about him from being put out. He is continually deleting all evidence that proves that he is not who he claims he is. He has also tried to spread his lies and prevent the escape of the truth on other pages such as Neil Young, Stevie Wonder, Zuma and The Cortez Trio. His edits to these pages and to the Justin Besant page should all be deleted as they have no truth to them. Thank you. Yofoxyman 19:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Try discussing the issue with him on his talk page or the talk pages of the relevant articles. If that fails, try dispute resolution. This noticeboard isn't the place for content disputes (see here). Blackcap (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

True. but this doesn't look like a content dispute. It looks much more like an attempt to add nonsense to the Wikipedia. And that is a matter worth putting on this page. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, seems like a content problem to me. But even if it isn't, he should try to discuss first. Neither of them have anything on their talk pages but welcomings and vandalism warnings, and that says a lot. If someone has a problem, the first step isn't to come to a NB, but to try and work it out on their own. Blackcap (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I had presented this issue on many of the talk pages however Chinamanjoe was continually deleting it. This is not a content issue, it is a load of ninsense and a kid just trying to get his name on this site as many times as possible. Yofoxyman 22:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Which is a content dispute, neh? Look, the one edit you've made to his talk page is essentially harrassment and vandalism. Try to talk to him with a measured, reasonable tone, and he might listen. If not, try dispute resolution. Blackcap (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I was also posting about the validity of his material on the different pages which he had vandalized. Look, I know him personally, he's full of crap here. Yofoxyman 22:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If you know him personally, perhaps you'd like to take it up with him personally, over a beer or a carton of milk? If not, then take it up with him on his talk page - the sensible thing to do would be to leave a trail of evidence for others to see, noting with proof the crimes of the other party. Swinging by here as a first port of call and shouting "foul" won't force others to do research into him, it'll force others to do research into you. Work the system, don't play it. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been talking to him and he refuses to get rid of it and he refuses to stop deleting my messages on the talk pages. So it's enough. I'd also like to point out that he re-added his page after it was deleted by the admin. Yofoxyman 00:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been removing a number of outdated listings...admins, please update this as you protect or unprotect articles. Consider adding User:Voice_of_All/Useful#Protection_JS to your monobook if you hate doing the paperwork...either way, just try to keep this updated.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 20:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This user has vandalised various pages including Neil Young, Annie Besant, Cortez Trio, among others. He has made personal attacks against various users, including myself, and vandalised a series of talk pages. He has been warned multiple times by various users, but has ignored all warnings. I do not know who he is, but he seems to be out to get me (as seen by his posts above) and other users such as Johnleemk. I have been trying to avoid getting into an edit war, but vandalism is not acceptable on wikipedia so I revert it. I have never delt with such large scale vandalism before and am not sure how to handle it. Any help would be appreciated. Chinamanjoe 23:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This is all pretty much a lie. We know each other pretty well as we go to high school together. And the vandalism he is refering to his posting on the talk pages of various websites the truth about his posts. I wouldn't want some kid doing a project on [Neil Young] somewhere to think that he inspired a "popular Canadian band" [The Cortez Trio], when in reality it's just three kids playing at a high school music night. Chinamanjoe has been trying to spread rediculous things like this on various pages mentioned above and I was just trying to say that these things weren't true on the talk pages. Chinamanjoe had no right to delete them just because it was exposing him for the fraud he is. Yofoxyman 00:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who takes a look at the history will quickly come to the conclusion that it is Chinamanjoe who is behaving badly here with his deletion of questions from talk pages and his refusal to discuss his edits. While Yofoxyman's edits have been characterised as personal attacks, they are really accusations rather than simple attacks. And a little research appears to prove them justified. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

...or, more specifically, the MfD for WP:HIRE. A number of users have pointed out (correctly, I believe) that an MfD isn't the right procedure for discussing the merits of a proposal. If that's the case, is it necessary to wait out the MfD, or can an admin move the proposal to a straw poll, or RfC, or whatever the right place for it is? Just curious. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 03:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what a singularly useless MFD. I've closed it so people can get back to debating whether to accept/reject the proposal. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the major issue that it was brought to MFD (a foolish move in my opinion) was that one of the people who supported it stated that since it was a noticeboard and not a policy or guideline proposal it couldn't be rejected in the standard way which is the wrong way to look at it since any page can be rejected and therefore ruled as perpetually inactive which so far is why the jobs page is still inactive. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 08:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. If it's not used for a lengthy length of time, the "kept for historical purposes" tag can be put on it. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I have closed this AfD: Personal rapid transit/UniModal, which as nominator I would not ordinarily do, but Fresheneesz (talk · contribs) first removed the "silly" AfD header, then chastised me for using AfD instead of the article Talk page which he asserts is the normal place to debate deletion, then created a "vote here" section which for some unaccountable reason accumulated a lot of "do not delete" input from anonymous or no-other-history accounts, on the basis of which he stated: The vote unanimously acted to not delete this page, therefore I have removed the tag. So he removed the AfD tag again and put this at the top: With a unanimous vote of disagreement by many many more people than I thought cared (see below) - this discussion is closed. Article will not be deleted and I'll remove the tag now. Fresheneesz 07:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC). Note that unanimous in this case means including only the "vote here" section and and ignoring prior input from User:Lar, myself, User:Avidor and User:Lurker. In other words, there is unanimity qamong those who agree with him, provided we ignore those who do not.

So I have gone back and looked at the AfD debate. I have summarised the inputs here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Personal rapid transit/UniModal. 2d/2m/1k. Since I was nominator and will also accept merge, I have merged what little is verifiable and redirected to personal rapid transit.

Reading the input, at least one of the people who "voted" in the "vote" section is actively engaged in political lobbying for PRT. As you will see from the personal rapid transit article, this is a largely untried concept, and the Unimodal system, subject of this artivcle, has no objective existence in reality at all: it is the dream of one Douglas Malewicki, who acknowledged that as yet "there ain't no such thing". Unlike some other PRT schemes this has not even made it to prototype yet, but it is still being used to "sell" PRT (sometimes to the detriment of more conventional transit systems). Malewicki is clearly trying to attract investors, as the website makes plain. Unimodal (aka SkyTran) is the system illustrated in the PRT article, with an image released by malewicki for use on WP. It is unrepresentative of any of the current projects in prototype.

Sorry to ramble. I am posting it here because I expect some fallout, and I will admit to a moderate level of irritation at Fresheneesz - if you're going to start asserting that AfD can't be started before there is discussion on Talk, it's best not to round that off by trying to turn AfD into a vote, which it is not, and then ignoring all input other than the vote, to say nothing of twice removing the AfD tag. I venture to suggest that I may have participated in one or two more AfD debates than he has. Just zis Guy you know? 09:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You're a bad, bad man. I venture to suggest that you should be slapped with a trout. And they want to dead-min me when there are wild cards like you going around merging things. Close looks ok to me, even with you bringing it here after you've done it, Mr. Get-forgiveness-not-permission.
brenneman^{L} 09:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I am indeed a wicked rouge admin. To clarify, I closed it rather than relisting or coming here because it was a mess and needed fixing. Maybe I should have come here and asked someone else to fix it, mind ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 15:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing. First of all, we establish policies to keep wikipedia workable, and if people diagree, they can go to the appropriate places to discuss that and change those policies. The place of action is ot the place to solve those. Second of all, many of the votes where either sockpuppetry or meat puppetry, and I think you did the correct thing. You might have considered to ask here that someone closes it. KimvdLinde 09:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering that you closed a debate in a way which ran contary to your opinion of what ought to be done (deletion), I see no problem whatsoever with you closing this as a merge. It looks like the right thing to do based on the debate even. Thanks for bringing it here to gain input when you are a bit uncertain. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

mid string insert, check date: I'd like to note that the "merge" was not unlike a delete. Almost nothing was merged, and most of it was in fact deleted. Fresheneesz 03:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that in future you post here asking for help, or ask a friend with sysop rights to close for you. I don't think you've done anything counter to the spirit of the rules, but it wouldn't have been too difficult to obey the letter, since it seems so many of us agree with the final course of action. Next time. moink 18:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Um... endorse closure? ;) Stifle (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There is evidence that JzG is sympathetic to Avidor and his views. There is also evidence that JzG is acting at the behest of Avidor's anti-PRT political motivations. Therefore, any unilateral decision made by JzG on deleting a PRT page is very suspect and should be examined closely. A Transportation Enthusiast 04:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Since I have been accused by both sides of being biased towards the other, I would suggest this assertion does not stand up. It is interesting that my decision to close as merge (which was against my preferred solution) is considered problematic, but Freshneesz's own purported closure ignoring all inputs other than the new and anon users in his own "vote here" section is apparently fine. For the record I don't mind havi ng this sent to WP:DRV or running a second debate. I do mind having a promotional article on a fictional product which is being pushed by politicians in several places. WP:NOT a soapbox. Just zis Guy you know? 09:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Skytran is not fictional, and the mere fact that you continue to say that it is, is proof positive that you are sympathetic to User:Avidor's extremist views on this issue. Skytran is a proposed system grounded in scientific analysis and fact, and you are killing it based on the words of a single editor whose best argument against it is that it's not actively being built. Neither he nor you nor anyone else has presented one iota of evidence that anything in Skytran is "fictional" yet you continue to say it. JzG, I've asked you repeatedly to cease editing PRT pages because your self-professed admiration for Avidor and his cartoons has clouded your judgement, and yet you continue to make detrimental changes to these articles. Please cease your activity on the PRT pages or I will ask for formal arbitration. A Transportation Enthusiast 21:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Not fictional? Really? Then the article's complete failure to detail all the installations of this technology was a significant failure which undoubtedly contributed to the fact that the AfD showed a clear consensus not to have a separate article. Where are the installations? VCan we see some photographs of them? Or at least of the test track?

As to admiring Avidor - well, as a cyclist and sustainable transport enthusiast how could I not enjoy Roadkill Bill? But that doesn't mean I agree with Avidor on every issue. As I have stated several times, I am a graduate engineer and a big fan of all forms of alternative transportation. The personal rapid transit article is, I venture to suggest, considerably better as a result of the changes I have made. All ofwhich is completely irrelevant to the closure of this AfD. I voted delete, but I closed against that view. That is in stark contrast to Freshneesz, who invented his own process in defiance of WP:DP and chose to take the inputof the friends who, it must be suspected, he invited along, rather than the established editors who had contributed within the supported framework of AfD. In fact, Freshneesz excluded their input and pretended there was unanimity to keep. If you look on my Talk page you will see that I have chosen to ignore most of Avidor's comments. Althoguh I am well-known for assuming good faith well beyond the usual limits, I still consider Ken's views as representing an extreme. By the same token, your views are also not neutral (nobody is ever truly neutral). Ken is open about his bisases, you assert bias on the par tof others but I have not seen yo acknowledge your own biases. PRT is an untried concept. Unimodal is an untried implementation of an untried concept. As I say, where are the pictures? Just zis Guy you know? 21:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the *vote* was unanimous - but the consensus was simply "don't delete". Also, only 1 person wanted merge other than you JzG. I did *not* discount peoples opinions. If the vote went against the discussion that went on above it, I would not have tried closing the deal myself. You however, *did* discount people. Tell me who exactly on that page wanted to merge it, I counted 3 - you, avidor and 1 other person (after delete failed, Avidor jumped on the merge boat). Fresheneesz 19:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per Stifle, this is absurd. Not Guy's actions, Fresheneesz' assertions of improper procedure, after having tried (and failed) to circumvent procedure himself. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I want to bring this page to your attention because User:Kashk is attempting to delete this article through a method I suppoose is not proper. He linked it to a deleted page (because of copyvio) and then put an RfD on it. I warned him about it and mentioned it to bring it up to AfD and reverted his changes twice. Never the less he keeps restoring it; most recently it was restored by a new user User:Wikiouslover whose only change this is (aside from his user page). I suspect this to be the same person. Please check this out; thanx Spearhead 19:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've also been directed to this page, as it contains a section that is an entire list of external links. Keep that in mind when reverting blanking.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Kash seems to want the page renamed Metal in Iran, something he could now do as the existin MiI page has been deleted. However, there is really nothing in the article, and no evidence that this "scene" is really notable or contains notable (WP:MUSIC friendly) bands. A merge with Iranian rock and alternative music has been suggested and would probably be a good idea, especially to attract new editors to the topic. Also noted the sock suspicion on the relevant userpage. Deizio 15:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Earlier, the above noted user – (contributions) – was sanctioned and restricted by the ArbCom. However, Cantus persists in:

• editing articles (recently) from which C. is banned: e.g., developed country;
• editing articles or insinuating changes into them without discussion or edit summaries, or labelling corrections as rvv: e.g., List of countries by GDP (PPP), List of countries by population;
• over the course of weeks, reverting to prior article versions that adhere to some ineffable personal standard and without justification: e.g. List of countries by GDP (PPP), List of countries by total area
• moving articles to prior locales – viz. List of countries and outlying territories by area/List of countries by total area – being warned about carte blanche changes, and (recently, in response) rehashing my warning and taunting me with an arguable personal attack (e.g., I'm not sanctioned and have not been, as C. has noted)

As an editor of some of these articles, and not necessarily a policeman of them, I find Cantus' behaviour wholly frustrating and counterproductive. And, despite prior sanction and warnings, it doesn't seem that Cantus is either willing or able to modify his behaviour. I request that this editor's behaviour be reviewed and, as prescribed in the ArbCom ruling, that some corrective actions be taken; in the very least, the article recently moved (point 4) should be returned to its prior locale. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Cheers, Blackcap (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Great: I've copied the above entry there. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry[edit]

(Copied from ArbCom enforcement page...)

During this block, the following anon IPs have reverted articles (and selectively, I might add) to versions supported solely by the above user and without discussion nor consensus (but with summaries):

• 200.120.183.182
• 200.120.180.45

I believe these are sockpuppets of this user ... for which C. was also sanctioned by the ArbCom regarding (remedy 4). This is untenable. I'm unsure how to proceed; however, this behaviour – which I'm led to believe is all from same user and not just coincidence – requires further investigation and that added corrective measures be contemplated if necessary. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: A recent sockpuppet request has confirmed the above anon IPs were used by Cantus to edit while blocked. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Another user asked me to take a look at the contributions of SimonRibeiro (talk · contribs), informing me that he seemed to be using Wikipedia as a platform for his political candidacy, creating articles on himself, his family, and several entries linked to from his "biography" in the article he created on himself and in his user page. I went through his contributions and found several copyvios and deleted them, as well as many inappropriate dictionary definitions that had already been tagged as speedies, and accordingly deleted them. I've left him a message on his user talk page but would appreciate feedback and help on the rest of his contributions, including the article he created on himself: Simon Ribeiro, and his user page, a direct copy of that, as well as the remaining articles that aren't deleted yet, such as Joanne D'Amato, Gerardo Ribeiro, Armand Paul D'Amato, Illinois State Representative John D'Amico and Universal Retirement. All of them are either family members or terms linked to in the article he created about himself. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I have placed the article Simon Ribeiro on Afd. Joyous | Talk 01:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Joanne D'Amato has been listed for speedy speedily deleted, Universal Retirement prodded and Gerardo Ribeiro tagged as not verified and wikify. Armand Paul D'Amato should probably be AfD'd to complete the set... I've tagged it for verification and removed chuff about the nn relatives.Deizio 12:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the response! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What happened here? It seems to have been created about an hour ago as an anti-Muslim attack userbox, yet a great many users, most of them apparently Muslims, include it on their pages. --Carnildo 03:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The deletion log shows that the template, in proper, valid, non-troll form, was only vandalized today by 86.138.96.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Therefore, it was not new, and it was used as a valid userbox by the users who included it in their user pages. Thanks. --Ragib 03:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Plus, the most recent defacement was done by Anarchy, Inc. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seems to be the same anon from UK. --Ragib 03:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

My fault, I misread what had happened with the template. It is now restored to the version prior to the recent vandalism. Cheers TigerShark 03:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the vandalism again earlier today and left a message with Anarchy, Inc.. The user subsequently re-inserted the vandalism, so I've followed this up with a 24-hour block. Leithp 15:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous editor has been coming in and replacing the last paragraph of the article, which focuses on criticism, with borderline personal attacks and glowing advertising statements; see [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] (the four bolded links are a 3RR violation from 19 April that slipped past me, the last link actually spans two edits). He has also vandalized the user pages of myself and another editor who has reverted his changes; see [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. The editor has edited from a variety of IP addresses originating from Eurotel in the Czech Republic, which can be seen in the diffs above. Coincidentally, the primary Blog:CMS developer is also Czech. æle ✆ 2006-04-23t20:30z

Semi-protected. ~MDD4696 21:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Do Mr. Eric Ventress and This is nice look like accounts created solely to attack Eric Ventress to anyone else? Would indefinate blocks be appropriate here? ~MDD4696 02:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Could an admin please take a look at the three reverts board when they have a minute? In particular, User:JedRothwell has rved 6 times on one article and no admin has looked at it yet despite multiple requests on the board (Yeah, it was only posted about 3 hours ago, but I'm slightly impatient (sorry)). JoshuaZ 02:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a user who, with several obvious socks, has been (once or twice per day) editing the Squamish, British Columbia article, primarily to change the use of "Squamish Nation" to "Squamish Nation (Indian Band)" and related edits. Recently he has taken to using socks which seem to indicate adminship. See

• Wikipedia Indian Name Control (talk • contribs)
• Indian Name Control (talk • contribs) (whose talk page says "I am da offical admin.")
• Qromenov (talk • contribs) (who put up an incomplete RfA some time ago)
• 207.81.122.3 (talk • contribs) For completeness, the IP he sometimes uses.

The Squamish article was also a major issue with (now-blocked) HD 123321 (talk • contribs • 123321 page moves • block user • 123321 block log), who may be the originator of the socks. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 05:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering what to do about actions I consider as vandalism done by an administrator. User:JzG put up the article on SkyTran (links to old article) up for deletion, but when I called for a vote it was a unanimous vote of around 8 people I think. Some may have been sockpuppets (that has been claimed, but I don't know how to determine that), but in any case JzG took the fail of his proposition to mean that he would merge the article into another article. This basically means he redirected it to PRT, without much merge (only merging a sentence or two out of a large article). I don't know what I can do about an admin, which is why I'm asking here. If anyone could help with this situation, it would be much appreciated. Fresheneesz 23:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because User:JzG is an administrator doesn't mean that you need to find another administrator to discuss editing with him or her. If you are having an editorial disagreement, please talk it out. If anything, the fact that the user has been given adminship likely means that they are going to be reasonable when it comes to working out the best way forward for an article. Jkelly 23:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You can revert it. JzG was just following WP:BOLD. However, discussing the matter on Talk:Personal rapid transit might be better. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is the AfD in question: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal rapid transit/UniModal. See also #AfD closure above. --bainer (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually did already read the AfD closure thing above, but I fail to see why a merge follows from the failed deletion proposal... Is it an action that doesn't require discussion and a vote? User:fresheneesz 68.6.112.70 01:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

He already has reverted it, twice. The fact remains that the balance of input from editors with an edit history (even including the bogus "vote here" section) was for there not to be a separate article. We don't usually have articles promoting fictional commercial products, and I can't see why we should make an exception here. Just zis Guy you know? 09:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Its not an exception if theres no rule. Besides, there are plenty of articles on fictional universes, characters, stories, etc. Its a *theory* not a fantasy. What is the downside to keeping the article? Fresheneesz 09:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not a theory, it's a commercial proposition which has (as yet) no objective reality but for which the proposer is trying to achieve funding and support. There is a difference. Nobody is trying to attract investors to make the Firebolt - and even that is a redirect althoguh I venture to suggest that rather more people have heard of it.

Well I suppose it depends on your definition of theory, but its a proposal at least, and one that many people are intereseted in. The firebolt, however, is not a proposal.. so I don't really see the point of your example. If there was enough detailed information about the firebolt to warrent its own page (like the amount that SkyTran has), then I would think it would have its own page. 68.6.112.70 18:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No, merging does not inherently require discussion before-hand. However, as with all actions, it should be discussed if it becomes controversial. Superm401 - Talk 18:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and i've merged without discussion plenty of times - however it was 100% obvious that people wanted this as a stand alone article - and I myself have called for discussion more than once (well more than 3 or 4 times actually). User:JzG doesn't seem to think that discussion is neccessary even tho many people disagree with him. This is my complaint. Fresheneesz 20:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was 100% obvious that people didn't want this as a stand-alone article. I brought the AfD closure here for review, and that backed up my judgment on this. The people who "voted" in your ad-hoc "vote here" section (AfD is not a vote) were all new or unregistered users, which appear to be the result of external vote solicitation. To discount such input is normal in closing AfDs. Especially when they admit to a political vested interest, as one did. The close went against my preferred action (delete). As stated before, we typically do not have articles on promoting hypothetical products; this is an encyclopaedia, not a place for making investment pitches. Skytran does not exist in any meaningful sense - there is no prototype, let alone any implementation. The discussion in PRT is more than adequate to encyclopaedically cover one man's pipe dream. Just zis Guy you know? 17:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

JzG, you *didn't* merge. How much info did you take from SkyTran and put it in PRT? Like 2 sentences. Thats not a merge. And I don't understand why "external vote solicitation" matters. If people care enough to solicit votes, thats perfectly legit.

If you had *actually* merged significant amounts of info, then I wouldn't be complaining here so much - but you didn't. You went through with deleteing it, and redirect it to PRT. Why can't we discus this more before doing that merge? Fresheneesz 20:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of it was already in there (including the picture). I left out the fiction and speculation - it has taken forever to get the speculation and fiction out of the article as it is. Difficult though it may be for you to accept, I spent some time readong through it and looking for verifiable information to include. And no, encouraging your friends along to AfDs (especially if they are not active editors already) is not "perfectly legit", it is viewed in a very poor light. Just zis Guy you know? 20:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Just zis Guy you know? may be one of the best Wikipedian here, alive. I trust him, so I will not listen to the other complaints about him. He is a good Admin. --StabiloBoss 21:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

So, StabiloBoss, you're saying that you support JzG without looking at the happpenings.. or circumstances... ? I one to trust people too, but blindly supporting someone seems a bit.. closed minded.

JzG, your "merge" was so short I can post it here:

"Its assumptions of capacities are based on these speeds and on half-second headways, and includes many other hypothetical features such as speech recognition. Malewicki freely acknowledges that this is at present a paper concept, and no prototype yet exists."

I really wouldn't say thats much of a merge. You can obviously argue that most of the SkyTran article was "fiction", but I beg to differ. Most of the SkyTran article was information on the design *idea*. Why is that sort of information un-fit for wikipedia? You deleted hundreds of lines of information - without moving to personal rapid transit. Fresheneesz 03:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I trust him to be one of the best wikipedian ever. By no means I will not change my mind. --StabiloBoss 21:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, StabiloBoss, but this is an argument about the deletion or undeletion of a page. We aren't arguing the integrity or trustworthiness of either me or JzG. I really just want a merge or delete to be discussed before happening. The discussion that was had wasn't about merging, and there are more people than just me that don't want SkyTran merged with PRT. If you want you can support his descision if you could kindly look at the history of the deleted article. Thanks. Fresheneesz 22:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This, at least the protection as a redirect, was improper. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 11:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I am blocking Cap_j (talk · contribs) for 24 hours pending review by other admins. Cap_j has been involved in a long standing editing dispute in the Shotokan article, where a concensus of editors have continuously reverted his edits for the most part. I responded to this complaint on the Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard, in which Southwick (talk · contribs) stated that "Cap_j has sent links to our discussion on Shotokan to my Department administrator at Michigan State University, where I am employed. This is outrageous behavior. My life as an editor on Wikipedia has nothing to do with my academic career. Something needs to be done." I asked Southwick if he could provide proof to me that this occurred and he has. I can provide the evidence, but I am trying to protect the emails of those involved. User:Wsiegmund is on my watchlisted editors and I saw that he was also involved in this situation in a mediative role. Cap_j posted this email evidence in which he claims that Southwick contacted him directly and wrote:

"I received the following note from Ron: [email addresses snipped] Subject: Wikipedia Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:48:12 -0400 From: "Southwick, Ron" Please do not take this outside the Wikipedia. You do not know who you are messing with. Feel free to contact me here. Thanks, Ron"

I questioned Cap_j about this email and told him I needed verification.[13] I also subsequently recieved a copy of the email that Southwick had sent by way of email to me. In the version that Southwick provided, the wording "You do not know who you are messing with. Feel free to contact me here." does not exist. I asked Cap_j to send me the copy he recieved and the address to Cap_j is different than the address that Southwick actually used to email Cap_j...the times of transmission are also different. In a nutshell, Cap_j did indeed contact Southwick's place of employment in regards to an editing dispute in Wikipedia...that is the primary reason for the block. Secondarily, Cap_j misrepresented an email that Southwick had sent to him, when questioned by myself and by Wsiegmund. Without being unilateral, I request further advisement, and I also want to point out that I am rather itchy about this off wiki harassment as of late, but regardless of that, I am inclined to permanblock Cap_j for his actions.--MONGO 05:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I support a permablock if Cap_j did indeed contact Southwick's place of employment. Ral315 (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In many ways I was just as pigheaded about this as CapJ. I did not realize that this could get so overblown and go beyond Wikipedia. I have learned a lot from this and apologize to those who had to go through it, including CapJ. ron Southwick 14:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I also support a permablock. There is no excuse for that, and falsifying the info just makes it more dastardly. --Syrthiss 14:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked Cap_j (talk · contribs) and his IP 137.207.80.163 (talk · contribs) which was established based on this edit and editing history.--MONGO 00:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Er, I was under the impression that we don't indefinitely block an IP address unless its an open proxy. JoshuaZ 13:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This has got to be one of the most f***ed-up AfDs ever... I can't make head nor tail of it. Bottom line is, the AfD has not been closed but the article has been deleted. Can someone take a look at this? Herostratus 19:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Spectre deleted it as recreated content, it seems: see this diff. I closed the AFD on the basis that it had been speedily deleted--feel free to revert me if that was the wrong decision.-Polotet 21:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Er, OK, whatever... but it appears that Ashur Soro is the Bishop of Seattle of the Assyrian Church of the East, whatever that is, according to this page on what appears to be the official Vatican website... so I'm surprised that his page was ever deleted in the first place, seems like he would be at least marginally notable... but I don't know... the AfD indicated that, for some reason, he is either loathed or adored by some... perhaps better that he rest in peace among the deleted, I don't think I wanna see another AfD like that one... Herostratus 07:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I recently deleted a series of non-English language pages that were just redirects to existing pages, and were listed in CSD. These were all marked with {{notenglish}}, and I assumed that A2 applies to them. Now, Cool Cat (talk · contribs) requested undeletion of the pages, arguing that It is common practice to use redirects to link official names of the organisations, places, tv shows, games, etc to the article with the most comon english name.. I want to know whether non-English language redirects are allowed in the English wikipedia (an example would be イノセンス 攻殻機動隊. The CSD page is not clear about what to do about this. Thanks. --Ragib 20:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I deleted some of these too. I was using the CS rather than the CSD. This is the English wikipedia - non-English links are what interwiki linking is for. If you are looking for Korea in Korean, try the Korean wikipedia. Besides, we have enough problems making sure English language articles and redirects are NPOV and not slanderous without this. The problem with redirects esp in non-latin languages, is that, few editors would be able to read them, and so there would be little chance of problematic redirects being caught. We could be redirecting God->George Bush, or someone's name->asshole and never know. I'd say delete all but the most obvious ones. However, perhaps this is not the forum for this debate. Can someone point to a better place, existing policy or debate, or open up a centralised discussion. --Doc ^ask? 20:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is known. When the native name is written in a non-Latin alphabet this representation should be included along with Latin alphabet transliterations and English alphabet transliterations. For example, the Beijing article should mention that the city is also known as Peking, and that both names are transliterations of the name 北京. It is also useful to have multiple redirects to the main article, for example Sverige is a redirect to Sweden. If there is a significant number of alternative names or forms it may be helpful to keep only the most common two or three in the first paragraph and a list of them in a separate section to avoid cluttering the lead; see Freyr for an example of this.

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English)

Sadly, the naming conventions are not well organized and they generally deal with how the main article should be titled. Some country specific MoS pages also make the same suggestion. There is even Category:Redirects_from_alternate_languages.

I see no real reason to delete them. Often things are named something unrelated in English and just because someone is searching for it in a different language does not mean they are looking for an article in that language. Kotepho 20:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I also deleted a fair percentage of these, using CSD-R3 (stretched somewhat). I also put the {adminbacklog} tag up to call in reinforcements to help with the deleting. However, an unwritten rule of CSD should be that Speedy Deletes are used for things that are assumed to be non-contraversial to everyone (except perhaps the original creator). When I was told that this wasn't a non-contraversial matter, I undeleted all of my own deletes. I'd happily delete them all again, but feel that clarification is now required. As such, it's best to undelete now and debate the matter, then delete again afterward; possibly the only time you'll hear me say that as generally I believe in delete-and-perhaps-recreate-better (with caveats on this entire policy that I won't go into here so please don't judge).

I think that we need to decide where a line lies - if Pokemon is likely to be searched for as "ポケモン", then that redirect should exist. But there's little or no need to redirect "英語" to "English", if nothing else than because the result will be an article in English that the searcher won't understand (the Pokeman searcher may be looking for what ポケモン means on the packet their game/toy/card/something came in, after all). In other words, a redirect to a Proper Noun is, er, proper. A redirect to a simple noun (or a verb etc) is useless.

But, as Stifle says, redirects are cheap: perhaps the Redirect speedy criteria need to be (gulp) a bit more, well, set in stone?

I feel so unclean. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I undid the deletions for now, but this needs to be resolved in a clear cut manner: either we allow non-English redirects, or not allow them. The policy should be clear on this. Thanks. --Ragib 23:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe any harm is done with rediretcs. Presenting a redirect for the cyrilic writing for Moscow or Kanji writing of Tokyo in my view is good practice. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 10:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirects are good for other purposes, such as getting hits on google for your article. I made such a redirect on Atacul de noapte, so that Ro people will have it easier to find the English article if they google the name. --Candide, or Optimism 11:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so can I assume we have a consensus on non western language redirects for proper names? --Ragib 02:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think so, yes. With the caveat that the names ought to be mentioned in the article (to make bogus redirects as mentioned by Doc above easier to catch). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

At WP:PNT, I often redirect duplicate articles with foreign-language titles to the corresponding English-language title. Of course I tag them {{R from alternate language}}. I don't think foreign-language redirects should ever be speedily deleted unless the deleting admin understands the redirect and knows that it is inappropriate; at least the redirect should be given the chance to have a speaker of the language look at it first. For example, we could make a rule that you should ask at WP:PNT whether a foreign-looking redirect makes sense. Kusma (討論) 14:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

See this notice for details. This is an invocation of remedy 2 and enforcement clause 1.1 in the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus 3 after a checkuser request returned a confirmation that Cantus had socked. --Tony Sidaway 16:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the correct term is sockpuppetry not sockery. Nice use of language though. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 23:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

And the use of "sock" as a verb is interesting. Sock it to 'em! —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait till it makes it way to dictionaries! --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 07:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The arbitration committee has enacted a temporary injunction in this case. It reads: "Due to continued disruption Terryeo is banned from editing articles related to Dianetics or Scientology pending resolution of this request." Please ensure it is adhered to. Thank you. On behalf of the arbcom, Johnleemk | Talk 15:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Alienus for 72 hours for repeated, ongoing, egregious personal attacks and disruption on WP:AN/3RR. This user has severe issues understanding what it means to be civil, and has received many, many warnings about personal attacks -- far more than most other users. This latest series of incidents is full of personal attacks, but the best one so far is "Your edits suck and so do you," [14].

Since I have a history with this user (he has alternately accused me, incorrectly, of being a member of a "Christian cabal" or "Jewish cabal," depending on which content dispute he's involved in at any given moment), I'm posting this block here for review. Nandesuka 16:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Because of past disagreements between Nandesuka and Alienus over the content of circumcision related articles, in my opinion it is inappropriate for Nandesuka to use his position as an administrator to block Alienus. In the interest of fairness, Nandesuka should excuse himself from any administrative action involving Alienus.

Also in the interest of fairness it should be noted that Alienus edited the offending comment cited by Nandesuka when he realized that that it had been posted. [15] -- DanBlackham 20:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

If it were a content dispute, I'd agree, but this is user conduct, on pages that are totally unrelated to circumcision. I think that Nandesuka was right to raise the issue here, since as he points out he has a history with Alienus, but as far as I can tell his actions were appropriate.

I am inclined to wonder, incidentally, how many admins have had the luxury of avoiding Alienus' hostility. I suspect that they are few in number. Jakew 20:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I too agree with N. I'll also point out that DB is hardly neutral in this: check his contribs [16]. Spot any patterns relating to A? William M. Connolley 21:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Nor is Jake neutral in this. Anyone who is familiar with the debate over elective, non-therapeutic circumcision outside of Wikipedia will recognize Jake Waskett as a very active and dedicated circumcision advocate. -- DanBlackham 07:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, many anti-circumcision activists have made this claim, but none have ever been able to show me a single example where I have ever a) advised a prospective parent to circumcise, or b) said that circumcision is advisable in general. Interesting. Do feel free to discuss this further on my talk page. Jakew 11:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The conflicts usually start out as a content dispute, then when an editor like Alienus responses in an intemperate way, the focus changes to the user's conduct. People's attention is thus distracted from the real source of disagreement which is content.

In my opinion the analysis by Michael Glass of the problems with the circumcision related articles is accurate. [17] The items in point six are particularly relevant. "If the first editor protests in a way that is at all intemperate, the hostile editor invokes all the Wiki rules about incivility." -- DanBlackham 07:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I also completly agree with Nandesku's actions. I don't think N is involved any more than anyone else that has come into contact with Alienus. This user is so rude and uncivil that it is probable that anyone that has edited on the same page as him will encounter some of his innappropriate comments. In this case it was perfectly appropriate to act as Nandesku did.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The arbitration committee has enacted a temporary injunction in this case. It reads: "Until the conclusion of this arbitration, Aucaman is placed on standard revert parole. He may not make more than one content revert per article per day. Should he revert excessively, he may be briefly banned, up to a week for repeated violations." Please ensure it is adhered to. Thank you. On behalf of the arbcom, Johnleemk | Talk 16:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phrenicea It seems to be a bit of a mess, can some one please help sort it out. From the looks of it a new AfD discussion has been added on to a old non-closed discussion.--blue520 16:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the second AFD to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phrenicea (2nd nomination). Hope this helps! --lightdarkness ^(talk) 19:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry there still are problems, the AfD notice on Phrenicea still points to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phrenicea rather than the new Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phrenicea (2nd nomination) and two users have placed discussions on the older AfD since the two were split.--blue520 04:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved. Thank you, Lightdarkness for helping.--blue520 14:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This new user, The wcw wrestling 2008 | Talk has been adding nonsense to professional wrestling articles for the past six hours - please ban him. TheNewMinistry 20:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Ral315 (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Jcuk has done a bang up job bringing this list in line with style and policy, AfD nom withdrawn and I'd be grateful if someone would close the (no-consensus bound) debate. Deizio 21:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

AfDs are often closed when the nomination is withdrawn, but not when other users have commented in favour of deletion. Leave a note on the AfD that the page was rewritten after some people had commented, so the closer knows to give less weight to early comments, and then just let time run its course. --bainer (talk) 07:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There was a fairly stable article titled American liberalism. Somebody moved it to American social liberalism and then moved it again to Social liberalism (United States). On the talk page, several people opposed the move and nobody supported it when it turned out that the person who made the move had not bothered to fix redirects. (I was willing to go along with it, but have now joined the others who oppose the move.) I tried to move the article back, but it wouldn't move because of the double redirect. So, I'm afraid I made matters worse by trying to move American liberalism to American liberalism scratch, to free up the name for the article to move back. That didn't work. I read some advice in "help" and now realize that I should have moved the article back one step at a time, but apparently it is too late for that now, though I have managed to move it back from Social liberalism (United States) to American social liberalism. There it sits.

Since the main article on liberalism links to the article American liberalism I think that title is the most stable. If you are willing to help by moving American social liberalism back to American liberalism, and delete American liberalism scratch, American social liberalism, and Social liberalism (United States), I will take on the job of fixing all the links.

Thanks. Rick Norwood 23:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Everything should be fixed now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone please close this AfD? It's been way over 5 days, I am afraid it was overlooked. Thanks - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

For some reason Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 17 was missing from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old. I've rectified that, and relisted the debate you came here about as it had only two contributors. If there's a few more deletes it can be closed (currently 3). --kingboyk 04:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

...and deleted. --kingboyk 05:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing like a short cancelation of a new opening night! What a theatre! <G> FrankB 05:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Lol! You snooze, you lose. Sorry about that :) --kingboyk 05:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No one has bothered to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cycle theory (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cycle theory|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which was initially posted April 5 2005. Maybe it fell off an AfD log or something. Sandstein 13:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it has apparently fallen off the AFD list. I am therefore adding it to today's list so that we are assured of giving it a full 5 days worth of visible discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted some deletion vandalism at Vincent Gallo and posted appropriate warnings on the IP's talk page. I then received these replies. High points: 1)user claims to have access to 100+ Penn State University IPs, and thus can never really be blocked, and 2)s/he is "part of Daniel Brandt's team, 'Wikipedia Watch', and our eventual goal to get Wikipedia privately edited. It will happen some day soon, trust me. Jimmy Wales will cave some day soon enough." S/he has left similar messages on other pages. It's point #2 that's particulary troubling. However unlikely it is that there's some sort of organized effort to sabotage Wikipedia, we should all know about it. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 01:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If he keeps coming back, block the whole range, with a note that university staff should contact the blocking admin to discussion the reason for the block. Universities, unlike most ISPs, are very responsive when blocked. Raul654 01:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

With threats like that, I'd contact the university right away. We can't tolerate bullshit like that. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 23:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

They do realise that the "private editors" would ultimately end up being, um... the very people they want to get rid of? Alphax ^τεχ 07:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Contact the univesity immediately per Werdna. They'll probably crack down quickly and nicely. JoshuaZ 04:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a grad school employee, I agree. The IP people will think of such folk as a security threat. --CTSWyneken 03:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone, WP:PROD is now policy and sometimes I get the feeling I'm the only person actually going through and deleting the PRODs that have been around for five days. There's a big ole mama backlog at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/en_proposed_deletion, including some that I can't delete because I was the PRODder myself. Little help, please! Thanks, Angr (talk • contribs) 08:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That list is deceptive, I just checked it and most of the red items have already been deleted. This display may be the result of replication lag. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried maintaining that once but got extremely fed up because of the problem Xaosflux mentioned. I'd like to help, but there are things I can do on Wikipedia that are just as useful and less frustrating. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there no way of finding PRODs due for deletion that actually works? I clicked on some at random from the Interiot list just now - not just the bottom three - and two had already been deleted, while one had had its PROD tag removed. Hell, I was about to post this, then I did it again - all three were fairly near the top of the reds, and all three had been deleted already. That is not good odds for someone who wants to spend their time productively. I'm wondering how this became official policy. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Any enterprising editor can feel free to leave the {{prod}} tag on, then also add a CSD tag to get these worked as a band-aid solution. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I also gave up on trying to delete PRODs because there was no reliable up to date list of which articles were ready for deletion. Each link I clicked the article had already been deleted or deprodded. Seemed like a waste of time. --kingboyk 03:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Could we make a bot that automatically adds articles that are past their prod time to the CSD list? That way we could consolidate it all to one clearing house. BrokenSegue 15:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with making such a bot. When I first became an admin, I was chastised multiple times for deleting articles that did not fit CSD criteria. CSD'ing all old PRODs would result in lots of admins all of the sudden speedily deleting articles against policy. In fact, when I scan through CAT:CSD, I routinely find articles marked as CSD that shouldn't be. When I find such an article, I either AFD it or PROD it. PROD should be used to remove all anti-process CSDs, not add to them. --M@thwiz2020 15:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your objection on the specifics, but the basic idea is a pretty good one I think. How about a new category containing articles which have been PRODed for 5 days? --kingboyk 15:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• At present, the backlog is gone. Everything below Swami Devvrat has been dealt with. Until the replication lag clears up, I wonder if it might not be easiest just to leave a manual note somewhere about where an admin working the list left off? Joyous | Talk 16:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help you, but sometimes on my computer this page take an age to load! *Sigh*. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone brought this up with the software developers? --CTSWyneken 11:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• 18:02, 23 April 2006 - User:Sceptre (for reasons unknown to me) reverts {{prod}} breaking the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion system.
• 18:12, 23 April 2006 - User:Rory096 starts substituting the templates without discussion, however at this moment a message in big red letters displayed on each article currently prodded states that {{prod}} should be substituted.
• 19:01, 23 April 2006 - User:Kelly Martin blocks User:Rory096 for substituting {{prod}} on a large number of articles.
• 19:06, 23 April 2006 - User:Sceptre undoes his edit to {{prod}}. This does not repair the system, however.
• 22:05, 23 April 2006 - User:R. Koot decides to switch to the {{dated prod}} system, which we hadn't done until now because it would break the system for five days (but this has already happened at this point). There already was a consensus to eventually switch to {{dated prod}} and to cause the least amount of trouble switching this needed to happen as soon as possible after Sceptre broke the system.
• 00:30, 24 April 2006 - User:Rory096 continues substituting the {{prod}} templates and correcting the dates of the {{dated prod}} templates. (Note that at this time all the pages which are prodded agian show a big red message requesting people to substitute them template.)
• 00:56, 24 April 2006 - User:Kelly Martin blocks Rory096 again, claiming there is no consensus for this change. She is wrong here.

What it all boils down to is that due to Sceptre editing the template the system will be broken for the next five days (even if the toolserver comes back online before that time) unless we substitute all the {{prod}} templates and correct the dates on the {{dated prod}} templates. There seems to be a consensus for this at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion for this. I'm afraid Kelly Martin fails to understand the situation here. In this light Rory096's block seems extremely unfair and unjustified. I requested her to unblock him and appologize for this misunderstanding but has not answered my latest e-mail. —Ruud 03:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is NOT a consensus for these changes to {{prod}}; I've seen significant evidence of edit warring and several admins have expressed concern about the recent changes. I strongly urge that the entire situation be left alone until a true consensus emerges. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring? Could you provide some diffs of that? Which admins have expressed there concerns? Have you even read Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion? Most people say they would prefer {{dated prod}}, no one opposes it. Proposed deletions can't be left alone. We either have to keep it working (and {{dated prod}} is the only way we can keep it working right now) or suspend the process. Again there is a clear consensus on the talk page for the former. —Ruud 03:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Also understand that these are not changes but repairs. After Sceptre edited the template there was no longer a choice between {{prod}} or {{dated prod}}. Our options were just reduced to {{dated prod}} or no WP:PROD at all, so by urging to leave it alone you are also making a choice (for which there clearly is no consensus). This may all be a nasty situation, but in no way warranting a block of anyone. People are trying to keep Wikipedia running smoothly and you treat them like vandals. —Ruud 04:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sceptre initially reverted the template because there was a discussion in #wikipedia about how it wasn't working. He reverted it to the dated system and Rory started subst the template to get the dates in. Sceptre then reverted his initial change as a result of Rory's initial block. When R. Koot decided to revert back to the dated prod, I don't see what was wrong with Rory fixing the templates. At this point in time, he was actually benefiting WP. Perhaps there is something I'm missing. Pepsidrinka 03:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Rory096 actually broke the template when he started subst'ing in without the correct date. I've rolled back all of his "today" substs and am letting Tawkerbot tag them with the correct date. Once the bot is done, its probally safe to unblock but the block was the right thing to do -- Tawker 07:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the first block, but after that block he actually corrected the dates, doing manually what your bot just did automatically, making the second block unfair and baseless. —Ruud 15:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't we just keep it in place and use it when the toolserver comes back within a week or so. I reverted prod once on benon's request, as every single prod page was giving me this huge subst notice which was breaking it. We could use a bot to to check the date when the prod was added but it's going to be a fairly big pain in the ass if we're going back to one system or another. (most of the code I should be able to nab from Tawkerbot2, it might bot be as big of a deal as I think) -- Tawker 04:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Rory has requested use of AWB (he was removed from the approved user list by Kelly Martin), should it be reinstated? Prodego ^talk 01:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems like Rory was doing what he (and apparently others) thought was the consensus decision... which was also what the template itself specifically instructed. I haven't kept up with the whole 'broken prod' mess but there was obviously a good deal of confusion. Some people are still suggesting that what Rory was doing was beneficial or, at worst, only that Tawker's bot could have done the same thing more efficiently if Rory hadn't been doing it manually. Trying to 'fix' something and other people subsequently deciding to 'fix' it a different way doesn't seem like any kind of 'bad act' to me. --CBDunkerson 11:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Kelly was wrong here. She has not provided any evidence that there was a dispute over Rory's actions (diffs, someone else confirming, etc.) and diffs and the PROD talk page testify that there was support for Rory's action. As I see it, the block was simply and planinly incorrect, unless Kelly or someone else can provide such evidence. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll just lay this out in point form for you:

1. One of your admin reverted a change with no comment. rv
2. The admin reversion was immidiatly undone, You are supposed to be an administrator! Remember, I'm not a "communist" --we can discuss this, my changes follow policy!.
3. I then added my image .
4. Finally, your admin locked the page, [Protected Cuba: Stop edit war, allow discussion [edit=sysop:move=sysop)]] and reverted it all (my image included!) [[18]]
5. So far, there has been no efforts at discussion. But I did recently leave a message at the admins userpage, so give it time

Also Note: The previous time this admin sponsored a revert war (after welcoming me by calling me a coward/sock puppet [19], the admin brought this up [20] ([21]). Now I still have no hard feelings, but this admin is really standing in the way of fixing up the article. I understand in the admin's world view, Castro represents things that I can't understand... I just want someone to help out here. (disclosure: the anon involved is me)

Please and thank you, Mystork 20:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Since he was also involved in editing the page, it was likely not appropriate for PMA to protect the page. I'm also not sure why he felt the need to roll back to his version while the page was protected, as it seems a bit petty. However I would advise against making substantial changes to contentious articles without testing for disagreement on the talk page. The actual content of his edits seems quite reasonable, but he probably should not have mixed in admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to be able to defend myself but i am going to be mostly wikiaway in the next week due to chronic health problem treatment - ask 172 or Adam Carr to find out that i am a good editor and Adam has said that i mean well - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BruceHallman&diff=49461797&oldid=49459999 PMA 04:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No real need to defend yourself...based on his edits I assume that Mystork is probably not a super-easy-to-get-along-with kind of guy. But it would probably be better to leave protection (at least protection related to content disputes) for uninvolved admins. Cheers, Christopher Parham (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this out Christopher, PMA Mystork 00:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree here PMA violated #1 & #2 of the protection policy and should have to defend his actions. A uninvolved admin should have been asked to step in, the page should NOT have been reverted, and PMA should NOT have protected the page himself. Users are expected to respect policy and admins should also respect policy. Mike _{(T C)} 18:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

A relative newbie user talk: Wrc60 , User talk:202.40.210.246, and User talk:85.165.205.144 has a ton of pages 'Inuse' (Note Group), has used at least two IP's, and forgotten (???) his account name or password or something. Most of these (20?) are generaly boilerplate and very much effectively empty. He was working on 1973 this evening earlier. I left him a couple of notes but he'd apparently just shut down for the night. FrankB 08:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of them have been tagged for weeks! {{inuse}} is supposed to be for a couple of hours at most; {{underconstruction}} isn't really appropriate for this kind of time span either. He does appear to be working on them albeit very slowly, and they could be useful articles, so perhaps the best solution would be to remove the tags and add a stub template instead? --kingboyk 08:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd gotten that far, but I needed my beauty rest (Trust Me!). I figure one reason he's done this is because of all the fancy interlinking, which if they were in sandbox mode would require him to then fix those cross links once the articles were moved to article space. I'll do five or so, if a few others will take on as many, he can't get too resentful. Best regards, FrankB 15:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've done 5 and tagged em with {{Autoracing-stub}} instead of {{inuse}}. --kingboyk 15:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I was browsing through the administrator's reading list and came across this page, as it is the very first one. This page seems to be very inactive and has basically been replaced by WP:AN and WP:ANI, among other pages. There has been talk in the past of adding a {{historical}} tag to this page (see Wikipedia_talk:Account_suspensions#Does_anyone_actually_use_this.3F). Are there any objections to making this a historical page, and perhaps removing it from the reading list? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I still use it, and would like to continue doing so. El_C 20:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not use AN/I, RFI, etc., which all get much more traffic? I mean, the last few edits on that page reach into February. Snoutwood (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Those pages are always hundreds of kb — whenever Wikipedia is slow (often) it can be unmanagable (RFI is NA). El_C 21:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I want to check which autoblocks have been generated on the basis of blocks I have made, but can't find a way to filter the list (search filters on the blocked user not the blocking admin). Can anybody help? Cheers TigerShark 22:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Since his arbitration case, DPSingh (talk · contribs) has violated his ruling and been blocked, and then created a whole host of sockpuppets to violate his article ban, and just be generally disruptive and uncivil. See most recent socks at Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#Rajput_case.

For continued violation of his article ban for edit warring and incivility using sockpuppets, DPSingh is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year.

Passed 6 to 0 at 23:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 23:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This has not yet been officially implemented. Can someone implement this? --69.117.7.63 02:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Done; DPSingh (talk · contribs) has been blocked for one year. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone please close or relist this AfD? It has been open since the 7th of April, that is a bit more than the normal five days. By the looks of it was removed accidentally from the April 7 Log when another AfD was listed.--blue520 02:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Closed now. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved this page from Adel Abdul-Mahdi. The internet spells his name both ways. For instance, CBS spells it Adil [22] however, FORBES spells it Adel [23]. Futhermore, some spell the last name with a hypen, some without. Is the page where it is right now okay? I added the redirects that I thought were necessary Thanks! OSU80 03:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There are a few double redirects left: see Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Adil_Abdul-Mahdi to find them. Otherwise, looks good to me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User:The_Chosen_One has made no edits other than to set up a user page which is a copy of the Anakin Skywalker article. At minimum, the categories need to be modified so that it doesn't show up in the relevant article cats, but I'm not sure what should be done or why the user did this. JoshuaZ 04:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is this a problem? If a Wikipedia user wants to copy parts of an article onto their user or talk pages--I don't see why this would be a problem. Almost Famous 05:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes maybe he just hasn't had a chance to write any articles yet. But maybe...just maybe..this user is actually Anakin Skywalker. You probably don't want to offend him just in case.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

According to Georgia Public Broadcasting this morning, "the Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia has traced a change to the biography of Lieutenant Governor candidate Mark Taylor inserting his son's drunken driving arrest to the office of his opponent, Cathy Cox. The insertion of the tragic event was uncivil." Ok, now Georgia Public Broadcasting has a highly political ownership that is very close to one political party (Mark Taylor's) (Republican). What I want to know is who is this 'Wikipedia' who traced the change? I saw no request on WP:AN or WP:AN/I. Did an admin do this? Did Jimbo? We're in the news, and we appear to be taking sides, as the news copy makes it sound like we condemn the change or characterize it as "incivil." If we're being hijacked, we need to make a disclaimer/explanation. Geogre 11:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: I and Gmaxwell have written on the article's talk page, but the mystery remains. Who is "Wikipedia" in this context? It sounds for all the world like a ... a fib, let's say... that's in that news report, and I suggest that someone from the Foundation clarify the thing with the news drones of Georgia, lest they make us a greater part of their political strife. Geogre 13:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: about 5 minutes ago on CNN's "The Situation Room", one of the blog reporters claimed this was confirmed by "Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales". Can anyone confirm this, or is this just a silly blog reporter making a claim they don't think will ever be checked? (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

An Atlanta Journal-Constitution article states that Jimmy told the Associated Press that it had been traced. I assume checkuser was used. FCYTravis 21:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If that's true, it would have been nice if the wp:an had been warned that we were about to get dragged into it again. (And why, exactly, are we doing checkuser requests on articles like that? Doesn't that, if true, open the door to every single unhappy reader demanding to know the location of every single displeasing edit? Doesn't that chill contributors in general?) I'm sincerely hoping that it's not true and hope that folks bring it up on the mailing list and cross-post Jimbo's response here. Geogre 22:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I struck through my statement because I believe it's wrong. If an unregistered user inserted the information, only a whois request would be needed to determine basic information about the location of the IP address. FCYTravis 22:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It is also interesting to contemplate whether Wikipedia has any effective privacy policy left. Is there any circumstance left under which we will not release the identity of an editor to the press? If this person had used an ID rather than an IP, would we still ferret them out and announce their location? - Nunh-huh 22:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If a member of a political campaign edits the encyclopedia with the intent to use its articles as political weaponry, then absolutely they should be ferreted out and exposed. FCYTravis 22:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but that means: anytime anyone edits a political article in a way we don't like, we will investigate them to determine if they are a campaign worker carelessly working from their office. I'm not so sure that's desirable. - Nunh-huh 23:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

We are the free encyclopedia anyone can edit, not the free encyclopedia anyone can edit without fear of any reprecussions for actions they may commit which tend to damage the encyclopedia. FCYTravis 23:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be a good argument for requiring users to [1] register, [2] edit under their actual names, and [3] display their e-mail addresses prominently. I'm think inflicting real world invasions of privacy any time someone complains would be rather a bad policy. - Nunh-huh 00:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please! I'm the original worry wart when it comes to political edits and Wikipedia as a campaign tool, but this case is quite different. The editor resolved to an IP at her office (her being Cathy Cox), and the edits were embarrassing but true information. I'm not for either politician, as I haven't made up my mind about whom I support in the race, but, as much as I fear (and as often as I sang songs of woe about the coming use of Wikipedia in politics), it's one thing to say "We will revert any political usage of Wikipedia and protect pages that are being used for campaigning" or "We will put disclaimers on pages indicating that our open editorial policy renders them unstable" and quite another to say, "We will tell anyone who asks how to use WHOIS." I don't object to Mark Taylor's office running WHOIS or reading the History tab. I object to "Wikipedia confirms that the edits came from Cathy Cox's office." It turns out that such was not the case, quite. It appears that Jimbo was asked to confirm that a given change was the insertion and that WHOIS did give a particular ownership. I guess I would have preferred his saying, "That appears to be the case" or "You have read the history correctly" and overtly tried not to give the newspapers grounds for saying "Wikipedia says," and, of course, the Georgia Public Radio newswriters made things much worse. It's a game of telephone by the time it gets to their hacks, but I do wish we weren't confirming or appearing to assent to searching out the origins of non-libelous edits. Geogre 02:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I asked this at WP:VPT over an hour and a half ago and haven't gotten answer, so I'll try here. I'm an admin and can alter MediaWiki pages. How do I correct the name of a language displayed in the "Other languages" box? MediaWiki:Otherlanguages isn't it. Angr (talk • contribs) 13:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You cannot. Live MediaWiki has to be changed by develepers. -- Vít Zvánovec 15:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Would appreciate it if an esteemed sysop closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EarthCore (Podcast novel). I have withdrawn my nomination, and the only other two votes are "delete per nom". Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have closed the AfD. Crazy Russian intends to move & tidy article, in collaboration with another editor. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Can the Welcome template be modified to include a copy of the toolbox and wiki-links, so that new Wikipedians will not burden you guys with questions, such as this: "Where do I go to report a vandal ?' or, "The website went down, why did this happen ?" ? I have all of the wiki-links and tools that may prove useful to new Wikipedians. Martial Law 03:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC) :)

What I'm asking is this: Can a copy of the Wiki-links and toolbox found on my userpage be placed in the "Welcome" template, so that future new arrivals will know where to go. Martial Law 03:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC) :)

The intent is to lighten the load on WP:AN Martial Law 04:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC) :)

What's this got to do with WP:AN? --pgk^(talk) 07:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to propose any changes to the template, you should do so at Template talk:Welcome. --bainer (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at his user page. The last time I looked, he had put a user box there that read "This user has probably banged your wife/girlfriend or Ex". I'm not sure if that is acceptable content for a user page. - Conrad Devonshire 03:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It is somewhat distasteful, but seeing as it's not horribly offensive, I've just politely asked him if he would remove two of them. ~MDD4696 05:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be separately concerned that the user has done nothing but edit their userpage in the 6 days they've been here. JoshuaZ 05:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is necesary to come up with a concensus for this.

Talk pages exist as a means to comunicate with others. User talk pages are also an excelent source of evidence for arbitration cases as well as rfcs.

Hence I feel it is inaproporate to delete user talk pages even if the user leaves the project (such leaves are often temporary).

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 07:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about a user deleting their own talk page, or a user deleting someone else's page? If a user is leaving the project then there's no harm in them deleting their user page or user talk page. If it is actually needed for an arbitration request, it can be undeleted then, just ask one of the admins at Category:User undeletion. --bainer (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think user talk pages should be deleted under any circumstances, and most particularly I don't it's proper to delete one's own user talk page. It seems to me to fall under the same category as using blocking privileges to enforce your own Wikibreak, which is strictly prohibited. I can easily see people leaving the project (with the serious intention of going away for good) during a particularly nasty exchange, deleting their userpage, then coming back sometime later and 'forgetting' to restore it. Similarly, I do seem to recall that in several past arbitrations, an admin's deletion of their own user talk page (during one nasty exchange or another, granted, and after they'd said things they'd obviously rather unsay) became one of the central issues against them. Basically, if an admin wants to leave the project, I see no reason why they can't settle for merely blanking their user and talk pages like anyone else... permanently deleting other users' legitimate comments strikes me as something to be avoided and discouraged whenever possible. --Aquillion 09:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with prohibition of deleting user pages. Every one has a right to decide about his pages. Just blanking is not enough. Otherwise everyone should be warned: "If you post anything even on your own page, it cannot be deleted." -- Vít Zvánovec 10:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

That warning is inherent to everything added to Wikipedia, and is indeed presented to you before every edit; that's part of what it means when it says that "you agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." No one has the automatic right to utterly retract anything that they add to Wikipedia, even on their own talk pages; it is not even within a normal user's capabilities to permanently delete their talk page. Indeed, a normal user who requested that one of their submissions or comments be hard-deleted simply because they desired it would (rightfully) be laughed off of whatever forum they requested it on. Granted, admins are given the ability to "permanently" delete things under a limited subset of circumstances in order to help run the encyclopedia, but I see nothing in the rules that would extend this to grant them the discretionary ability to delete their own talk pages, nor any reason why it should be extended to grant them that right. Deleting your own talk page has nothing to do with the maintenance or smooth functioning of the encyclopedia, which is supposed to be the sole purpose of an admin's abilities, and goes against the principals of openness and respect for the comments of others, both of which are essential to Wikipedia's functioning. --Aquillion 11:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious that a normal user cannot delete his or her page by himself or herself. But the petition for that should be done without reluctance. Has anybody to be forced to have personal attacs on his or her own talk page?

GFDL was always meant for encyclopedical articles, not for my personal data I post at my page. Your attitude is a great endangering of privacy. -- Vít Zvánovec 15:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

+ Some addition: In my view there is a great difference between real name users and pseudonyms. If I were three years ago with my current knowledge, I would never choose my real name login again. -- Vít Zvánovec 15:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal information is a special case. Users can always have personal information about themselves specifically excised, provided it isn't already common knowledge. (You could get your username changed, by the way; I know of at least one other longstanding user who had his name changed for that reason.) I should note in passing, though, that I was talking about the wholesale deletion of user:talk pages, not the user pages themselves or the removal of specific troublesome edits; the issue with deleting user:talk pages is that it invariably involves deleting the comments of numerous other users, which is normally against policy. We do it when deleting an article, sure, but in that case the discussions are unlikely to remain relevant. With a user's talk page, though, they remain relevant for, at the very least, as long as the flesh-and-blood user those comments were directed to could conceivably continue contributing to Wikipedia. --Aquillion 03:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

User talk pages should not be deleted. User pages may be deleted. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that a user has taken exception to something I've said or done; his complaints are rather incoherent so I can't say more. He has expressed himself a number of times on my user page; an admin thoughtfully placed it under semi-protection. Now this annoyed user, via a succession of socks, has turned to my talk. A number of admins have taken time out from their busy rounds to stem the tide. I apologize for any inconvenience.

I'd like to suggest that so long as this user confines himself to experimentation on my user page he is not a danger to the community. I'm sure we would all rather see him better directed, perhaps away from the project entirely; but it may be most efficient to permit him to enjoy himself on one page in this project that is of little or no concern to anybody. I don't consider my user page to be any sort of showplace; it's merely a collection of useful links. History provides me with usable versions on demand; this user's expressions are a minor inconvenience even to me. Meanwhile he expends his energies harmlessly.

I would appreciate if admins who notice such play be sure to add each new sock to the appropriate category. However, I'd prefer my user page not be protected and, for that matter, that no admin take time to revert changes to it. I'm sure I appreciate the attention but it's really not needed. Thank you. John Reid 17:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Prodego ^talk 03:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. John Reid 19:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The edit warring on this article was getting out of hand yesterday. I was informed on my talk page about this by an anon ip editor. On reviewing the AfD the article had gone through (resulting in no consensus) the discussion leant towards it being moved to OITC fraud, which I did last night. The edit warring continued for a while on both pages, eventually ending with 3rr by both parties for which I blocked both editors for 11 hours. Both appeared to accept this positively but edits to the article today (and absence of same to talk page) show no attempts in talking it out.

The anon claims it is all a big hoax, the named editor(s) claim it is genuine and that the wiki is being used for defamatory purposes. There has already been some mention of liturgation by the named users. I have moved the talk that was posted on my talk page to the article's talk page. I would like (a) more experienced admin(s) who knows their way round these points better than I to take a look at both the article and the talk page, and give me some idea what needs doing from here. Thanks. --Alf ^melmac 18:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Further talk from both editors my page today;

OITC Fraud[edit]

Alf, I am wondering what to do about the persistent vandalism and menaces directed agaist the above mentioned article and against the authors of the original article thereby filed. I would not initiate another persistent copy and paste, but I would be thankful if this issue can be referred to someone at Wiki.

I and some friends have worked hard in the article, furnishing as many sources as possible and in general giving hard and verifiable facts. The people from the OITC only fill up the same recycled paragraphs they have used before in their dealings. Can something be done? Thanks in advance for your reply.

I just wanted to note that I removed a subthread of this here since it contained blatant legal threats, baseless legal threats but still legal threats. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 15:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No, seriously, fuck is vandalised a lot (who'd have thought?). Should we semiprot, do you think? Just zis Guy you know? 22:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. ~MDD4696 22:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say no. its 3-4 vandal edits a day. Frankly, that's not much. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

And it's probably on around 300 watchlists... Sasquatch t|c 05:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Where are you guys??! - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 15:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Backlog now cleared (multi admin effort). Petros471 15:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I just listed 207.193.136.7 on the Administrator intervention against vandalism list for, after 10 previous warnings, changing the copyright tag of my picture to Salvador A. Lopez. In my eyes, attributing a copyrighted image to a false author is a serious offence, certainly as the history of this user shows that it's not an accident. However, administrator Prodego removed my alert without taking action, stating rm 207.193.136.7, old vandal, may not be vandalism. Could someone please explain this? Nick Mks 18:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If a vandal is operating infrequently enough to be easily reverted, then a block isn't necessary. If you really want an answer I suggest that you contact Prodego directly. — Laura Scudder ☎ 19:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. However, I see that Syrthiss has already taken the necessary steps. And for the record, I don't blame Prodego for anything, I just was wondering what was going on. Nick Mks 19:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not much for blocking people, in this case since the vandalism was pretty old, and there was none after it, a block seemed unnecessary, after all blocks are "preventative rather than punitive." (my favorite quote ;-) ) Prodego ^talk 19:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Having had many occasions over the past several months to use images taken and published in Cuba during the 1960's, and having searched in vain for a specific PD tag to cover these cases, I decided today to create one, i.e. Template:PD-Cuba. However, since I am not a copyright attorney or specialist in such matters, I would like to have Template:PD-Cuba reviewed by someone who is to make sure that my understanding that, because Cuba did not sign the Berne Convention until 20 February 1997, images taken and published in Cuba before that date are in the public domain. Not knowing where else to place this request, I decided to post it here ... Polaris999 18:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags Jkelly 18:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!! Polaris999 18:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This arbitration case is now claused. SimonP is cautioned to respond appropriately to the expressed community consensus.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 23:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The AfD for this article is stale. I bring it to your attention in case you're interested in closing it. -- cmh 01:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a nonsense article worthy of speedy to me. And also, someone moved the page while it was on AfD. --Ragib 01:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Ral315 (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Any admins interested in updating this. There is a bit of a backlog building up. Regards,ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

For those interested, I have developed a quick history page analysis script. You can click here to get it or ask me for info about the history analysis JS script. This will also allow for me to easily create a "my edit summary" usage tab, for those of you with editcountitis. Thanks! Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 04:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A functions was previously not copied over. Should be fixed now.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 06:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a question. Assuming I revert four times on an article within twenty four hours and then I realize I have violated the 3RR and undo my last revert (by reverting myself), will I get blocked? The policy doesn't specify this. Telex 10:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't block you, personally, and if I had blocked you without knowing of the self-revert, and you told me about it, I would unblock. I would say that it's not in the policy because it's a very rare occurrence, and when it does happen admins should be expected to use their common sense. Technically a 3RR block would still be valid, though I would guess that most admins would show leniency - but not showing leniency would not be a just cause to start filing 'admin abuse' RFCs. If that happened, it would be best to leave an edit summary clearly explaining what you're doing. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't revert war. The second revert is an indication that somethign is wrong; take it to Talk sooner rather than later. Just zis Guy you know? 11:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Concur, WP:3RR shouldn't be seen as a permission to revert 3 times in 24 hours, it means don't edit war. --pgk^(talk) 20:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Admins, I have encountered a series of massive deletions by one editor called User:Tlf-t4pa. He is deleting whole sections (or the entire article) on pages related to Priory of Sion, Knight Templars, Pierre Plantard, all without any explanation either in edit summaries or talk pages. Only one edit out of many seemed to be justifiable. He even deleted chunks from talk pages. Can anyone please step in and stop this? Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Final warning issued. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, he's stopped for now. I've been watching him since I dropped the {{bv}} on him originally, and was going to indef block if he didn't start listening to reason. --Syrthiss 14:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

In the past week alone, there have been around 15 reversions of anon vandalism (originating all over the place) with no significant content additions (see week-long diff) on Viv Nicholson. Would it be improper to have it semi-protected for now? Are there policies that dictate how long? Alternatively, what would be the proper course of action? Thanks, dewet|✉ 18:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A user has asked me if he can have some personal information deleted from a talk page archive, which he regrets leaving. The trouble is that he made the edits in question months ago and never removed it, and the archive contains many more edits on top of it, all containing the personal information. So far as I can see the only way to delete the personal information altogether is to edit the page to remove it, then delete all the revisions leading up to it. Would that be acceptable? It's a talk page archive rather than an article, so would the signatures be sufficient to avoid breaking the GFDL? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Can another administrator, preferably someone with experience with image copyright tags, take a look at (warning: image is graphic) Image:Jfkautopsy.jpg? The uploader, Gpscholar (who has received several warning messages from OrphanBot already) has tagged it as public domain and gives this as his summary: http://www.celebritymorgue.com -- this is a photograph of President Kennedy's corpse, taken at his autopsy and is, as such, in the public domain. However, the photo has the website's name in the corner, and when I visited the website, it does not provide any source information and also says Copyright 2005, which makes me doubt that the photo is really public domain. All in all, the image triggered my "red flag" instinct, so I've gone ahead and removed it from the John F. Kennedy article, which the uploader added it to. I would appreciate it if someone else would take a look at this. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the website rotten.com states they "collects images and information from many sources to present the viewer with a truly unpleasant experience." In this case, the question is what source did they get this from? For JFK, they state "The autopsy pictures, taken at Bethesda Naval Hospital on November 22, 1963." I think it's safe to assume they were taken by government employees there. Now, what context was the picture used in the article. Being graphic as it is, I know we allow such pictures, but I personally don't think this picture is essential in illustrating his assassination in the main John F. Kennedy article. On the other hand, it's more directly pertinent to the John F. Kennedy assassination article. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I agree that the inclusion of the pictures is a separate topic. I'm just wondering, given that the image has the site's name in the corner and that the site does say copyright 2005, that the image does qualify as pd? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure. celebritymorgue.com didn't take the picture, so they can't copyright it. They can put their watermark on it, and they can stick a copyright notice on their web site, but that doesn't matter. If it was really taken by US Navy doctors during the autopsy (seems likely) then it would be {{PD-USGov}}. User:dbenbenn 17:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I don't believe wikipedia can or should host a version of the photo with the "copyright celebritymorgue.com" watermark on it, either. (Even if the copyright claim is invalid.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think there's an official policy on that somewhere. Can't find the long version right now, but there's a short note at Wikipedia:Image use policy#Rules of thumb. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just crop off the top part with the website's name on it? Or just cover it up with a black rectangle? enochlau (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a better version of the image here and it does not have a copyright notice. -- Kjkolb 10:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've replaced it with the image Kjkolb linked to. Angr (talk • contribs) 10:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I also put the image into John F. Kennedy assassination, but User:Mytwocents keeps removing it, insisting it isn't public domain at all. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Its the morning and I haven't had enough tea yet so forgive me for not remembering the rules regarding highly linked templates (ie how high is high?). Per CFD this morning we tossed a bunch of the templates from Category:Article header templates to Category:Protection templates (because they were basically all protection templates). As I was moving them in my < multiple tea state, I noticed that three of them weren't protected and protected two of the three...only to realize that the protection notice *was* the template. So I guess what I'm asking is: should they all be protected, or only {{protected}} and {{moveprotected}} as originally. I'm happy to go back and remove the protection I did on the other two, but figured it was better to get feedback here in case I accidentally did a good thing. --Syrthiss 13:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Failure to protect protection templates would leaves a pathological loophole allowing for indirect vandalism of a page that's already supposedly protected from vandalism. — Apr. 29, '06 [22:11] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Greetings Wikipedia Administrators, I'm posting this announcement here with hope that those who tend to be the most experienced and involved with Wikipedia might make a suggestion or two on how a template I've created might be improved.

I've always liked how with Template:Facts {{facts}} (^{[citations needed]}) concerned editors are able to pinpoint to fellow editors (particularly those newly editing on a given article) a specific spot of contention in a given article. Following this same model I created Template:Or {{or}} (^{[original research]}). For those who might have the time to do so, please review the template and make a suggestion or two on its talk page or just be bold and edit to improve it. Thanks! Netscott 08:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent innovation. Tyrenius 01:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Schools seem to produce a rather large amount of vandalism- rather than just issuing numerous short blocks I was wondering if there was a better way? I am willing to try long term blocks in conjunction with school contact for the most persistent cases (I think Hall Monitor used this tactic before disappearing?), but I want to hear about any previous experience from more experienced admins first. Has anyone ever tried to contact schools regarding vandalism from their computers? If so what response did you get? Any other general advice on dealing with school vandalism other than the usual revert-warn-block routine? Petros471 19:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This has come up on the noticeboard before, and as I remember, contacting schools gets extremely good responses. I can't think of any specific cases though, sadly. I'll go peruse the archives and see if I can find something on it. Snoutwood (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's the one Essjay's talking about below. I know there's more, and I've only heard of good results coming from contacting ISPs/schools/etc. I remember someone, I think it was Lucky, saying that AOL of all people is very responsive. Snoutwood (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I had success contacting the Miami-Dade County Schools via phone; User:Psy guy has also noted success contacting schools. I considered starting a project to investigate and contact schools to report abuse, but it would require a number of people being involved, and I never saw enough support to feel comfortable setting up a system. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 19:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be behind that. Shall we? Snoutwood (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thought would be good. A start would be putting together a page with information for people like me who want to help out but not quite sure how to do it. So include a how to guide, hints and tips, email templates etc. Petros471 20:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting up a bit of a draft. Once I've compiled the precedents, I'll put it on-wiki and ye can have a look at it. Snoutwood (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

My idea was basically a three step approach:

1. Someone notices a pattern, and reports it to a page built on the idea of WP:RFI, perhaps called Wikipedia:Requests for Abuse Reporting.
2. A group of volunteers who are willing to investigate reports (need not be willing or have the means to actually contact schools) work up a preliminary report, checking out other similar addresses, etc. A basic template would be created that would link to all the useful spots: Contribs, logs, deleted edits, etc.
3. A group of volunteers who are willing to make contact take the information from the report and contact the school. Generally, contacting the school district's ITS department by phone is useful.

The contacting person need not necessarily be the same one who investigated, as some will be willing to investigate, but not contact, while others will be happy to contact, but won't want to investigate. The idea was to have a pool of volunteers who could take requests from the "reported" queue and work up an investigation report, then pass it on to a "ready to contact" queue, where another volunteer would pick it up and make contact.

Since others are obviously interested, I'll draft up a mockup of what the process would look like in my userspace, and open it up for comments. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 20:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That's better than my idea, which was more along the lines of a "how to contact an ISP/school IP" page. Yours is slightly more personnel-intensive, but then I think it'll be more useful in the long run. Snoutwood (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Snoutwood- I would still like to see your page, as a "how to contact" page was what I had in mind. I also support Essjay's proposal, and I don't see any reason why they can't be combined (after all that proposal still needs people to contact the places, and it would be good to have a guide as to how to do that). Petros471 22:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, something like "Guide to Abuse Reporting". We could make it a subpage (like the Guide to RfA is) and link it from the report page. I'll stick a link in now, and Snoutwood, feel free to incorporate as you think best. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 22:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

O.K., lads. I'll get cracking on it again, I'll post once I'm through with it. Snoutwood (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Voilà! I've written up a draft here. Snoutwood (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've drawn up a draft: Wikipedia:Abuse Reports. There are a number of subpages involved; I'm listing them all on the talk page so people can review everything. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 22:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The page has gone live! It's in a draft/proposed state here, and any and all comments are exremely welcome on the talk page. Please stop by and take a look: if this goes through it will add another tool to vandalfighting, and we can use all the help we can get. Snoutwood (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a Blocking_policy_proposal which overlaps with the schools problem, and, if implemented, would also be applicable to schools. It seems the two proposals should be dealt with together. Tyrenius 01:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is illegal. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Happy Camper has blocked. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 20:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hrm; how'd that get past us? Ral315 (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Please help. A user personally attacked me [24]. I put an NPA template on their user page [25]. An Admin removed it [26]. I asked them why and they said it was true [27]. I explained that it was a clear violation of WP:NPA and restored the NPA template [28]. Now the Admin is threatening to block me [29]. Someone please help. If there was an NPA violation, please put the tag back for me. PoolGuy 06:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously there has to be more to the story than this as this seems massively out of character for Nlu... I will take a closer look if it helps. - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 07:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This RfAr provides further context. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 07:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes certainly does. Just discussed on Nlu's talk page and suffice to say this is merely the proverbial tip o' the iceberg. Thanks for your help :) - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 07:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is just the tip. It is one of the symptoms of Nlu's harassment of me. As an Admin he has demonstrated that he supports other users personally attacking me. Just so I am clear, this post [30] is a personal attack based on WP:NPA correct? You don't have to be an admin to put an NPA tag on another user's talk correct? PoolGuy 18:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say that edit is uncivil. And yes, you can place user talk page warnings whether you're an admin or not, with the exception of those that imply a block. Stifle (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

However, the idea that PoolGuy has any standing to call anyone uncivil boggles the mind. Again, please see the RfAr for more details. --Nlu (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Stifle, so on the WP:TT table, anything in the 'Blocked' and 'Block & warning' columns is for Admins only? Regular users can use the other templates? Thanks for the reply. You are kind to help. PoolGuy 02:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC) Go to RfArb for more details. I find it astonishing that PoolGuy takes my comment as a personal attack because I'm just trying to help him out, get him to be more productive. What's the point of creating sockpuppets anyway? I guess there's a misunderstanding here 'cause my comment is made in good faith.--Bonafide.hustla 06:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[33], [34], [35], use of admin template, attempt to become admin based on nothing. Mentors needed by General. How many chances do you get to guide a very very friendly ball of energy? WAS 4.250 18:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu

Under his probation, Leyasu has been banned from editing black metal because, hours after the end of a seven-day block, he has once again violated his revert parole [36].

As usual, I stipulate that the ban may be revoked by any administrator. --Tony Sidaway 18:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You have my support here. Incidentally, I can only imagine that eventually a ban from all articles related heavy metal music may be in order, but I'm unsure if that would require the Arbitration Committee's intervention or not.--Sean Black ^(talk) 18:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

After a reasonably positive and very civil response from Leyasu, I have rescinded the ban. He denies using socks and (for now) I'll take his word for it. I'm watching him and have warned him that restoration of removed material, such as his first edit today on the article, counts as a revert for the purpose of his parole. --Tony Sidaway 20:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the result of my new history analysis script, I am curious about these results for George W. Bush.

George W. Bush
Viewing article modification statistics (from the 250 edits shown on this page):
20% quick reverts (any) (50 edit(s))
14.4% probable reverts of vandalism (36 edit(s))
User statistics for these edits:
0% IP/anon edits (0 edit(s))
25.6% likely new user edits (64 edit(s))
58.4% likely older user edits (non-admin/bot) (146 edit(s))
14% administrator edits (35 edit(s))
2% bot edits (5 edit(s))
Time range:
21 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 17hr (UTC) -- 29, April, 2006
Oldest edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 8, April, 2006
Averages:
63.2% edit summary usage
11.955 edit(s) per day (since last active)
2.391 revert(s) per day (since last active)
1 : 0.25 regular edit to revert ratio (RE:RV)

Should we make a template tag that better emphasises the duration and how to request changes. The subst tag on GWB does not do a good job of saying how long it is for (semi-permanent). I suggest that it be reworded and made into a template for other articles that seem to have this problem, like Jew or United States perhaps.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 18:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

WTF?

This user doesn't even exist, I don't get it--64.12.116.200 23:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• The user exists, [37] [38] [39] but it is using special characters to generate the name. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Would an admin please revert my mistaken pagemove. The article is now at Instituto Marangoni, it need to go back to Istituto Marangoni. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Done, FYI, an admin wasn't needed for that, you could have moved it back over the redirect. Prodego ^talk 15:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This arbitration case has closed. Agapetos angel et al. are banned from editing Jonathan Sarfati and associated articles. The opposing editors (Duncharris, Guettarda, Jim62sch, and FeloniousMonk) are warned concerning NPOV and edit warring. Any user banned by this decision who violates the ban may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum ban shall increase to one year. For further information, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 18:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Got someone using Image:Outspan Orange.jpg and creating variations on "Orange on wheels". I'v deleted the last nine but there may be more. This appeared to start yesterday. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a new month. Can someone protect all of May's POTD, TFA & Sel Anniv (OTD) templates, please ? I, as an anon contributer, just edited today's POTD on the Main Page. Lucky for Wikipedia, I am not a vandal. Please keep the face of this grand project protected from vandalism. Thanks. -- 199.71.174.100 06:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like today's was done by Howcheng, I don't know about the rest. Thanks for bringing this up. Snoutwood (tóg) 07:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

They were unprotected on April 29 and 30, as well. We need to be more careful about this. I've done through May 4 for now, as it seems we don't protect them more than a few days in advance. Ral315 (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I, along with a few other admins, usually take care of all the appropriate protection and unprotection of main page images and templates. As you see, we've all seem to be busy the past few days. Don't worry, though, we usually do a superb job. :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Would be nice, if anybody could have a look at WP:AIV and handle the reports, as at least the second involves ongoing vandalism, which does merit a block... --Mbimmler 12:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

is done --Mbimmler 12:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

User:SPUI and User:JohnnyBGood are going back and forth with page moves on the California state road articles. I protected one before I realized there were too many for me to go about and protect all from moves. I also figured I should check here first. Does anyone else think these pages should be protected from page moves until a consensus arrives on what naming convention to use? Pepsidrinka 20:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. You can't have pages being moved back and forth constantly. Protect away. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 20:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a naming convention outlined in WP:CASH#Article_Naming_Convention but it has been subject to some discussion. The road naming issue (and resulting move warring) seems to be an ongoing, and possibly increasing, problem e.g: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12_U.S._Roads and WP:RFC/SPUI. Regards MartinRe 22:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous ip made changes on the talk page of the Democratic Party (of the United States) article. It's not that the damage was so great, but it was done sneakily and meanly. Please check history on this page. The ip of the user is 71.139.8.28 Thanks for looking into this. thewolfstar 23:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Liquidcross (talk · contribs) has been blocked with the reasoning, "Too close to User:LiquidGhoul." That's far too broad a reason, this user has done nothing to deserve a block. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the blocking admin has unblocked. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess you know what to do. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ?)} 09:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Curps got it before you even posted here ;) Petros471 09:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious, is THE willy on wheels really active or are these just his imitators? Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ?)} 09:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

(P.S Hey I just found out the above post (i.e the first one) was my 2500th edit! Well thats gonna look good on my milestones column "Reported Willy on Wheels sockpuppet to admin noticeboard" :-D )

With a "phenomenon" such as WoW has become, it is likely that there are many vandals who enjoy imitating this meme. The ones with the obvious usernames aren't, incidentally, the dangerous ones as they are blocked long before they get move privileges; they're just here to be funny and waste a microsecond of Curps's time. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

And a microsecond is all it takes, too. Curps is amazing in his ability to block multiple vandals faster than a speeding bullet, leap tall buildings with a single bound, ... ok, I don't know if he's stronger than a locomotive. Still very impressive. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I have to admit I once thought he was a bot. He isn't a bot, is he? :) --kingboyk 02:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There was an outcry on this very page a while back about his bot being given sysop priviledges (i.e., running under his own name). So he's part bot part human. You'll have to look at the edit/log summaries to tell. :-) Kimchi.sg | talk 07:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is there something similar to the RC patrol tools for new users, one that lets vandal fighters redflag certain words or phrases in new usernames as they're created so it'll be called to their attention and they can investigate? --Aquillion 09:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Lupin's vandal fighter does that? New users do show up in RC after all. Kimchi.sg | talk 10:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

We have this functionality in the vandalism IRC channel, and it does flag then greylist users whose names match particular problem phrases or expressions. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the blocking Admin, User:Hall_Monitor, has left Wikipedia, since they have not edited in a month. Emails to this Admin went unreturned. Please Unblock User:GoldToeMarionette. The basis for blocking the account is that the account is a sockpuppet. Per WP:SOCK simply being a sockpuppet is not a violation of Wikipedia Policy. It is simply uncool. Please unblock the account because there was no policy violation and users should not be blocked for being uncool. Thank you for your time. Zappada 05:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

See WP:RFAr (against User:PoolGuy) on why this should not be granted. --Nlu (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

See also User:GoldToeMarionette itself. Also, see Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006. --Nlu (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, anyone who is familiar with the situation is invited to comment on the RfAr. --Nlu (talk) 08:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I also see no good reason for unblocking a username that effectively means 'sock puppet' and was used for things contrary to at least the spirit of the rules, and used exactly because doing what was done might get the account blocked. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that the requester has also been blocked as sockpuppet. Mackensen (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorely tempted to block User:SkankBitch for having an inappropriate username, but her contributions show no vandalism in the month and a half she's been here. Does being a legitimate editor make up for a questionable username (as is certainly the case with User:Yuckfoo)? Angr (talk • contribs) 09:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't you suggest they change their username? (Wikipedia:Changing username) Petros471 09:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Assuming she is a legitimate contributor, I would tell her that the name is inappropriate and that she should consider what she would like to change it to. I would not block the account right away, so that she has time to decide. Also, she should be given the option of transferring her edits to her new name. -- Kjkolb 10:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, she should be given the option of transferring her edits to her new name. That's what changing username does. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 12:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

So username changes are enabled again? --Syrthiss 13:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Enabled again? They have been all along, as far as I know...I've done 68 since the beginning of the month. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 13:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I could swear there was a notice a while ago on Wikipedia:Changing username that said changes were disabled (from ~jan 2006). --Syrthiss 13:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Update - well it wasn't on there... it was on Wikipedia:Username, and I found where at least it was fixed (here). So I am not insane, at least in regards to this. --Syrthiss 13:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"...at least in regards to this." I have that thought *so* many times every day! :-D Anyhow, on the original issue, someone should point the user to WP:CHU, and we'll take care of them. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 13:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

{{usernameblock}} is appropriate here, a username change isn't that hard to do. I think the process that was disabled was changing the attribution of old edits to new usernames. Stifle (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

More specifically, the reattribution of IP edits to a username (and possibly from an old username to a new username if a username change wasn't done). I would oppose blocking a user who's been making useful contributions solely because of their username, without giving them a chance to change it. Don't bite newbies. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Supaman89 has uploaded a number of images to Wikipedia, and appears to be sticking cc-by-sa-2.5 tags on them regardless of the actual license. For example, Image:Mxcdia.PNG is under a license of "educational use only", Image:Mxcnightbuildings.PNG appears to be a simple "permission to use on Wikipedia", and Image:Casadecambiomxc.PNG was originally uploaded to the German Wikipedia as GFDL (I've retagged the copy here). Could someone look into this? It may help if you speak Spanish, as some of the images come from a Spanish-language website. --Carnildo 07:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I speedied the few remaining noncommercial images, and left a note. There remain problems with GFDL images from other language Wikipedias uploaded here without preserving authorship. Jkelly 16:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Did_you_know is in need of updating. The current selections have been there more than a full day - longer than recommended. Some new proposed entries are in danger of aging past five days (the maximum age for an article to be listed). I would update it myself, but I have a proposed entry coming up, and it doesn't seem proper to put up my own entry. Johntex\^talk 18:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Update - User:Cactus.man updated this - though it looks like he started with entries from 28 April instead of 27 April. It would be nice if the ones from 27 April could still be worked in if they are found to be proper entries. Johntex\^talk 19:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Update - Did You Know was updated once, but it has been 22 hours since that update. It is usually updated every few hours. Can an admin please look into this? (As I mention above - I have a proposed entry in the list, so I don't want to make the call on whether it is main-page worthy or not.) Thanks, Johntex\^talk 17:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've hopefully taken care of it. I'm not sure where the regulars are, though. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 19:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much - now that my proposed entry has passed - I'll try to pitch in to help with the updates to the page. Johntex\^talk 21:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that I was unreasonably blocked by the aforementioned administrator. Here is a brief timeline of the events:

• It attracts my attention that the birth place of certain Macedonian revolutionaries of the 19th century is disambiguated as Republic of Macedonia by User:Travelbird - [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45].
• I revert the changes and initate a discussion with Travelbird on his talk. We reach an agreement.
• Up comes along Jonathunder and reverts [46], [47], [48] my edits back to those of Travelbird.
• I initiate a discussion on his talk and try to explain the situation.
• He is not responding and continues to revert.
• After I revert his changes for the 3rd time within 24 hours! (NOT a 3RR), he blocks me without a warning first for 3 hours with the motive "unproductive reverts", shortly after he extends it to 24 hours. Note that Jonathunder himself has 3 reverts on Miladinovi Brothers. Unlike his, the last two of my 3 reverts was not a complete one, because I changed the disambiguation link, which was the matter of concern and tried to explain it on my talk, but I was already blocked.

I would like to hear the opinion of the administrators on this matter, as I find it a very serious issue, which defies my understanding of what is allowed and not allowed on Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration. FunkyFly 19:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I had a word with Jonathunder about it yesterday asking him to unblock (User talk:Jonathunder#FunkyFly), but he seems to have disappeared. Telex 19:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I too am unhappy about this. Why is JT blocking people he is reverting? William M. Connolley 21:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I notice that there has been a brief discussion at User talk:Jonathunder. User:FunkyFly does seem to have been edit-warring across a number of articles, but didn't break WP:3RR on any individual article. It is my understanding that almost every admin would agree that one shouldn't block someone that one is in a content dispute with if the other party hasn't inarguably broken a rule, and a majority of admins would say that even when a rule is broken another admin should do the blocking. Jonathunder's response might be read as indicating that he or she feels differently about that. Jkelly 16:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

How can an admin to block pages and impose his own version? A 3rd opinion will be just fine.

• Moldovans anti-romanian edits by admin user mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he was blocked for anti-romanians edits. 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here needed.
• Moldova anti-romanian edits by admin user mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he was blocked for anti-romanians edits. 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here needed.
• Anti-Romaniananti-romanian edits by admin user mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he was blocked for anti-romanian edits. 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here needed.
• Moldovan languageanti-romanian edits by admin user mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he was blocked for anti-romanian edits. 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here needed.
• Vlachsanti-romanian edits by admin user mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he was blocked for anti-romanian edits. 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here needed.
• Vlachs of Serbiaanti-romanian edits by admin user mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he was blocked for anti-romanians edits. 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here needed.
• Chisinauanti-romanian edits by admin user mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he was blocked for anti-romanian edits. 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here needed
• Bucovinaanti-romanian edits by admin user mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he was blocked for anti-romanian edits. 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here needed.
• Romaniansanti-romanian edits by admin user mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he was blocked for anti-romanian edits. 3rd opinion regarding an issue raised here needed

• • I haven't looked at the cases, but please remember that protection is not an endorsement of the current version, nor should an involved editor use his/her administrative powers to gain an advantage in a content dispute. In addition, requests for unprotection of pages may be made here. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well I looked at a few of the cases you gave, and in all the ones I looked at, User:Mikkalai wasn't the one that semiprotected the page. That throws your argument totally out of the window- he can't be locking it on his favourite version because it wasn't him that locked it. Please browse the page histories more closely. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 21:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
      • BTW, I think the above (unsigned) edit was most likely made by a sock of banned user Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please check the IP and block if necessary. 11:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The bureaucrat log seems to have changed back to the rights log (like on meta), and seems to be pulling the entry text from MediaWiki:Rightslogentry instead of MediaWiki:Bureaucratlogentry. Besides the log being named incorrectly, this breaks the log display. What happened? (yes I know this should go at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical), but then it might be fixed before anyone sees it) Prodego ^talk 21:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I copied the text over, which fixed the diplay problem, and changed the title of the log to "Promotion log", as some bcrat actions are now logged in the bot status log, and I don't want it to be confused with meta's [[rights log. Some feedback please, is this OK? I only intend for this name to be temporary, unless you all like it. Right now it is next to the Protection log, so it's easy to confuse them. Prodego ^talk 03:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The change of the name to "Rights" seems to be system wide, I checked both French and German pedias and they have also been changed to rights. I see no reason "Rights" should cause confusion, unless people can't keep track of what project they are on. The term "promotion" is not 100% accurate, it should be Rights. Besides Promotion is too similar to Protection. NoSeptember ^talk 04:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed it back to the "User rights log". The problem is that meta's log has all the desysopings for enwiki in it's "User rights log", so that may be confusing. Prodego ^talk 12:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I use both all the time and never get confused. Meta's log is full of red links, since any action to a non-Meta username is a red link. I think once someone knows enough to know that the Meta log exists, they can handle the name issue without confusion. NoSeptember ^talk 16:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This arbitration case has closed. FourthAve is banned from Wikipedia for a year, and is placed on personal attack parole, probation, and general probation. This will be enforced by block. I have carried out the one-year-ban in my capacity as an administrator. For further details, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 15:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked this user for 30 days for excessive 3RR violations, general disruption, and personal attacks. This user has a long pattern of this behavior including block evasion, and I thought (since I am not usually one for the longer block) I should take it here for review, to make sure the length was not too short or too long. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. - FrancisTyers 21:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't take long this time. His static IP is 70.178.103.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); I've blocked it also (after carefully removing the possibly conflicting autoblock). Since he's a heavy open proxy user, I guess I'll do a round of open proxy blocking too. --cesarb 02:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A single link is being repeatedly removed, without discussion from Naturist Christians by an anon. It looks like the link has been a bone of contention on the article for a while, but it’s been removed and replaced a dozen times in the last week alone. I'm hesitant to block for 3RR because the editor is using AOL, but oddly enough most of the edits are coming from the same two IPs, 64.12.116.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 152.163.100.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I thought they were supposed to change IPs every few minutes? The former address has made eight edits to the article since April 18, with the most recent yesterday, and the latter seven since April 16, the most recent on April 29. I'm really not sure how to proceed. Should the article maybe be semi-protected for a while? Should I go ahead and block the next time 3RR is broken and see what happens? -- Vary | Talk 22:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• They change per page, not per unit of time, they only 'seem' to change every few minutes if the person loads a new page every few minutes, but they're not static, and they're not unique, and they're still shared by dozens of pages/users--205.188.116.200 22:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You might be interested in taking part in this, if you haven't already: Wikipedia:Blocking_policy_proposal. Tyrenius 02:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

An unregistered user has just inserted into the "External Links" section of the Che Guevara article a link to a website displaying close-up photographs of the autopsy performed on him (and also his skeletal remains). I have read that Wikipedia is used as the "standard reference" in many schools and I believe that many of these photographs are too gruesome for young children to view. I am wondering whether Wikipedia has a policy about displaying autopsy photos, or how this situation should be dealt with. I will greatly appreciate your guidance.Polaris999 00:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The question here would not be whether the site would be included or excluded because of its content; Wikipedia may contain material and/or links which include material offensive to some. The question, instead, is whether the site (and I have not visited it, nor do I wish to) adds significantly to the article and should be included per our policy on external links. From the description provided, I don't think such a site should be included; however, I would recommend bringing the issue up on the talk page first. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Black and white and not a vast amount of blood. Just make sure the link contains an accuret disscription.Geni 00:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I Agree with Geni, wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors (per WP:NOT), just amke sure they have a clear notice about what they are and leave them there as long as they're relevant and informative there's no reason why they shouldn't stay. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you want schoolchildren to view these images, make sure there is an accurate description. (In my experience it's the teachers that have nightmares, not the kids.) Tyrenius 01:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks to each of you who answered. Since the photos in question do not add significantly to the article and, furthermore, the link appears to have been inserted by a troll, I have removed it with a reference to WP:EL. If that user, or someone else, wishes to re-insert it, I will ask them to first set up a discussion as to its relevance on the Talk page so that a consensus can be reached. Polaris999 03:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Would an admin not invovled in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Qif look at it and close it one way or the other, it's been haning open for quite some time. I think most of the normal MFD admins are active in it. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Closed by Naconkantari. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous ip made changes on the talk page of the Democratic Party (of the United States) article. It's not that the damage was so great, but it was done sneakily and meanly. Please check history on this page. The ip of the user is 71.139.8.28 Thanks for looking into this.

I put this request in to check the ip 71.139.8.28

Can someone help me with this please? Thanks, thewolfstar 05:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• I see two edits that try to change the heading of the history section, one vandalism reversion, and one addition of a quote (with source) that seems reasonable in context. Work it out on the talk page. Thatcher131 15:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)