I closed two rather... hot discussions here over Template:User N-K (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:User independent Chechnya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Consensus was unclear, but I think the page I've linked represent a strong precedent, since none of the many independance ubxes there have ever been TFD'ed AFAIK. However, I can tell there's going to be... consequences, so I just wanted it tobe known. Circeus 01:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, User:Kuban kazak has come forth over it. His comment is [1], amd my answer goes [2]. I would really appreciate comments from more experienced admins on this. Circeus 00:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

An IP user, 63.150.8.10 kept adding links to commerical sites (buysanfranciscotours.com and buyalcatraztours.com) to the Alcatraz Island article, despite receiving spam1 and spam2 warnings. Twenty minutes after the IP user's last edit, a new user, NewAwlins Traveler made their first edits, which seemed to be slight formatting changes to the spam links. This user has also kept adding the links back into the article, leading to the obvious conclusion that they are one and the same. As such, this user was given a spam3 warning. The links have since added the links again, and I removed them.--Drat (Talk) 02:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

NewAwlins Traveler put the links back again not half an hour ago. They do not respond to messages, and their only edits are related to those two commercial links. The only thing that will make this person stop is a block.--Drat (Talk) 10:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've given the registered account a 24 hour block; hopefully they will take the hint. I'd be happy to block the IP as well if they return to spamming using it (last edit was a couple of days ago). Petros471 10:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Have those links been added to meta:Talk:Spam blacklist yet? --Connel MacKenzie 12:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Done now. Just zis Guy you know? 13:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

63.150.8.10's been at it again.--Drat (Talk) 01:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours (IP seems static, second block on that user). Petros471 08:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi the article Zahira College Colombo was tagged for COPYVIO on 13th of April, I am the creator of the article and assure that it is not a verbatim copy of the webpage mentioned in the copyvio tag. The article follows a similar structure thats all, The creator of the article on the mentioned webpage is also me, so I have the ownership of it, but I have no means of proving the ownership, so I am not going to try it. But the article I have created in wikipedia, is not a verbatim copy, it has taken a very long time for the admins to check this. Could somebody check and remove the tag? or delete the article. Thanks «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 04:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It occurs to me that if you added a GFDL copyright notice to the bottom of your angelfire website article, then it would be obvious to everybody that the article can be used on Wikipedia without fear of Copyright Violation. Would that be a possibility ? It would certainly prove that you are the author and that you are happy for it to appear on Wikipedia. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, The text I have added is from http://www.geocities.com/Zahira_College_Colombo/ same thing is copied by someone into angelfire webpage, I can put GFDL copyright notice, but GFDL allows only a verbatim copy of the page, please correct me if I am wrong, my article is not a verbatim copy of the webpage. if just adding GFDL would solve the problem I can do it. And copyvio notice should point to the above site. Please advice «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 11:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been tagged as db-copyvio by User:SPUI. I untagged it because (a) it's not content from which the commercial ocntent provider is trying to make money (per WP:CSD); (b) it's his company anyway; and (c) it's in User space. So, it's a user who has copied and pasted his bio from the website of the company he owns; deleting it as a copyvio seems like WP:BITE to me. What does the panel think? Just zis Guy you know? 12:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Call me a copyright paranoid, but is there any evidence that User:Sbekele is actually Sophia Bekele? Since this user has only one contribution so far, I do not see the point of insisting on her having a user page. - Liberatore(T) 13:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

From an entirely different pespective, I'm concerned about page rank boosting by linking through user pages, as well as the propensity of some to use their user pages as web pages. That's not a definite opinion on this case, but I think doing a speedy delete after 2-3 days of inactivity and/or 2-3 days of non-productive edits would be in order. I don't think we solve our problems by "userfying," even if we get to avoid being meanies who delete things that way. (Again, this is general, not specific.) Geogre 16:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We're not here to boost some person's sales or pagerank. And based on her meager contributions, I think that's exactly why she's here. Snoutwood (tóg) 16:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that that might still be considered a copyvio, as a) we don't know that she's the real owner (per Paolo Liberatore), and b) I doubt that such a new user would have any concept of the GFDL. I'd say call it a copyvio and ask if they really want to license it (as you've done). If so, then great. Otherwise, delete it. Snoutwood (tóg) 16:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am rather concerned on the grounds of WP:BITE and WP:AGF, as this material has only been on Wiki for a few hours, and we have no evidence of this person's future intentions. If it is posted by Sophia Bekele, then she could, from the bio, be a very valuable contributor in the future, and should be encouraged to be so. Over-reaction could alienate her completely. On a technical ground it is copyvio, unless authorisation is received from a valid email address associated with the origin of the material (i.e. the company). Re. page rank boosting - there isn't even a link from the user page, so it's a poor attempt at doing that and suggests that may not have been the intention. Reading through the bio, I wonder if there is enough notability to merit an article on her or her company. Tyrenius 17:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That's why I suggest not acting for a day or two. If two days pass without any further contributions, we can assume a vanity entry. If that long passes without clarification of the copyright status, we must delete it as a copyright violation. I wasn't suggesting coming down with the hammer of Thor after 2 hours. Geogre 09:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As a condition of the unblock of both SPUI and JohnnyBGood, I stated that neither are to move war with each other and instead try to reach consensus. After SPUI started move warring again, I have blocked for 24 hours, I am hoping that both SPUI and JohnnyBGood can come to some sort of reasonable conclusion as this move warring is getting a little over the top -- Tawker 18:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What are we supposed to do with articles on nonnotable 9/11 victims? Another one has arrived: Raymond York. Isn't there a different wiki just about 9/11 victims where we could politely send the author to? I seem vaguely to remember there being such a thing, but I don't know where it is. It seems callous to speedy the article as an A7, but technically that's what it is. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's the Meta-Wiki discussion. RadioKirk talk to me 21:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Authors of memorial-type articles can be pointed (gently) at the 9/11 wiki: [3]. The discussion linked above is also quite useful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, so much for going gently. It's already been tagged and deleted. Oh well. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It was already a recreation of Raymond R. York. KimvdLinde 22:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please undelete the record for Donald_Friedman, I was working on it, accidentally pasted in some wikipedia-sourced text that was copied and someone protected then deleted the page within seconds of my saving it.

Thank you.

CowboyDon 22:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have been deleted because it is unclear that the subject passes our criteria for inclusion (see WP:BIO). I am unclear on whether it is about someone alive or a fictional character. If it is the former, it is making some extraordinary claims about living people that would need to be sourced very carefully. I'd recommend not continuing to work on this article until you have unimpeachable sources for every point in it. If this is an article about a fictional character, you should indicate that much more clearly. Jkelly 22:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Attention, vandalfighters! You have a new tool to add into your belt! BEHOLD! If you have a IP address that has been warned, blocked, blocked again, and still keeps coming back, list him at the page mentioned in this header: WP:ABUSE. This is a process, similar to WP:AIV and WP:RFCU, that contacts the ISP of an IP address that is a repeated abuser. The page went live about five minutes ago, and we're itching to try it out. Please read the guide and the main page before posting, that's all we ask. Thanks, lads. Snoutwood (tóg) 23:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Muahahahahaha! Sounds great! --Darth Deskana (talk page) 23:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/The Game (game) (second DRV) has been open for about 9 days now. Extremely brief history of the article: it was created, kept on VfD, kept on AfD, deleted on AfD, kept deleted on DRV, restored with a new source, kept with no consensus on AfD, speedy deleted by Zoe, and sent to DRV again. What we need is for this deletion review to be closed by an uninvolved admin, as basically every admin who watches DRV is involved now.

The article is currently called The Game (meme).

Note to users involved in the DRV: please oh please don't use this as another forum for arguing over the article. This is simply a request for admin assistance. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It has actually been open a bit longer than 9 days, it was opened (I think) on 04:23, 22 April UTM. JoshuaZ 00:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Closed, by User:Thebainer. ~ PseudoSudo 02:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest this page is semi-protected, at least in the short term and preferably indefinitely. Every time I log on I expect it to have been vandalised, and an examination of its history shows most of the edits are either by anon vandals or by editors rv them. The subject is obviously one of those that just attracts this response. Tyrenius 01:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Requests for page protection should go here. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Tyrenius 07:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

the non-existant denial of service vandal strikes back, or so it seems--64.12.116.200 02:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed all of the autoblocks. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at this page? User:Minkowsk has inserted private information/vandalism into an edit summary that will need to be removed. Thanks. --Hetar 05:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, looks like Freakofnurture is already on top of it, thanks! --Hetar 05:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Could someone who understands the ramifications of the GFDL better than me please have a chat with Dennis Chan? He's uploaded a lot of pictures of emergency vehicles from his own website http://www.fotogb.com/dennisbus. At the website, copyright is claimed for the images, but when he uploaded them here he put the {{GFDL-self}} tag on them. If they're copyrighted, they can't be released under GFDL, and if they're released under GFDL, they can't be copyrighted, right? Anyway, I would have left him a message myself, only I don't understand all the legal ins and outs myself well enough. Thanks! Angr (talk • contribs) 09:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If Dennis took the pictures, Dennis owns the copyright. If Dennis owns the copyright, he can choose to licence the images under the GFDL. If, however, Dennis doesn't own the copyright, he can't choose the licence of the images. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 09:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but if Dennis chooses to release them under the GFDL, shouldn't his homepage say that, rather than saying "© Dennis Chan 2004-2006"? Aren't the two mutually exclusive? Angr (talk • contribs) 10:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. The GFDL only works because Dennis is the copyright holder. If he's not the copyright holder, he can't license them. The GFDL doesn't restrict Dennis' rights in any way. It restricts your rights to use the image in a way inconsistent with the license. Nandesuka 12:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

But doesn't the GFDL permit me to use the image in some ways that a copyright would prohibit, such as by modifying it? The GFDL allows me to modify his image so long as he's still traceable as the original author, right? But the copyright for the very same image on his web page prohibits me from modifying his image. So what the Wikipedia image page says and what the source page says are incompatible, aren't they? Angr (talk • contribs) 12:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The GFDL is just a license that permits certain uses of Dennis' copyrighted material. Unless he chooses to assign the copyright to someone else, he still retains it, even though he has licensed the material in a way that makes it possible for others to use it.

For example, if you were to take the image and reuse it without attributing it to Dennis, he would still be able to sue you for copyright infringement—you would be using his copyrighted work outside of the conditions imposed by the license (in this case, the GFDL).

Normally if you wanted to use or modify Dennis' work, you would have to contact him, seek permission, negotiate licensing terms, and lay out all the conditions under which you could use his pictures. By licensing the images under the GFDL, Dennis saves himself that time and hassle. He can just say, "here are the terms and conditions under which I will let other people use my copyrighted work. Enjoy!" He still holds the copyright on the images, and he's welcome to licence them to other people or groups under whatever terms that they might agree to. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore considering the rather clumsy nature of the GFDL it is quite posible people who want to use your images will want to contact you to ask for (or even perhaps buy) the rights to use them outside the GFDL.Geni 13:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been repeatedly, at least every other day, blocked on the basis that someone else using my IP address has infringed the rules - though I never have. The last IP address where this occurred was 205.188.116.135.

I suspect that this is because I use AOL as my service provider.

This is not just inconvenient, locking me out for more than a third of the time, but it also wastes a considerable amount of time - I have just spent 2 hours cleaning a topic (as requested on the page) only to have my work blocked and disappear!

Is there anything I can do about this?

Futureobservatory 10:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop using AOL? Angr (talk • contribs) 10:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait till this is implemented? Petros471 10:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As an admin and an inadvertent AOL user (I use Netscape dialup, but that's owned by AOL), I'm bugged endlessly by this. I have my own version of a policy, but no one would ever agree to it. I think all IP's should be visible for all editors, account or no, and that way admins putting blocks on vandals with names won't accidentally hit an AOL IP with an eternal darkness block. After all, I'm not sure quite what privacy we get by not having visible IP numbers, as an IP doesn't really say where you are anyway (as our vandals prove every day with their open proxy bounces). Like I said: no one would ever agree with me. However, I am a sympathetic ear for fellow "AOL" users caught in collateral blocks. Geogre 12:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, most IP's do resolve a location which reveals what city you reside in. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 12:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

My IP would reveal from where in school and which school I'm typing this from. So it's apparently cleaver evil people who will manage to hide their real IP while genuine users will have their real IP exposed if all IPs are revealed. Kimchi.sg 13:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I figured no one would agree. That's ok. Now I'll just wait for the day when I'm wealthy enough for broadband or we implement the miraculous magic smoke that will solve our AOL IP blocking problems. (Typed in dejection, not sarcasm.) Geogre 17:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey - I am the editor of (and candidate in) the Preston City Council elections but find myself blocked as per :

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by CanadianCaesar for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "GuyWaltersIsGay". The reason given for GuyWaltersIsGay's block is: "admitted vandal, trollish username"." Your IP address is 195.93.21.6.

I know being an AOL user means this sort of thing happens all the time, but the timing is a bit off as I hoped to being updating (and splitting) this page to year-by-year articles.

Does anyone know when this block is likely to be lifted?

Cheers

doktorb | words 13:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked. -- grm_wnr Esc 13:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sadly not - just been updating that page and all of a sudden..

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by CanadianCaesar for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "GuyWaltersIsGay". The reason given for GuyWaltersIsGay's block is: "admitted vandal, trollish username"." Your IP address is 195.93.21.8.

Any help from anyone? Cheers.. I just want to help Wiki, I know AOL users cause this sort of trouble, but I'm here as a well meaning editor... doktorb | words 01:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

We were just discussing this in the previous section of this page. AOL and AOL-owned ISP users are regularly blocked accidentally. Usually, this is because a vandal with an account using AOL gets blocked. The auto-blocker then blocks all IP's associated with the vandal's account, which will be all AOL IP's. This is a drag because the person doing the block didn't knowingly block AOL, and it's a true hassle to unblock, because one has to go to all the AOL IP addresses to unblock. It's even worse than that, though, because the block doesn't actually hit the vandal! The vandal's IP is renewing with each page load, so he or she gets off scot-free, while some innocent gets blocked. Many admins (most admins) will understand and unblock if you're hit by accident. Geogre 01:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users. --bainer (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to let everyone know that I have created Talk:Main Page/errors for the reporting of errors on the main page and would like to ask admins to keep an eye on it since they are the only ones who can correct main page errors since it and all the source templates for it are protected. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 14:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

nice one _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Here[4] is a tool to check all of the revision of a deleted page, so that you only have to uncheck the 1-3 vandal edits, rather than having to sit there clicking the 2000 good edits.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 22:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds useful! Especially when I just clicked 500+ checkboxes on the Albatross page only to find it didn't actually do that much! --Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

excellent! I just said to Deskana earlier that someone should make such a thing :o) _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

umm... where's the link to "check all of the revisions of a page" appear? I'm probably being blind (it's late) or my browser not properly reloaded it, but I don't see it! _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You can just shift-select, can't you? Snoutwood (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Gosh. If you hold Ctrl and Shift and click the top one, then the bottom one, it DOES select them all, then you can just unselect the offending version. Is that what you meant Snoutwood? I can't believe I missed that! Then again, I have only used the undeletion feature once, so I can be let off! --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 23:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes shift does work, and almost as fast. My history analysis scipt was just extended to analysis deleted pages as well. Getting diffs out these babies is the real challenge. I am not yet sure how to do that.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 23:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Should just be shift. If you hold down shift, select one, and then the other, everything in between in selected. Holding down Ctrl just selects whatever you click on. But yes, that's what I was referring to. Snoutwood (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. This is User:Blu Aardvark, and I would like to request the deletion of the following pages in my userspace. (I'd tag them as speedy, but I wouldn't be able to tag them with my original account, which could potentially cause confusion for the admins who clean up speedy deletion candidates)

User:Blu Aardvark/On Wheels! User:Blu Aardvark/Userboxes User:Blu Aardvark/Workspace User:Blu Aardvark/Userboxes/Saved from death User talk:Blu Aardvark/Sandbox User talk:Blu Aardvark/Userboxes

In addition, I would like for my userpage, User:Blu Aardvark, to be purged, as there is some personal information in the history that I would like removed. Thank you. --72.160.80.78 01:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This now-blocked user has gone on multiple vandalism sprees, and spent weeks harassing multiple user (myself, Musicallinguist, Slimvirgin, Nicholas Turnbull, 'etc). He put his personal information out there of his own free will, and now that he's decided to act badly, I suspect he doesn't want anyone googling his name to find out about his misbehavior. I don't see why we should be doing him any favors. Raul654 01:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted all the user subpages, but not the main userpage itself. The tag about indef block needs to remain as a record. Hopefully this is an acceptable move. Harro5 01:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That's what I intended by "purge". I would appreciate it if the history of the page was removed. The tag should certainly remain. --72.160.80.78 01:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the information prior to being blocked. The reason I want it completely gone now is because users such as Malber are re-publishing the information in several locations, and that is not acceptable. I did add it of my own free will, true, but that was because I was attempting to foster accountabilty, when I thought that Wikipedia was still a decent place. As it turns out, it just became troll food, and that's why I want it gone. --72.160.80.78 01:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and lies do not become you Raul. I've only gone on ONE vandalism spree, after enduring a multitude of abuses from you, NicholasTurnbull, and several other editors. I was wrong in doing so, true, and I recognize that. That's the only "vandalism spree" I have ever gone on, despite what summaries you use when blocking thousands of potential contributors by instating range blocks on 72.160.1.1/16. I've toyed with your userpage and NicholasTurnbull's userpage, but that is not the same as a "vandalism spree". I also have not at all harrassed Musical Linguist. She just happened to be the user most frequently watching your talk/userpages when I went a'trollin'. As for SlimVirgin, I have given her a fully sincere apology, and have not harrased her since then. --72.160.80.78 02:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I was counting your sprees on en, meta, and commons - the three that we know of - seperately. If you want to count them as a single one, that's your buisness -- I, for one, do not. Raul654 02:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Now Raul is starting in on the trolling and republishing this info. I want it gone, and I want action taken against Malber and Raul654. --72.160.85.60 23:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Incorrect. The comment I made "republishing this info" was made two days before Blu put in the request for that page to be deleted. Nor was it gratitious - I was making the point that if he should get his ranged blocked again, that the complaint against his ISP (being written by other legit users on that range who get blocked) would contain the personal information he freely posted to his user page. Raul654 00:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This user thinks that there should be no consequences for his actions and his reputation should not be tarnished. I should hope that the Wikipedia administrators would show him that he's sadly mistaken. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

In my view his user page should be deleted. The punishment has not included "not to delete his user page". Mind that no one is going to question the punishment. -- V. Z. 10:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Erm, doesn't this IP deserve a block as a user evading his block? Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 14:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

20:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there any clear policy concerning blocking numerical user names? User:160490 is blocked, User:159753 is not, User:30021190 is blocked, User:16836054 is not. -- V. Z. 15:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate usernames just says, "Random or apparently random sequences of letters and numbers", but not specifically a number sequence (especially if the number might be significant to a group of people). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but what is the difference between 160490 and 159753; 30021190 and 16836054? -- V. Z. 19:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The only differences I noted was that 159753 is a long time user (possibly before the number restriction went in) and 16836054 may just have been overlooked when they registered. --Syrthiss 19:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Then this policy lacks any clarity. I will propose its change in liberal way. Together with kingboyk I don't have any problem with any of the user names I have mentioned. -- V. Z. 07:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The point of that clause is to prevent confusing usernames. Usernames of larger numbers are hard to recognize and remember, so, for future cases, usernames like the cited examples should probably be blocked. ~MDD4696 22:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Rather ironic that these words should be spoken by Mdd4696 and Zzyzx11 isn't it?! Both look like "Random or apparently random sequences of letters and numbers" to me. That said, I personally don't have a problem with any of the user names mentioned. --kingboyk 02:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my user name is not random. It is named after the Zzyzx page :-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Blimey. Live and learn. What about the number 11? Are there 10 more Zzyzx's who registered ahead of you? :) --kingboyk 03:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it was the rationale. But in practice, where is the difference between 30021190 and 16836054? -- V. Z. 09:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Truthfully, 30021190 doesn't look so random to me... it's a fairly easy-to-remember number with a lot of repeated digits, and likely had some meaning to its user. I think username blocking for randomness should be limited to situations where there is strong reason to believe that a username is genuinely random; at the very least, admins should ask before blocking on grounds of randomness, to determine whether the name in question is genuinely random, or if it just refers to something they don't know about. As noted above, Zzyzx11 could easily have been blocked on joining by a careless admin who didn't bother to ask about the name. --Aquillion 09:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

its the date 09/11/2003 written backwards.  ALKIVAR™ 17:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Technically they don't even need to ask (although it's always nice of course) - "Random or apparently random sequences of letters and numbers" --kingboyk 05:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Actaully, I started editing on Wikipedia long before that policy clause was put in place. As I recall, it was instituted because there was a vandal bot that was randomly creating usernames with random characters. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds rather complicated. Why all the huge bureaucracy with it? Why not be liberal? Is 16836054 offending somene? Let's discuss it on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal to repeal last point of No inflammatory usernames in WP:U. -- V. Z. 10:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be changed to only apply if there is a suspicion that the account was created by a bot (unlikely now, don't they use captchas) or is to be used for disruption? --kingboyk 05:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice. Should I alter my proposal? -- V. Z. 08:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This has been recreated after an AFD, with the edit comment "I'm going to keep doing this forever". I wouldn't like to speedy this myself, as I was involved in the heated AFD discussion, and in fact I'd suggest a merge-redirect is a better option than deletion (see also Hulk 2 and Terminator 4). — sjorford (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever is done, the page should be protected to prevent continued crap. JoshuaZ 19:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JoshuaZ. -- Kjkolb 10:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Already is. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 17:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm moving again, and to keep this account from running around, as persuant to what happened to another user, I'm requesting that my account be terminated. Martial Law 01:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC) :)

I don't think the devs/stewards/whoever's in charge of these things carry out these types of requests. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:09 UTC (2006-05-1)

Just make a massively long random password and remove your email address and nobody will access it -- Tawker 01:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no way to terminate an account, but you can do as Tawker suggests and set the password to something you'll never be able to recall. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Real funny, I'm just taking precautions, admit extreme precautions, so that my account does'nt vandalise Wikipedia. Martial Law 02:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC) :)

Understood but they ain't kidding. :) --Woohookitty^(meow) 03:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are serious, leave me a talk page message on my talk while signed in, requesting an indefinite block, and I will oblige. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

We can also delete your user pages if that's what you want. -- Francs2000 03:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Per your requests 1, 2, 3, 4; your account has been indefinitely blocked from the project withough prejudice. Should you change your mind and wish to return, place the {{unblock}} template on your talk page. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The user User:Vit Zvanovec, registered also on other projects, published on his blog here (Article Fasiste na en:) an article, where some users (and I guess also admins) of the en.wiki are listed in a list of fascists. Namely Jossi, Dmcdevit, SlimVirgin, Sean Black, Will Beback, TML1988, Ben Aveling and Stevage. Thereafter he deleted this. -jkb- 14:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The author of the blog is obviously reading these pages... Some minutes ago he reformulated his blog, making "nepratele svobody" (enemies of the freedom) from the original "fasiste" (fascists). Nevertheless, I have a copy of the original text. -jkb- 15:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, he has been blocked by Tony Sidaway for 12 hours, and has been requested to delete those personal attacks (see his talk page). 07:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

To some degree, we're out on a limb here. His blog is his blog. What's there may indicate his intentions here, and so it might be evidence of his intent to stalk, disrupt, or vandalize, but we can only really care what Wikipedia has. If he wants to use his blog to say that we're all chronic bedwetters, that's his business, and I'm sure he'll get all the readers that a private blog gets. It's just one more opinion floating around out there. On the other hand, we can all watch his edits on Wikipedia with an especially jaundiced eye and keep a record of his first hand testimony from outside, and, of course, if any such statements ended up on Wikipedia pages, we'd delete them and arbitrate/block. I'm not sure how we can block someone on Wikipedia for something they did anywhere else. Geogre 09:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately most of us don't read Czech (the language the blog is written in) so we can't even understand what was written. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 13:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I know no Czech, but I know enough English to understand what "Fašisté na en" means. In response to Geogre's suggestion that "if he wants to use his blog to say that we're all chronic bedwetters, that's his business", this simply isn't the case." For instance, in the Jason Gastrich case, Gastrich was sanctioned, in part, for his use of an external website to solicit meat puppetry. --Tony Sidaway 23:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeezus, Tony. If you can't see the dangers in punishing people for things you disapprove of off-wiki, I think you need to give it more consideration. I understand the notion that taking wikiconflicts off the wiki doesn't actually help resolve them, and people who write lists of "fascists", "Jew cabalists", "rouge admins", whatever, generally are going to run into trouble here anyway (or already have), but you really might have another look at Geogre's POV, which I think is sensible. -- Grace Note.

I have just come across an image sourced from Flickr which was up for speedy: the IDF on Flickr says "All rights reserved" but the gallery says "This photo is public". Is this a bug on Flickr, or what is going on here? Physchim62 (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked, "public" isn't the same as "public domain". Johnleemk | Talk 14:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"Public" as used on the Flickr website means that the photo is publicly available to be viewed on the website, i.e. it is not posted by the uploader as a private viewing only image. In terms of licensing for re-use, all rights to the image are reserved by the uploader and it is therefore not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Many images on Flickr are released under the Creative Commons Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike Licenses, which can be used here. [5] --Cactus.man ✍ 14:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I removed one from an article earlier today, will go back and delete it now. Just zis Guy you know? 21:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Pnatt has posted a link to his Paypal account on his userpage. This link has been removed four times by various users, including myself. I left a note on his talk page saying that such links are inappropriate (a comment which he promptly removed [6]) (Other people trying to persuade Pnatt not to link to Paypal: [7].) I know of no particular policy against such links, but common sense tells me that this is inappropriate for the encyclopedia. Perhaps Wikipedia:User page should be modified. This user also has a history of vandalism, and has been blocked 5 times. Comments? --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 05:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd treat him as a persistent linkspammer. There was a case before, of a user who put many external links in very small font at the bottom of his userpage and he got permanently blocked for this. (Can't remember the exact username, but he was from the Hebrew Wikipedia and got banned there first.) I don't see why posting PayPal links should be treated differently. Kimchi.sg 06:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Haham hanuka (talk · contribs), who, BTW, wasn't permanently blocked, just temporarily. --Calton | Talk 07:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have got an E-mail from User:Zmmz asking for help. He was suddenly blocked, without any messages on his talk page, warning or any clue why he was blocked. I have checked the block log and it said:

02:38, 5 May 2006 David Gerard blocked "Zmmz (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (obnoxious behaviour, harassment, inviting others to "pile on")

Still general words, nothing specific. I have asked Zmmz to contact David by E-mail but David's E-mail is not enabled (I was told it is a requirement for a sysadmin to enable the E-mail). Zmmz is in a middle of an Arbcom case and very frustrated. I have worked with him trying to mediate a conflict over a few Iranian-related articles. I got an impression that he is a good productive although sometimes hot-tempered editor. I would not be surprised if he said something uncivil or obnoxious, but he is certainly deserve to know what he was blocked for. Also because of his arbcom case, is it possible to shorten his block? abakharev 06:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Email is not enabled, but a look on his user page contains a section on contacting him, which includes his email address spelt out. --pgk^(talk) 07:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say unblock him. He shouldn't be left out of his own Arbcom case. (And he should be informed why he was blocked in the first place.) --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 06:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Just for the background, Zmmz' involvement in that arbcom case had gone to the point of wikistalking another (semi-)involved party ([8]), and making threats and harassing posts against arbcom members [9], [10], [11]). Lukas ^(T.|@) 06:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I blocked him for. Also, my email should in fact be enabled; are you sure you're permitted to send? - David Gerard 17:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I just checked, and I got an error message as well. Could be a couple of things: could you double check that you've put in an address and that you've the "enable e-mail" button checked? Snoutwood (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Just for the background, both User:LukasPietsch and User:Zora are involved parties in the arbitration case, on the opposite side of User:Zmmz. User:Zmmz is gathering evidence and asked two other users to share their input and concerns regarding the case, which is within his right, as another administrator already stated in response to User:Zora's accusations. [12] --ManiF 06:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I decided to unblock Zmmz, so he could contribute to his own ArbCom case. abakharev 07:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that being personally involved in an ArbCom case should not be a "get out of jail free card", so to speak. If you commit an offense that an admin sees as blockable, it shouldn't matter that you have an ArbCom case pending. Don't do the crime if you don't want to do the time. For the record, I have not reviewed this block so I'm not commenting on whether the block was appropriate or not. Pepsidrinka 08:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Just want to say that I did undo Zmmz's autoblock but it was by request. I'm not taking his side or anything. In fact, I have no side. :) I know zilch about his case. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Usually if a blocked user is involved in an ArbCom case, it's a good idea to propose an injunction to unblock for the purposes of participating in the case if you want to unblock them. That makes clear the position that the original block stands, but it is suspended only to allow participation in the case. --bainer (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with abakharev's unblock. He should have made more of an effort to discuss it with the blocking admin and waited longer for a response. He posted here at 06:11 and unblocked at 07:03, which is far too quick off the mark. The blocking policy cautions against this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No, that's entirely unnecessary. Anyone in an AC case can contribute by emailing the AC or an active arbitrator directly; they don't need to be allowed to edit on the wiki. Spamming to solicit harassment? 24 hours block is the least he deserves - David Gerard 17:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No comment on the merits of the case, but this happens way too frequently. Please, everyone, when blocking a user, leave them a note explaining why. This is so that anyone happening along the situation can understand why a block was done without having to make a fuss about it. Friday (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Friday, I agree that leaving a note is helpful, but at the same time, admins shouldn't unblock people without checking with the blocking admin first, unless there's been an unambiguous error. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

A block without justification is an unambiguous error, in some people's eyes. I agree that we shouldn't revert others lightly (whether admin actions or normal edits), but a revert is not always automatically inappropriate. Keeping things going smoothly is more important than fragile admin egos. Friday (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

An unambiguous error is one that doesn't rely on a judgment call e.g. when someone blocked for 3RR clearly didn't revert four times. It's not a question of fragile egos, but of trusting admins to have blocked for a reason, and accepting that maybe they know more about the situation than the rest of us. It's about not assuming we always know best. It's about being able to tolerate than we disagree with a block but that someone else has decided to make it anyway. It's about not having a gigantic ego, in fact. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I`m taking a long break from this whole thing, but just for the record; as I was working on the case I saw two more users complaining about user Zora`s rudeness and incivilities, and because their grievances were similar to the editors involved in the case, I civilly asked the two users to review and participate in the ArbCom case, such that the committee will hear their voices. I had no idea this was illegitimate or counted as spamming. I have never been blocked for incivilities, and was not so in this case, nor was I “obnoxious” in any way as the admin who blocked me suggested. Had I been warned about this, rest assured I would have discontinued it. Just to note though, others involved in the case, including user Zora herself had asked many editors to go and help her out in the case by leaving positive feedbacks. Blocks like this have heavy consequences, so I urge the admins to not allow their temper get the best of them, and to kindly communicate with the user beforehands. I also want to add that I`m grateful that abakharev and Woohookitty took it upon themselves to do this, because as it turns-out, after the unblock I was able to post a proposal in the case, and it helped greatly, since the case was motioned to close a few hours later after that. Otherwise, I would not have had the chance to submit my refutation[13].Zmmz 18:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: Just throwing-around some words can be damaging to a user’s credibility here, since even after the quick unblock by other admins, the original block will stay on the user’s block log. Despite failure to warn, and in spite of my inquiries David Gerard has not provided an explanation. Zmmz 19:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Latest of several sockpuppet accounts. Check out Special:Contributions/Frys104, compare to User:Ryanlong's: Special:Contributions/Ryanlong and user:Pjh1810's: Special:Contributions/Pjh1810. They are the same. User has a long history of:

• blanking out pages ([14], [15], more)
• vandalizing user pages ([16], [17], [18], [19])
• and threatening wikipedia with lawsuits (including his current User page) if his "web-site" (his user page) is touched or if messages are left for him.

User has been warned against vandalism many times by many users ([20],[21], among others).

Vandalism was reported at that time on the Vandalism in Progress page, and I left a message on the [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive32], but no action was ever taken, no comment even left. User:Pjh1810's very first edit was a revert of references to Frys104's earlier vandalism ([22]) and he says he'll sue anyone who touches "his pages" (user page and talk page). Claims he's not a sockpuppet, but his list of contributions is almost identical to the other two. I originally assumed good faith with the original account, but there've been so many page blankings, vandalisms, and creations of sockpuppet accounts, along now with lawsuit threats, that enough is enough. User is again active (as of today) and is already blanking out references to his earlier vandalisms. User plans to turn "his page" into a training site for a Subway franchise (see his user page for details)--Firsfron 12:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have given the user a warning to read WP:NLT and removed the threat. We'll see what happens next. As for the subway training site, I cannot see that being allowed, but one crisis at a time. - TexasAndroid 17:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I appreciate the your attempt at a solution, TexasAndroid, and I hope it works. I fear, however, that this user's contributions reflect a basic misunderstanding of many of Wikipedia's policies (no spam, actual encyclopedic content, NPOV, 3RR, no deliberate blanking of pages, etc). In short: thanks! I hope it sticks!--Firsfron 21:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. You may be right, it may not do much. But he needed to be warned first. He needed to be given a chance, not slapped down without warning. - TexasAndroid 22:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems over last nignt a commons:User:Jed uploaded several incorrect images to Commons last night I'm not quite sure what to do (so I posted here). I noticed when Media:Coffee cup.png was replaced with a red X, so I reverted it, and checked his contributions, and it seems there are alot more images affected. Regards Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 13:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind I'm an idiot Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 14:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

User:4.240.213.212 posts include antisemitic phrase "talmudic supremacist zionazi" See: Special:Contributions/4.240.213.212. Thought I should at least mention it here.--Cberlet 14:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, he stopped about 3 hours ago, so I think it's cleared itself up. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

... I've had a FAC up for almost 2.5 days with one (solicited) comment. Did I do something wrong, or does no one care about this guy? ;) RadioKirk talk to me 14:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

For my money, the same cabal who conspired to kill Kennedy are now conspiring to prevent the Altgens article, and its attendant assassination information, from reaching FA status... Joe 18:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL! :D RadioKirk talk to me 18:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the answer may be in the question... Just zis Guy you know? 21:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but where? Certainly not in "spamming", I notified a grand total of three people, two of whom had worked on or helped with the article. I almost didn't post here, lest that be construed as "spamming". So, I'm still lost... :) RadioKirk talk to me 22:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Since you ask, it's a short article about a dull man. Not one to get my heart racing. Henry^Flower 13:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it's a short article about a dull man—who took two of the most recognized photographs in world history. No reason it can't be an FA. :) RadioKirk talk to me 15:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Either I'm misunderstanding your question, or a bigger fish is called for. I thought you were asking why no-one is interested enough in the article to comment on it (answer, which you seem to accept- because it's boring). Perhaps you could write a more interesting article about the photos? Henry^Flower 16:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he was boring—perhaps—but I don't agree that the article is. At any rate, it seems my question is answered. :) RadioKirk talk to me 16:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been tracking down vandalism from this range for a couple of minutes and uncovered stuff like this [23], I'm just saying that the rollback button is useless against there guys (or one guy with a huge range of IPs).

It seems to be a fairly populated range, so I don't know what to do with it (absolutely not a range block) and their vandalism is too spread out, so semi-protection is also out of the question. -Obli (Talk)^? 14:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not a range block? Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at the some of their talk pages, it seems to be the UK counterpart to AOL, but if you're willing to put in a range block, go ahead, I don't want to test it on a major ISP for my first time using it :) -Obli (Talk)^? 14:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ripe whois --lightdarkness ^(talk) 14:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Urgh. This provider is a vandal kiddie's dream come true. Apparently it combines the school-type public access (Broadband for Schools program) with an AOL-type rotating proxy scheme. Femto 14:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Another rogue sockpuppet has added personal information to Solar eclipse. I don't know how to remove it. It would mean eliminating an edit and it's summary - does anyone have the necessary skills? DJ Clayworth 16:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe what's above, under "Selective deletions?" (We probably really need this as a standard feature.) If I'm misreading the problem, I apologize. Geogre 17:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

See also here and here. I found the second link when going to "display and edit complete watchlist". I had to delete some personal information yesterday, and did it by restoring just the bad version and moving it to another page, deleting the other page, and then restoring the remaining edits on the original page. I was a bit nervous that I'd delete things I didn't intend to delete and be unable to get them back, so I experimented with one of my own subpages. It worked fine. I then tried pasting the code into my browser favourites, and it was much easier than I had expected. AnnH ♫ 18:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The easiest way to remove one or several revisions is to delete the article entirely, and then restore only the revisions that do not contain personal information. If you click the first checkbox in the undelete list, hold the SHIFT or CTRL key, and then click the last checkbox, it should check all of them. ~MDD4696 21:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

in trying to move spanning tree (networks) to spanning tree protocol i accidently moved it to Spanning tree trotocol instead. Then in trying to fix it i accidently moved the redirect that had been created at spanning tree (networks) by the first move instead. Can someone please delete the redirects that are currently sitting at spanning tree protocol and its corresponding talk page so i can move the real page there? Plugwash 18:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed this as you intended. Hope this helps. Friday (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This arbitration case has closed. Lou franklin is indefinitely banned from editing Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and related articles and discussion pages. He is also placed on personal attack and revert parole. These remedies will be enforced by block. For further details, please see the arbitration case page. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 18:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've lifted the current 1-month block on Lou, with the blocking admin's agreement (SB H), as all Lou's blocks related to an article which he can no longer edit. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

s/can/may/ ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm? Snoutwood (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It may be that JzG's trying to claim that 'can' can't mean 'may', which it, er, can. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Lou has edited Talk:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality in violation of the ArbCom ruling. [24] If the ruling is to be enforced, he should be blocked. I'd do it myself, but I've just edited that page today (for the first time, I believe) and so might not seem a neutral party. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The arbitration committee has amended this case to add a new remedy. Herschelkrustofsky is now banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 19:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL issues, big ones, that talk page needs a full time monitor, it's virtually 100% trolling, there's no way to interact with anyone on that page without being reverted, threatened, mocked, and subjected to the usualy freepr nonsense. As most of you will recall, back in december or january, i forget which, they had an official "freep in", which thankflly most of them were too mature to respond to, however the ones that did respond, seem to have never left and have essentially camped out on that talk page, and focused all their hosility on it. I think at this point that page is going to need some sort of adult supervision, from a preferably uninvolved admin--64.12.116.200 19:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Who'd have thought? Just zis Guy you know? 21:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for a listserv moderator! 8-) If a non-admin would wade in, would someone be willing to throw him a life raft from time to time? ;-) --CTSWyneken 21:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Generallego has, to date, contributed nothing other than attacks on my user/user talk page and edits to their own page(s). I'm almost certain who its a sockpuppet of, but despite relatively damning IP evidence, they denied everything on an RfC...

If this account could be blocked, I'd appreciate it - less noise to remove from my user or user talk pages; and if a sockcheck could be run I'd really appreciate it. --Kiand 22:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockcheck? You're not referring to WP:RfCU are you? To be honest, I can't see a case for a CheckUser since the editor in question is soon to be indefblocked simply for harrassment if s/he carries on with you. I'm watching them to see if they keep harrassing you, and if they do, I will block them. Sometimes a final warning can make someone get their act together. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, I didn't know that it had changed name, and that it had its own page now, oops. And no, its not the indefinately blocked user who somehow latched on to me; its someone from an awful lot longer back who has constantly returned to mess around with my user page and make snide comments on my talk page. Which is why my user page is sprotected... --Kiand 22:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I blocked indefinitely just minutes after Deskana had given a final warning. I don't see any point in unblocking; the account obviously exists for the purpose of harassment, and he has the option of apologizing on his talk page if he wants to turn over a new leaf. He has no useful edits. Regarding WP:RFCU, they may think it's unncessary since he's been blocked, but if it's a sockpuppet of someone who's in the middle of a six-month ban, for example, the ban would be reset if the sockpuppetry is established. AnnH ♫ 22:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, one of said users other sockpuppets, User:Zerozero, has reappeared for the exact same purposes (attack account). This is why I requested a checkuser... If this attack account could be banned, I'd appreciate that too. --Kiand 02:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

(This isn't an incident per se, so I don't know where to report this to. Please tell me if I have reported this to the inappropriate page and I will move this to the right page. Thank you.)

1028 (talk · contribs · count) - Posted in my talk "Don't forget to cast your vote for Wikipedian governor! The polls close on May 9! Send your nominations for governor to User:1028's talk page". (Wikipedia doesn't have a Governor, as we all know)

This has been posted to several other Wikipedians' userpages:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FreplySpang&diff=prev&oldid=51754959
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shanel&diff=prev&oldid=51754658
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kungfuadam&diff=prev&oldid=51754508
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Academic_Challenger&diff=prev&oldid=51754377
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kusma&diff=prev&oldid=51754208

Thanks. — nathanrdotcom ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 23:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Leaving a message on his talk page as you did was the appropriate thing to do, although being more polite wouldn't hurt. ~MDD4696 02:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I could've been, and I'll try to be. However, he just goes on even after my comment on his talk. I even linked to cruft and he just doesn't get it the concept. That's a bit frustrating. :| — nathanrdotcom ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 02:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely understand what you mean, but I'm not sure there's anything you can do until it's more than an annoyance. There's all sorts of people on Wikipedia, and there will always be some that just don't "get it". ~MDD4696 04:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I was a bit more polite in the explanation the second time around (and I'm usually never sure how to word things), perhaps he'll get the idea this time. If there's anything I could've said/done better, please let me know on my talk. Thanks for the help. — nathanrdotcom ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 05:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Taking a good look at his talkpage, I'm not sure it's more politeness that's needed. He seems a little aggressive in defending his nonsense articles, coming close to harassment in some cases. Many of his invites to the Governor election have gone to administrators who've tried to deal with these articles, and with him. He seems to focus especially on the patient User:Academic Challenger (who told him in March, with uncharacteristic terseness, that "It is obvious that you are not President Bush"). I think it may be coming up to block time, and have dropped a note on Academic Challenger to see if there's anything he'd like to share. And in the Governor Cruft race, my vote goes to Eugene Cruft. Bishonen | talk 05:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC).

I have a lot of experience with this user. He seems to enjoy playing around with administrators. About a month ago he wrote an article called Charles Edward Cheese which I and several other admins deleted, but he kept recreating it for a while until finally he got tired of it and got me to agree to what he called a truce. I'm not sure what should be done with him. He seems to have made some good edits and from his user page he seems to be pretty intelligent, but I'm not sure how to get him to stop these types of actions. Basically I've politely responded to all of his messages and that seems to be working somewhat. Academic Challenger 05:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what on his userpage makes on think he is "pretty intelligent"; I don't get that impression. He lists himself in the non-existent category of "Wikipedians with an IQ of surprisingly high" which doesn't even obey the rules of English grammar. As for useful contributions, I don't see any in the last 50 edits. JoshuaZ 06:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that any useful edits he made were done a long time ago. I would support a block for disruption if he continues to add nonsense to article pages or talk pages. Academic Challenger 06:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at this[25]. The two other diffs before show quite a lot as well. PLEASE, admins, list pages you protect. You are welcome to use my monobook javascript for protecting pages (if you run the monobook skin), but please use this list. It has many advantages for Wikipedia and page protection, as it easy easy for all admins to get an overview of what is going on.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 07:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I've rarely found Wikipedia:List of protected pages useful at all. There are already at least a dozen categories for protected pages, and most editors discuss the protections on the protected page's talk page. When I place page protection, I keep it on my desk until I lift it, use the protections templates, and usually leave a note on it's talk. Is this breaking the policy? Perhaps, but it seems to be working. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

All the protections I do are semi-protection of vandals' user talk pages, and I always stick a note at the top of my talk page header to remind me to take it off if/when the block expires. (Not only is it a page I see very often, but if I was run over by a bus, other people can see it.) And more recently I've protected some DYK images, and whoever does the next update always takes care of that. I don't see why any further notice of either type of protection is necessary. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I keep a desk right on my main user page too, with ToDo's and blocks/protections to revist, its very usefull for me. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I borrowed yours as a "calendar". Nice idea, hope you don't mind. ;) RadioKirk talk to me 02:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...I should mention that userpages protections are not really needed at WP:PP. I don't care much for those, but the other ones are important.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 17:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I must be missing something then, why is that page so important? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just completed and debugged super javascript that looks at the cat pages for semi and full, checks if they are listed and makes a list of the ones that aren't, goes to the log (which limit=5000) checks for the last protection of those items, extracts the summary, user, and date and then goes back to WP:PP and adds it in. Sheesh...debugging that was annoying...Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 05:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

To avoid a ForestFire let continue this at Wikipedia_talk:List_of_protected_pages#Why2

anon 81.56.135.230 is spamlinking Wikipedia. He/she/it is adding www.seemalaysia.org to a lot of pages. Tried to revert his edit but too many and too fast. I suspect it's a bot. Hope somebody could ban the IP temporarily and revert all his edits. __earth ^(Talk) 10:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

User has stopped; I've reverted and left a message on the talk page. RadioKirk talk to me 17:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This user was permanently blocked for recreating a copyvio article, talk:Alan Chartock. He has expressed interest in recreating the article without copyvio. Can someone read his talk page, review the deleted article, and reconsider the length of the block.

This article is being reported on by the major media blog of the New York capital.

I have blocked Seahen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for creating userboxes promoting pedophilia (girllover and boylover), general trolling by listing their speedy deletion for review, and talk page spamming in an attempt to rig the deletion review. --Tony Sidaway 16:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Object. I cannot support an indefinite block without warning on a user who has no previous blocks and continues to make good-faith edits, including today. I would support a 24 hour block to make sure he understands that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and attempts to use it for something else are not welcome, and longer blocks, possibly indefinite, if he continues to defy policy after it ends. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I overreacted. I've no objection to an unblock or modification. --Tony Sidaway 16:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reduced the block to 24 hours for talk page spamming. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• It seems rash to indef block someone that has contributed for over a year over one situation in which they were given no warnings. Also, since when did NPA not apply to you Tony? I know people support calling a troll a troll (even though I am not sure if this was done in bad faith), but do you really need to throw in stupid too? Someone should also explain why he is now blocked (the talk page spamming in an attempt to vote stack) and he has requested an unblock. Kotepho 16:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  He knows why he's blocked - Tony referred to talk page spamming, and as I specifically asked him not to continue after his block was lifted, it's pretty obvious that that was the reason I didn't lift the block entirely. And Doc glasgow has dealt with the unblock request (denied). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  I lifted this block later yesterday after Seahen clarified that he had discussed the matter with Jimbo and accepted that he shouldn't do things that might bring Wikipedia into disrepute.[26] --Tony Sidaway 23:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This arbitration case has closed. James S. is banned from depleted uranium, placed on probation, and placed on general probation. Those opposing editors who have made personal attacks on James S. are reminded of the policies regarding courtesy and personal attacks. TDC is placed on revert parole. For further details, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 17:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I request an administrator to check the discussion about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pilot of invisible F-117-a(song). Dzoni (talk · contribs) and apparently Kris12 (talk · contribs) are doing ratial comments against Mig11 (talk · contribs). Since I do not know Serbian, I cannot verify if what Mig11 stated is correct, but if so, maybe it is time for the AFD to close since it has lost WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 17:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, this AfD seems to be going into its 8th day. =P — TheKMan^talk 08:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Found this cleaning out my watchlist. The nom has been open since April 21, and all votes are delete, so I have no idea why it's not closed yet. Maybe it accidently got removed from the log or something? Anyway, some admin should take care of it. BryanG 17:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

My question is about Image:Mru Dancing.jpg, uploaded by Aditya Kabir (talk · contribs). The image shows a group of teen-aged-looking tribal girls dancing during the festival. The image is used in proper context in the article Bandarban District, where these tribes live.

Now, the problem with the image is a bit of frontal nudity of one of the dancers. Normally, that wouldn't have been a problem (and I know that Wikipedia is not censored). However, it appears that the dancer is underaged, and my question in this case is whether the image is legal to use in the articles or view it, considering US or more specifically Florida laws regarding images of underage people. The image also has dubious source/copyright info, but that's another problem. Thanks. --Ragib 17:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is legal. Full frontal nudity of children is on all the time on PBS TV shows in every state in the US. WAS 4.250 18:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Nudity != pornography. Pictures of nude children are fine so long as the picture was not intended to be sexually arousing. Lacisvious is the correct word, but I can't spell it right for the life of me, so use my attempt and find the correct one. -M^ask 18:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Lascivious is the word; see also prurient, the term most often used in the United States in analyses such as this... Joe 18:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Prurient doesn't quite apply here, thats generally used to classify obscenity (appealing to a prurient interest). Lascivicus ('lewd, lustful') is used to classify pornography, and as such is the difference between those naked bath photos your mom as of you as a baby being embarassing rather then illegal :) -M^ask 19:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, we do often use the Miller test in considering whether pornography is obscene; I'd suggest, for example, that an analysis of an Anne Geddes photograph would turn on the lack of appeal to a prurient interest. Your point with respect to the difference between nudity qua depiction of a natural human state and nudity qua tool of sexual arousal is well-made, but such distinctions are sometimes difficult for judges to make, and there is a tendency to classify all that involves human nudity as pornography. Notwithstanding the legal distinctions, though, Wiktionary gives them as either word as a synonym for the other, so I suppose it's all good. :) Joe 06:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification regarding the image. --Ragib 19:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The nudity is absolutely fine in the cultural context, but it would be nice to confirm the licensing status. I've left a message for the uploader. Chick Bowen 15:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Long ago, I added a photo of Louis Gossett, Jr., as Anwar Sadat. There appears to be a campaign to obliterate this photo from the article in favor of that of a very Arab-looking actor who portrayed Sadat (and looks nothing like him) in a later production. It repeatedly has been removed and the other pic inserted. My stance has been that there is room for both. The latest edit warrior is insisting -- IMO, absurdly -- that there are "too many pictures" and that the Arab's photo is "more important." From where I stand, just another example of afrophobia. I'd appreciate it if someone would stop by and take a look. Thanks. deeceevoice 07:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Same problem at Egypt. The photo of the Fellahin girl (in a section that expressly discusses the Fellahin) has been repeatedly removed. (The Fellahin are darker-skinned Egyptians.) Repeated problems with this image being removed also. Presently, the same edit warrior User:Egyegy who repeatedly has removed the pic of Louis Gossett, Jr. in Anwar Sadat has removed the photo of the Fellahin girl in favor of a "superior" photograph. IMO, repeated and blatant attempts to expunge the image of black Egyptians from the website. deeceevoice 08:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

One would predict that Egypt has ethnic issues that are distinct from ethnic issues in the US. Don't project your own views on others where they are not vaild. Dr Zak 12:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please reinstate the talk page to Cuba. It's gone missing! Thanks--Zleitzen 11:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I restored it. I am assuming it related to the Alkivar problem and Freakofnature just forgot to restore it after cleansing the page history. There wasn't an summary in the deletion log, so if I restored it in err, another admin should feel free to redelete it. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This arbitration case is now closed.

• Article bans:
  • User:Aucaman and User:SouthernComfort are banned from editing articles related to Persians or Iran. Relatedness is to be interpreted broadly so as to prevent gaming.
  • User:Zmmz is banned from editing Persian people and Iranian peoples.
• Probation:
  • User:Aucaman and User:Zmmz are placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year.
  • For edit warring, User:ManiF, User:Kashk, User:SouthernComfort, and User:Khoikhoi are placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year.
• Banned from Wikipedia:
  • For edit warring, personal attacks, and other disruption, User:Xebat, under all of his usernames, is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year.

Further details are given in the decision at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 15:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

A user by the name of "Irgendwer" is repeated deleting the word "political" from the descriptor "political philosophy" on the Libertarianism page. The issue has been much discussed on the talk page and consensus is that the descriptor "political philosophy" is appropriate. This user has some kind of ideological axe to grind. Help would be much appreciated. Salvor Hardin 16:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content. Try taking it to the article's talk page, the user's talk page, or dispute resolution. If he does it more than three times, report him at WP:AN/3. Hermione1980 16:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks for an attempt to create a new and very bad policy by the means of edit waring and voting. WAS 4.250 17:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

69.133.158.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) just recently posted personal information (ie; address and phone number) of someone on Wikipedia [27]. Could someone delete this edit so it isn't for public viewing. Thanks! DGX 21:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Just a thought, but this is a high traffic page, you might not want to hyperlink that, according to google, the phone number and address are both listed, so putting it out in the open might attract unwanted attention--{anon iso − 8859 − 1janitor} 21:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the edit and blocked the IP. Chick Bowen 22:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI: that user has three other edits [28] [29] [30] with the same personal information. dcandeto 22:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. :-) I already alerted Chick Bowen and hopefully they too will be deleted. DGX 22:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm handling them now. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed those edits from the page history. Problem solved. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have checked that. Thanks, everyone, and good work, DGX. Chick Bowen 22:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This page is linked from the English Wiktionary to this title (above) corresponding to the section below. Please make sure it is not renamed again. --Connel MacKenzie 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ImpuMozhi#A_threat

Do we require editors like Partha rathore? When he can use such nasty words and worst of Hindi slangs with 50 edits, how dirty he shall make our wikipedia. I recommend that such editors should be banned for life. Regards. --Bhadani 08:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for 1 week, for issuing a physical threat. Feel free to override me. Thanks. --Ragib 08:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You may also want to list him on WP:PAIN, our (oft-ignored) page for reporting personal attacks. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 16:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I am running a bit impatient with editor Vorash (talk · contribs). The editor started out as a well-respected user of the Wikipedia, (though he and I had some major problem/wars when I first came here). Late last year, he closed his account because "he was labelled as a vandal". His anger was increased when his "pride and joy" Best selling music artists was listed for deletion. After closing his account, he has made a few edits to Wikipedia (perhaps a few edits per weeks). Here's the problem: he made some edits to Mariah Carey singles discography a long time ago, which were modified by some anon editors, and especially by Extraordinary Machine (talk · contribs). For some reason, Vorash is determined to have the article his way, and he does this by reverting the entire article to months old version, completely wiping out all updates that have been made since that time: [31],[32], [33], [34], [35]. Even though other editors (myself included) have tried speaking with him, he is uncivil and unyielding. He also uses sockpuppets to carry out his dirty work: Rodrigogomespaixao (talk · contribs) and Klppaa (talk · contribs) (I've blocked the latter, but I'm a bit skeptical of the former, so I haven't blocked him).

I gave Vorash one final warning on May 7, 2006 [36]. The day later, he reverted it to his month old version ([37]). I am getting extremely impatient with him. I cant block him for 3RR because he does not do it three times a day: he slips in every other day or so and revert it. I once protected it, but one can only protect the article for so long. As Carey has a couple singles on the charts, the page needs to be updated weekly. I am tempted to block him indefinitely, but:

1. It might be too drastic. I really do not want to abuse my power.
2. Blocking might have no effect. He rearely uses his account anyway. He'll probably just use another ISP.
3. as he and I have been in squabbles in the past, I dont want to be the one to block him.

Can anyone help me come up with a solution? I do not necessarily endorse the current version of the article. What I'm concerned with, however, is his rude disruptive behaviour, and the fact that when he reverts the page, all the weekly edits are completely obliterated (wrong info is therefore deliberately introduced into the page). Oran e (t) (c) (e) 17:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be standard procedure to unblock a user before reblocking them with a different duration. I was just wondering if it's necessary, or if it's a hangover from a time when Mediawiki didn't properly handle this situation? I ran some block tests on a dormant account I created[38]. First, I blocked the account for 1 hour, then - without unblocking - for 15 minutes. Special:Ipblocklist showed the latest, current block to be ending in 15 minutes. Of course that information doesn't guarantee that the old block has actually been overridden, it merely suggests that it does. Comments anyone? --kingboyk 17:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think MediaWiki takes the shortest of the block periods and whenever it expires, unblocks the account, disregarding the longer blocks. Bug or feature? I don't know. --Ragib 17:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, feature. Whenever any active block on a user expires, all blocks on that user expire. So, you have to unblock first before you can apply a longer block, but you don't have to unblock to apply a shorter block. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And you're positive that hasn't changed in recent revisions of MW? :) --kingboyk 17:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You can check the CVS logs if you really want to, this behavior hasn't been changed :-P Cyde Weys 23:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You know what? I'll take your word for it! :) --kingboyk 13:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I had another report (see above) a few days ago where I requested a check user on User:Generallego, who was indefinately blocked for being nothing but an attack account. As I expected, another of the sockpuppets, User:Zerozero, was resurrected to continue the same. If this could be blocked, I'd appreciate it - its an attack account. Additionally, I'm now going to request a checkuser. --Kiand 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Or not, considering it seems relatively complex to do a request and seems to require other avenues to be exhausted. Although the user in question denies everything, obviously... --Kiand 20:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed a bit of vandalism at Mud logger and was trying to figure out what was going on when User:Earwig {{prod}}ed it with no explanation, except repeating the bit of vandalism. When trying to check out why Earwig was so interested in the word 'shit' I was acquainted with his focus quite rudely. I see he is roaming widely and intensely today and have to wonder about his judgement from viewing his user page. Could someone look into this and tell me if I shouldn't be worried what might come out of this? Shenme 22:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You might have warned people about that link to his user page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, why the weird page history, the link you provided is a redirect with 7 or 8 edits to a page with only 6 edits, most of which on boht pages are by IP's which seems a bit odd. Can an admin please check to to see if either page has any deleted revisions? Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"This user identifies as gay", "This user identifies as African American". GNAA anyone? Emulation of Goatse image on front page as well? This user is an obvious, unquestionable troll and I am banning him indefinitely. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 00:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

An administrator needs to see WP:AIV, there are a couple users which are vandalising this very second. No one is monitoring it!

This is clear. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently this is the place to report people discussing on Wikipedia their intentions to commit suicide. The most recent such person is The Hypnotist (talk · contribs). Pay particular attention to his edits to Talk:Suicide, Talk:Mass suicide, and Talk:Potassium cyanide. moink 04:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't entertain this. His own talk page and some previous edits have shown a tendency towards vandalism and trolling. Based on the ministerial training I've received, posting "Hey, I've got cyanide" messages on Wikipedia would be pretty atypical warning signs for a person seriously considering suicide. Not to sound callous, but I don't take this guy seriously, and both the extent of intervention available via Wikipedia and its impact is negligable. A link to an outside website should suffice; let's not play into a troll's hands. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 05:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that his edits in the past have been less than stellar, although some of them (e.g. the whole thing with the Stimulism article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stimulism) seem more confused than bad faith. But just because someone is a vandal or confused doesn't mean they can't be suicidal. moink 05:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's warn him with a {{suicide3}} right away, maybe? LOL!! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

STOP! This is your last warning! Do not commit suicide here. You'll make a mess! HAHAHAHAHA - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm altogether concerned that this has become "the place to report people discussing on Wikipedia their intentions to commit suicide" (I readily recognize that perhaps Moink offers that description sardonically, and I'd certainly concur with that spirit); one's discussing his/her prospective suicide ought only to be dealt with as any other vandalism. Where disruption to the project occurs (e.g., when a user inserts extraneous comments into mainspace or consumes talk page space with wholly irrelevant comments), a user should surely be blocked; where disruption does not occur (e.g., when a user simply posts comments apropos of an imminent suicide on his/her user page to no deleterious end [vis-à-vis the production of an encyclopdia]), nothing should be done. Having followed the discussion last week with respect to this issue, I'm reasonably sure my position doesn't have a great deal of support here, but I thought it ought to be noted that we are here to write an encyclopedia (cf., to insinuate ourselves into the lives of other editors where the primary object is not the expansion of the 'pedia). Joe 06:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, and to view it from a practical standpoint for the "suicidal user," if they're genuinely looking for help online, it seems very, very unlikely that they're going to do so by coming to Wikipedia to pore over an article on suicide. This is not a self-help site, and if someone's able to find their way to an article in Wikipedia, they're able to use Google to look up a resource that's actually helpful. I think this is a good example of Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose... don't give vandals the impression that they can eat up resources by claiming that they're suicidal. It's not just an issue of "this is disruptive to Wikipedia," it's one of vandals manipulating concern to get attention. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 06:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I missed the discussion last week (where is it? I just looked for it and couldn't find it), and I think we've got a responsibility to do more than ignore this. I also don't like the notion of dismissing suicidal talk just because someone has been trollish in the past. I'm not saying that someone couldn't make claims of suicidal ideation in order to stir up trouble or get attention, but I'd rather err on the side of responsibility — better to feed a troll a bit than have someone commit suicide on our watch. Besides the moral questions, imagine the headlines if it turned out to be genuine: "Wikipedia ignored suicidal teen's pleas for help" and the like.

I'm also not so sure that someone who's suicidal wouldn't look here. They might also look in more "useful" locations, but since Wikipedia has become such a universal tool it's not inconceivable that someone might look here first. The Wikipedia page suicide does come up on the first page if you type "suicide" into Google; it's not the top of the list, but it's there.

All that said, I also recognize that most of us can't do anything more than the sensible comments moink has already left on The Hypnotist's talk page; could we get an idea of where he is with a whois search? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the attention for an unheeded response posted to Wikipedia — which would be the same as if it were posted onto a blog, or MySpace, or Facebook, or whatever — would be slight in comparison to that drawn to an article like suicide methods. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 06:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The last time this happened it was immediately passed over to the Foundation. I think the same should happen here. (If it turns out to be a spoof, he should get a long block; if it isn't a spoof we have a moral duty to do something). --kingboyk 06:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think WP:BEANS to be largely irrelevant here; even as we don't want to encourage trolls and vandals, we ought to react in the same way to a "suicide threat" by a user whom we know to be serious as to one by a user whom we are certain is trolling (perhaps we would suggest a block in the latter case, inasmuch as the intent is to disrupt, but, of course, the former also tends to disrupt when expressed on multiple pages); scilicet, we ought to do nothing (for reasons I attempt to explain below, in response to Tijuana's template). Joe 04:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) There was a similar case sometime earlier this year or late last year, if I recall correctly. We're here to build an encyclopedia, and I think we just pointed the guy to some other site (perhaps it was a counselling site or something...). We should do the same here, and not waste rescources and energy on one user with claims. Anyone can make claims. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:39 UTC (2006-04-25)

More like, road to hell is paved with good obsessions. Wikipedia does not have a counseling service. Any personal problems of users are only personal problems of users and hence is of no concern to wikipedia comunity as a hole.

Maybe this might make a nice addition to WP:NOT?

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 07:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Think a short template would be practical... something along the lines of "WP:NOT for med/mental problems, see WebMD, etc."? Then, if they keep going, {{personalproblems2}} could refer them to User talk:Crzrussian. Guarantee they won't come back after that. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 07:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You are joking right?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This humor seems grossly inappropriate to me. I agree that Wikipedia isn't a suicide prevention / general selfhelp service, and certainly agree that potentially suicidal users should be pointed to another, appropriate, external resource / service. I do disagree with, for example, the concept that "personal problems of users are only personal problems of users and hence is of no concern to wikipedia comunity as a hole." (sic) I'll keep this focused at a purely project level and suggest that, at least, it is my hope that the community would be concerned if an editor was lost to the project through suicide. There's a whole wide world out there for mocking fellow humans - this discussion doesn't seem to be contributing to a better encyclopedia, IMVHO. And, as user:kingboyk points out, we have a moral duty to do something. Colonel Tom 11:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Then find someone with cheackuser to grab the IP then contact the ISP. We don't know who this person is or where they live so there is nothing else we can do.Geni 14:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

To get this in before somebody tells us to discuss it somewhere more appropriate... all joking aside, I'm fairly certain that all of the editors above would upset if an editor committed suicide. However, the likelihood of someone coming onto Wikipedia to declare their serious, immediate intention of taking their own life is beyond remote. Based on my somewhat limited knowledge, when a person has a serious intention of suicide, they will begin to manifest by speaking to friends and family rather than strangers online. More importantly, they don't do so by tagging obnoxious comments onto talk pages [39] with happy faces on them [40]. Part of the reason that you may be misunderstanding some of the responses above as callous is because this is a easy to spot case of a vandal looking for attention — it wouldn't be the first time he's tried [41].

I'm not sure how much experience you've had dealing with vandals, but they'll do pretty much anything for a laugh... faking suicidal tendencies wouldn't be that far up the list compared to other things that have gone down here. If one starts to pick up that he can start getting attention from editors that rush to every suicide claim, trying to track down their IP and call their provider, he's gonna do it again. On a practical level, there's nothing an editor can really do other than refer them to a self-help site, but like I said above, if they got here, they can get there. Since there still seems to be some users concerned, though, here's a template that you can use in such a case. Looks like this:

{{suicidehelp}}

Just type {{suicidehelp}} onto their talk page.Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 14:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine that I'd be particularly distraught over the loss of any particular editor, and I surely hope the community writ large (and even any given editor) wouldn't be upset over my committing suicide. I, in any case, oppose our apprehending a moral duty (as a matter of policy; certainly individual editors may act, generally, as they wish in this respect) to intercede, and think it altogether inappropriate for us to offer, on a template, an external link to what is plainly an advocacy site (even as most may think the POV for which the site advocates--viz., that one oughtn't to kill him/herself--to be the "correct" view with respect to suicide). This relates, I suppose, to the discussion currently underway apropos of WP: NOT EVIL, and, I think, at the end of the day, the concerns that militate against our adopting that proposed guideline militate against our having an advocacy template here; we are here to write an encyclopedia, from which we may then benefit, and not to inculcate morals under color of policy. If one wants to express on his/her talk page the view that suicide is wrong or should be looked upon with disfavor, especially by those contemplating killing themselves, that's fine (at least if one believes user pages may contain expressions of such sentiments; I, as I've expressed elsewhere, believe that the use of user pages to express personal beliefs is beneficial, rather than harmful, to the project), but I don't think it at all appropriate that we should have a template that responds to a user's querying talk pages and the like about suicide. Joe 04:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As I mention on the templates for deletion vote page, I think we should keep an NPOV version of {{suicidehelp}}, and that it should be similar to the "Resources for dealing with suicidal thoughts' section of Template:Suicide. Also, WP:BEANS does not apply here, I don't think people will commit suicide "just to try it." - PatrickFisher 03:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The beans reference was not for people committing suicide because an editor on Wikipedia suggested it. It was about giving the idea that a vandal claiming suicide could get other editor's attention. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 03:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

OFC a vandal actually going through with suicide would be a good thing wouldn't it? Plugwash 15:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Quantum mysticism was moved to Quantum metaphysics by User:H0riz0n, but it appears to have been done by a cut and paste, instead of a move, wiping out the history, (and the resulting redirect is mis-formed). I dropped a note to the user about it, but admin intervention is needed to sort out the history issues, etc, and is probably easier to fix before anyone else edits the target article. Regards, MartinRe 10:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to User:FreplySpang for fixing the original article, however it appears that a different, second user has renamed the page to yet another title, making the same mistake, so the history is now scattered over three articles! (the talk page history for the original article wasn't merged, was this was just an oversight?)

Three pages in question are: Quantum metaphysics, Quantum mysticism and Quantum pseudo-mysticism if any admin feels like getting this back into order again! Regards, MartinRe 22:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What joy. Sorry for missing the talk page history - that was indeed an oversight. I'll go look at these articles now. FreplySpang (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this, I know it's a little messy to fix. (I don't even have anything to do with the article myself, just happened across it by chance!) Cheers, MartinRe 23:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think it's done. I redirected two of the names to Quantum metaphysics because that's where the article history happened to be. If anyone wants to check this, I'd appreciate it. FreplySpang (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW if you catch a copy and paste move quickly before any other edits have been done. Its generally best to just revert it. This avoids an admin having to go to the trouble of a history merge etc. It also reinforces the "don't do copy and paste moves" message by forcing the user who did it to go through requested moves if they still wan't the move to go ahead. Plugwash 16:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

IP's 65.202.223.13, 66.28.239.163 (twice) and 24.90.8.50 have been vandalising the Life of Agony article by inserting random references to "Guy Bannister". Does Guy have the hots for this band in particular or has he popped up anywhere else? Deizio 15:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The vandal(s) must recently have purchased the DVD of JFK ;) RadioKirk talk to me 03:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Howdy,

I'm looking for an admin that either particpates in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling, is familiar with pro wrestling, or at least follows the WWE to help out with a small task. Please contact me on my talk page if this is you! Thank you for your help, --Naha|^(talk) 01:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The only admin I am aware of that knows anything about Pro Wrestling is Lbmixpro. If you need help on anything pro wrestling related in relation to a trivial extent, I am available for that as I am pretty knowledgeable about it. :-D DGX 01:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've already contacted him, but he is kind of on a wikibreak of sorts at the moment. The matter concerns a semi-protect so I really need to speak to an admin, thanks though! --Naha|^(talk) 02:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm still looking for someone :) --Naha|^(talk) 15:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just indef blocked Betty_Yves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In her short history here, she's been abrasive and insulting. When she got called out on it, she resorted to vandalism and petty attacks. She vandalized two articles by replacing them with "communism" which is either simple vandalism, or an admission that she's the Wikipedia Is Communism vandal. Then she told Tawkerbot it was a misunderstanding, she wasn't vandalized.

So, she's gone. If anyone disagrees, please speak up. --Golbez 02:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Would have done it myself if I hadn't been beated to it. Good on Golbez.--Sean Black ^(talk) 19:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

i'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to report this, but i hope it is. if not, i hope someone can direct me to the appropriate forum.

InShaneee has twice deleted the article on Lynch Mob (band).

the first time, yes, there were some inaccurate information in the article. so i rewrote the article. it was quickly deleted again. i see NO legitimate reason for the article to have been deleted the second time. i looked at this person's talk page, and he/she(?) has apparently been complained about (reported) to the other administrators before. Gringo300 02:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have replied to you on the article's talk page. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The speedy sure looks like a mistake to me. I've restored the article and commented on the talk page. Friday (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I did wrong. I STILL don't see any assertion of notability as per WP:MUSIC on that page, which is a speedy deletion criteria. --InShaneee 19:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If I may, the page does list several albums produced by the band, which meets WP:MUSIC ("Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels"), and Google turns up a fair number of supporting pages like [42]. I agree the page needs work and should have appropriate tags added, but it does seem a borderline speedy at best. Just my 2 cents, Gwernol 19:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

(ec) I wouldn't sweat having done anything "wrong"- it's been undeleted, no harm was done. As for notability, we already have an article on the founder of the band, Dokken guitarist George Lynch (musician). They have a (quite brief) AMG bio. The article could be better, certainly, but a band founded by a musician we already have a decent article on shouldn't be speedied IMO. Also, for those who care about WP:MUSIC, there's the bit about "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". Maybe this should be merged into George Lynch (musician)- I'm not opposed to that, but I don't think it should have been speedied. Friday (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As his mentor appointed by the arbitration committee, I have banned Cool_Cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from editing, creating or nominating for deletion any articles, templates or categories related to the kurds [43] [44].

This is for an initial seven day period, to be extended indefinitely subject to the agreement of the other two mentors. --Tony Sidaway 05:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have rescinded this pending further discussion with the other two mentors [45]. --Tony Sidaway 15:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

and bookmark this template/category: Template:AOLdos--205.188.116.200 15:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The person who has been vandalising under peoples names has the screen names horse fucker and your papa. Unfortunatly, he has the same IP adress as the rest of us Wikipedia users at my place of bussiness so if you blocked him, you would be blocking us. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blopij (talk • contribs)

I undid the auto-blocks, so you should be able to edit now. Prodego ^talk 19:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heavy metal in Islamic countries - this has been up fairly long for AfD (since 21 April 2006), probably needs to be closed. Spearhead 20:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Good spot. The reason this has not yet been closed is that it was never listed at WP:AFD (stage 3 of the nomination was not done). I've listed it now and noted this on the afd page. It is most likely that it will be treated as if it were nominated today and closed in about 5 days. Thryduulf 23:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

68.97.135.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and AndyBBQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were working together to vandalize pages, so simply rolling back wouldn't delete all the vandalism. This tactic has been brought to our attention before, but this in additional FYI. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 01:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Instantnood block log
• Instantnood arbitration
  • See especially log of blocks and bans at the bottom

Following a number of complaints about the activities of Instantnood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I have banned him under his probation from several articles on which he had edited disruptively. The authority for this comes under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3. Because he doesn't appear to be learning to moderate his behavior but instead simply goes to edit war on another article, I also blocked Instantnood for 48 hours for disruption.

The block having expired, Instantnood now requests that the bans be lifted [46]. I am not prepared to do this, but as with all bans I regard these as subject to review by other administrators. So I invite other administrators to examine the circumstances and make whatever changes they think best. --Tony Sidaway 18:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I was not notified about user:SchmuckyTheCat's request at WP:AE, and I was not given any opportunity to defend my position before user:Tony Sidaway's decision to impose the block and the page bans. I'm now preparing a response at WP:AE to user:SchmuckyTheCat's request. Please kindly reconsider the block and the page bans after hearing my arguments.

" The block having expired, Instantnood now requests that the bans be lifted [47]. " - I requested user:Tony Sidaway to reconsider before the block expired [48], but she/he did not respond until I moved the reply to his user talk page after the block expired. — Instantnood 18:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever considered taking up co-operative editing instead? Just zis Guy you know? 21:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

May I know what else do I have to do? — Instantnood 10:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've responded to user:SchmuckyTheCat's request at WP:AE. — Instantnood 22:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

JzG's question wasn't rhetorical. I'm interested in the answer also. Why aren't you changing your editing patterns? Nandesuka 21:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I commented as followed on Tony Sidaway's page (as requested by the ban box). He asked me to copy it here:

Hi Tony, I checked Instantnood's edits on Macao, China from Dec2005 till his/her ban from that article. I couldn't see a reason for the ban on that article. I make no comment on his/her other behviour of which, currently, I have little knowledge. I'd appreciate your reasons. Thanks. Mccready 15:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now checked this user's edits on List of bridges and it appears there is a legitimate reason for his/her edits. An edit summary of this user pointed to the difference between a country and a sovereign state. Hong Kong is listed as the former but not the later. Mccready 16:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I've now checked his/her behaviour on Hong_Kong_national_football_team. He/she used the discussion page appropriately, organised a poll and edited accordingly. He/she suffered incivility from other users. I can't see why he/she is banned from the page. I have not looked at his/her editing on other pages and will await your comments. Thanks again. Mccready 16:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Since then I have also seen the claim that there was an arbcom case about him without his knowledge. If this is true I find it disappointing and unjust. Can anyone comment on this? Mccready 07:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, Instantnood actively participated in both of his first two arbitration case, and was fully informed of the third case [49] [50] but volubly declined to participate. --Tony Sidaway 11:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've explained for many times why it was like that. I wasn't able to submit a statement before case was opened, for I was blocked around that period. When the block expired the case was already opened based upon one-sided opinion, and the evidence and workshop had started. I could not pretend all these had not happened and submit a statement by then. The statement wouldn't have much effect, anyway, since the case was already opened and things were already getting on. I requested to reconsider its opening, but the ArbCom members obviously didn't care about fairness and justice of the arbitration mechanism. That's, frankly, disappointing. — Instantnood 20:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If it was unfair, you can appeal to Jimbo. --Tony Sidaway 20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Would it help? — Instantnood 20:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact I tried before, and apparently there wasn't any response. — Instantnood 21:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone created a template Template:AIDSWikiCredit to explicitly assign credite for using a specific page. I think this is not in order, but I am not sure about that. What are the feelings about this? KimvdLinde 19:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

We require that kind of attribution from other sites using our content under the GFDL, so I think it's only fair we also give credit where it's due. It does of course raise the question of whether we want to be using material taken from another wiki in the first place. --kingboyk 13:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd consider it a bad idea:

1. If using an article from that Wiki as source, no specific GFDL note is necessary, just use standard referencing for specific statements
2. If our article is a derived work of the article on another GFDL licensed Wiki, that notice isn't sufficent to fulfill GFDL requirements.
3. Anyway, using http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/, the Wiki of the AIDS reappraisal movement, as source is hardly matching our criteria of WP:V and WP:RS.

Pjacobi 13:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that specific information can be added as references, and than I want to go to the actuall cources. So, I do not see the need for this kind of credit giving in the first place. It suggests as if the page is made by that source and imported in wikipedia, which is definatly incorrect. BTW, the tamplate is also inserted in various other page for which I think this is inpropriate. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If this is used in articles which used the AIDS wiki as a source, this template is a bad thing. If it is used in articles which are derivative works (or wholesale copies) from that wiki, then it's a good thing. After all, we credit public domain sites when it's not legally necessary; in this case, where the content is released un the GFDL, this should be mandatory. Johnleemk | Talk 17:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Under his probation in the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq, I've banned Zeq from editing Nakba Day, for tendentious editing, particularly removing well-sourced information from the article [51]. --Tony Sidaway 23:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I received the following two comments on this:

Hi Tony - I'm not sure if banning Zeq was the best thing to do. While he may be hard to reason with, I'm not sure that his intentions were malicious. Maybe you could reconsider or at least give him/her a chance to iron the dispute out over another day or two. Thanks. Ramallite ^(talk) 03:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't accept your ban

Nakba day needs a mediator, Ian has delibertly caused an edit war in order to try and ban me from this article.

Look at my last edit and talk page. I tried to restore sanity to this article and avoid making it another vbattle article about the events in 1948.

I expect that you will remove the ban and help madiate the subject. Zeq 04:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that according to policy: "Striking out at users on probation is strongly discouraged" this apply to Ian specifically as he tried to take advantage of the fact I am on probation and inserted unrelated information (which is already in the article palestinian exodus) into Nakba day so that i will remove it. Any attempts to reason with him failed.

This editor has been following me around in the last 2 weeks. Every edit (or almost any) I made, ant where in any article got a revert or change from him (most often a revert). This is a simple issue that can be prooved. I have also asked him several times to stop stalking me. I expect that you will not take a side in this harrasment and help resolve the content dispute in Nakba day reminding ian on harrasment policy as well on his own being cautioned against creating an edit war. Zeq 04:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the ban was unreasonable, but I welcome review and would accept removal of the ban by another administrator. I have no intention of getting involved in mediation, as Zeq requests. If mediation were likely to succeed, I very much doubt that the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq would have been required in the first place. --Tony Sidaway 04:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to argue the ArbCom case here again but to note that it arrived to ArbCom without any mediation or RFC.

To the currect issue:

Clearly in the Nakba day case mediation has been proposed (and needed). Instead of accepting it ian Pichford (which has tried for two weeks to "trap" me by reverting and changing any edit I did on wikipedia (violating harrsament policy, despite numoures request to stop on his talk page) has choose to bring admin action aginst me. I suggest that anyone intersted in what goes on will ask Ramallite who does not agree with me on content of the article but understand that this is an honest content dispute with no malicious intentions on my part.

The absured thing of all is that prior to Tony appliing the ban I announced on the talk page that I will stay away from the article until it is mediated. Zeq 06:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think intentions should matter where probation is concerned. So long as he was violating the terms, a ban is the appropriate action. --InShaneee 18:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course intention matter. I was trying to resolve the edit war on issues that do not belong in this article. I created focus (by taking many contested issues out) while the other side tried to turn the article in another battle field about the events in 1948 israeli-Palestinian war are debated. (these issues are already address and debated in other articles) Zeq 19:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're involved in an edit war, you're edit warring. These issues need to be resolved on the talk page before they're taken to the article. --InShaneee 19:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I find Zeq's assertions somewhat puzzling. At the time I inserted the ban notice, at 2305 on 8 May, the last edit on the talk page had been by Zeq at 1942 UTC on 8 May, and the last edit on the article had been by Zeq at 1859 UTC on 8 May. For someone who said "I will stay away from the article until it is mediated", he seems to have been awfully active! Moreover, even while banned, he is attempting to persuade me to remove edits by another editor. He hasn't left this article alone even now. --Tony Sidaway 19:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony, Check your facts: I made an edit that was to stop the editwar on the events at 1948 and clearly suggested that if someone don't like it they can revert it and I will not make any more change This is not an edit war this is an attempt at resolution. Also suggested to one editor in the edit war (Rammalite) to correct any fact I may have left out.

My only "sin" is being bold in trying to resolve the issue. Zeq 20:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still trying hard to get other people experienced in the subject matter to review the ban.

Meanwhile I am rescinding it because Zeq and others have raised several legitimate points that cast doubt on my original decision. I've removed the ban notice and hereby place this update on all other relevant notices. If he really needs to be banned from this article then some other administrator will be just as capable of imposing it. In the meantime I apologise to Zeq. --Tony Sidaway 18:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see the article talk page. Since I no longer participate in this article (only on talk) I doubt any ban is needed> A warnning to Ian Pichford to avoid edit wars, POV pushing and wikistalking could be helpfull. Zeq 18:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The contentious and disputed article Battle of Khaybar, which does not meet the criteria for listing in "Did You Know" (it has existed since 2005), has been posted to the front page in error (based on inaccurate comments from some of its editors). Please, could someone remove this listing urgently? The admin who put the list together last is currently offline and unresponsive to three separate contact attempts by various editors. Thanks! — JEREMY 04:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you're right, it's an old article and shouldn't be on DYK, so I removed it. —Keenan Pepper 04:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your prompt attention. — JEREMY 05:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors is now the page to report any errors needing attention on the main page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is generally accepted that expanded stubs may be put on DYK. Previous attempts have been made to expand that article, but up until recently they were all reverted wholesale and the previous 'stable' version of the article was a stub. The last expansion, on the other hand, is under dispute but stable. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

M.C. Brown Shoes requested that the Willy on Wheels page in the main namespace be a protected redirect to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels. Is this okay?  Denelson83  09:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's necessary. To be more precise, anyone who knows about Willy on Wheels is probably familiar enough with the Wiki software to not need a redirect there. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 09:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Even though it's still in development, WP:DENY would fall into place here... --lightdarkness ^(talk) 11:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Which I read as supporting moving the pages out of the userspace. — Ilyanep (Talk) 11:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather see it redirect, protected if necessary, to Wheely Willy. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Apart from WP:DENY, we have separate namespaces to have encyclopedia articles separated from wikipedia pages. - Liberatore(T) 12:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the protected redirect to the paraplegic poodle per Ilmari Karonen. One more thing I've learnt today. :-) Kimchi.sg 13:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure its such a good idea, it could easilly lead to the poodle page getting heavilly vandalised and i'm not positive it would be a legit redirect anyway. Plugwash 13:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Mind you, that article already seems to be a vandalism target. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If anything, the page should be a proper article about this product. http://ww3.adultsextoyscatalog.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=5439 Or perhaps not… Femto 14:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No cross-namespace redirects, please. Also would give this poor guy way to much prominence. Wikipedia vandals are not noteworthy. This one is a very minor one easily checked by simple technical means such as the move throttle. If we could protect non-existing pages to avoid their creation altogether, the page wouldn't even exist. Lupo 14:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a template (I forgot what it was), that you put on a page that says you've created the page and protected it to stop it from being used to recreate deleted content. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 14:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I know. That's what was done with that page. But if you could protect non-existing pages from re-creation, we wouldn't need to do that and the page wouldn't be there at all. Lupo 15:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a very good idea. Why are we glorifying a vandal? Also, we shouldn't do cross-namespace redirects. Keeping it as a deleted and protected page is good enough. He is infamous enough within the Wiki community, no need more mention in the article mainspace. Keep mainspace articles away from project-spaced articles. If its make a redirect, protect the page to prevent any page moves or vandalism. --Terence Ong 05:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm having some trouble understanding the autoblocker. How exactly does one find the correct autoblock number to unblock? For example, let's say I block person A for a week. Person B gets assigned the IP, is autoblocked, and comes to me asking for an unblock. Do I just go the Special:Ipblocklist and type in his username? Will that pull up the autoblock? I've had this come up twice, and I can never find the number... I don't know if I'm just an eejit or if the block's simply expired. Any help is gratefully listened to. (Oh, and I've read Wikipedia:Autoblock several times and I'm still confused. Sorry!) Snoutwood (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There was a similar case about a week ago where I and several other admins tried to remove autoblocks on the IP of a user repeatedly without success until the original block expired. Not sure what that was about, but this tool may help to identify autoblocks in need of removal. --CBDunkerson 12:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

oooh, another tool! *bookmarks* --Syrthiss 12:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I'll use that from now on. Snoutwood (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The best rule is to ask the user for thier IP. For those who have never seen it, Mediawiki:Blockedtext is the message shown to blocked users; right at the very top is a line that says "Your IP address is ...". If they tell you the IP address, you can unblock it directly (just go to the unblock page and put in the IP) and it will unblock any autoblocks (yes, they are masked with a #12345-style code on the block list, but trust me, unblocking an IP unblocks any autoblocks on that IP). Trying to hunt down the right autoblock by the mask number is difficult and time consuming, not to mention frequently futile, and is best avoided; just ask the user for thier IP (they can email it to you if they're concerned about privacy) and then unblock it directly. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 13:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblock the IP? But won't that unblock the person you were trying to block in the first place? Is there a way to undo the autoblock without unblocking an IP that you wish to remain blocked? Snoutwood (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding of the nature of autoblocks; autoblocks are placed against IP addresses, not accounts. Though people tend to speak of thier accounts being innocently "autoblocked", that is not actually the case: Your account doesn't get autoblocked when you try to use a blocked IP; it just appears that way, because no edits are allowed from blocked IPs, including those from logged-in accounts. No block is ever placed against the innocent account itslef; it is the underlying IP that is blocked.

What the autoblocker does is block IPs (only IPs) previously used by blocked user accounts if they are used again after the account name is blocked. The timeline is like this: User:Foo, who is on IP 12.34.56.79, vandalizes and an admin blocks that account name. Then, someone else, User:Example (maybe a sockpuppet of User:Foo, maybe someone innocent, the autoblocker doesn't know) tries to use that IP to do something else. Since the software knows Foo was using 12.34.56.78, it assumes that the new person on that IP is Foo trying to evade his block, and places an autoblock on 12.34.56.78, stopping all edits, signed in accounts included. (This is when User:Example requests an unblock, thinking they have been blocked; not the case at all: Their IP is blocked, not thier account. If they switched to a different IP, they would be able to edit immediately.)

The autoblock of 12.34.56.78 is recorded on Special:Ipblocklist as #12345 (no relation between the IP numbers and the mask numbers; 12345 is just convenient), to prevent disclosure of the user's IP address. (If it didn't, you would see "...blocked 12.34.56.78...reason: Autoblocked because your IP was recently used by User:Foo"; this would reveal User:Foo's IP to the entire world, which is not something we routinely do. Why do we care, when it's a vandal? Well, because not everyone who is blocked is a vandal.)

So, the only way to clear an autoblock is to unblock the IP; when you unblock #12345, you're unblocking the IP represented by #12345 (in the example above, 12.34.56.78). The software doesn't care if you tell it to unblock #12345 or 12.34.56.78; the action performed will be to unblock 12.34.56.78 in either case. Note that nowhere in this process does the account User:Foo (the vandal) get unblocked; however, when 12.34.56.79 is unblocked, User:Example (who was never really blocked, just using a blocked IP) is immediately able to edit again.

Hopefully this helps with understanding it; if I've not managed to make the whole deal clear, let me know and I'll try again. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That was extremely helpful, I now understand completely. Thank you, Essjay. Snoutwood (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Titled "Help Getting My Company Into Wikipedia", this clearly shows an attempt at pushing a non-notable article into Wikipedia. Please keep an eye on the thread, and act accordingly. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I've always thought that if having a wikipedia article would make a notable difference to a company, then that company isn't notable enough to have an article on wikipedia. (My own version of WP:CORP in a nutshell :) MartinRe 23:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well put. Snoutwood (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This article was already deleted (Dollar Rent a Car Los Cabos). Ral315 (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Also note Ion Global Ltd, an article created by another one of the SEO members there. Ral315 (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please call this off now? Since an RFC has to have 2 people to agree that an admin was abusing rights to have an RFC in the first place (In this case BabaRera and Dzoni) and one of them (Dzoni) was just blocked for being the communism vandal, I think this RFC is moot, IMO. DGX 02:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

He's left an unblock request, which I was inclined to deny but there's too much superficial conflict of interest there, so please can another admin do it? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've denied it and removed the {{unblock}} template. Bishonen | talk 23:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC).

Hi, I was in the middle of disagreeing with a PROD, when the article got deleted from under me! It was List of casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, and I was planning to move it to AfD. Is it possible to belatedly do that? The article seemed substantial. (Don't know its history, just found it at the last minute while scanning PROD.) JackyR 02:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You can go to Deletion review. The prod seems to be done in line with the policy of waiting for 5 days. In this case the prod was from 5 May. Thanks. --Ragib 04:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added this for you, since no admin appears to have undeleted it yet. Not sure if this is because people haven't seen it or because the content is no good. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I undeleted it so you can either send it to AFD or improve it in line with the concerns raised. Tim! 06:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I'm sure it was just bad timing on my part. Many thanks, will send it to AfD. JackyR 11:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Could an admin take a look at User_talk:60.227.174.236 for me? This user apparently has been caught in the indef block on User:Jazzper. Is there anything that can be done to allow this IP to edit while keeping Jazzper blocked? If the user registered an account, I assume they would still be blocked? Thanks, Gwernol 03:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the autoblock. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 03:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page of IP editor with copious warnings. Block as appropriate, no current block in force, last block was 20 April 2006. Last edit was data entropy. -- ∞Dbroadwell 07:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This should go to WP:AIV--Doc ^ask? 08:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It is easy to revert page vandalism, but is there a way to remove vulgar edit summaries? This case diff is an example. On low traffic pages they remain visible for a long time. --Blainster 09:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Check the history now. Thanks. --Ragib 09:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... normally we don't remove edits unless they contain personal information (in the edit or its summary). Kimchi.sg 09:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Like this? Vildricianus 13:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hell, yes! The Alkivar phone number vandal strikes again! (This is the first time I've seen it.) :-( Kimchi.sg 15:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't delete the page to delete the revisions, I keep getting a "Wikimedia down" error. Can someone else try it? --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 17:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I tried with that particular page a day or two ago, and kept getting an error message — probably because there are so many versions of it. I think we need a developer for this. AnnH ♫ 17:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal telephone number of an Admin. Snoutwood (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I just clicked on the current AFD log instead of the May 4 one and closed a load of AFDs, thinking they had spoiled. What do I do? :( Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 13:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting you and restoring, don't worry about it. You might want to recheck to see if I restored anything that you rightly closed as speedy delete, although I am looking out for them. --JoanneB 14:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please hurry up and block Asoczewko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? He's been listed for over an hour now, very actively vandalising pages including my user page. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked already. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The page Canadair CL-215 was deleted so that Canadair CL215's page history could be merged into it. Now I've made the appropriate move, and the deleted revisions of Canadair CL-215 should be undeleted. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It might become good practice to skim an AfD's history page before closing it, as there has been a recent trend of anon (IP address) users attempting to add votes to these pages. They often (somewhat successfully) try to pass themselves off as logged-in users, using a name followed by a timestamp. Occasionally this might be an actual registered user forgetting to log-in, but in practice they should come back after they've logged in and confirm that it was actually them. Recent examples of this include Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wuice and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Tomic. Just thought I'd give everyone a heads up. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. A good idea would be for the nominator of each AfD to have it watchlisted; that way, s/he can spot discrepancies and any attempts to game the system easily and quickly. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There are people who don't watchlist the AfDs they create? It saves some embarassment if you can withdraw your nom after additional information is revealed during an AfD. In fact, also the other contributors should watchlist the AfD, after all, it is a discussion, not a vote. Kusma (討論) 21:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And no matter how AfDs you participate in, it's not like they all clog up your watchlist. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wuice looks pretty obvious. I may presume good faith that the vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Tomic is actually someone who forgot to login, cos' the account itself is pretty new. - Mailer Diablo 10:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Jumphoop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has released Alkivars telephone number in his contributions. I think someone needs to go through his contributions and delete any mentions of it. And because of the looks of his contribtions, his account might need to be indef blocked. (Never mind about blocking him, as I read Curps blocked him). But the edit should be deleted. DGX 21:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Done already. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This indefinitely-blocked user has added a load of article material to his own talkpage. It may be POV-pushing and inappropriate, I'd appreciate if someone would take a look. Stifle (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Ruud 01:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it possible to add Alkivar's phone number to the spam blacklist or something? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I can think of three reasons why this might not be possible, but am hesistant to spill the WP:BEANS. Regards, MartinRe 10:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind emailing me then? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I too have had to deal with this kind of vandalism in the last couple of days, on an article appearing on the front page. Deleted and restored twice before semi-protection. --kingboyk 10:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If if we add Alkivar's telephone number to the spam blacklist, wouldn't we be releasing it into the public domain on Meta-Wiki where people could easily access it from there? DGX 03:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Then just add the area code and the first two or three digits. Leave off the rest and no one will know what the number is. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 03:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The inherent problem with that is that, say, if his phone number was (123) 456-7890, then it could be done as "(123) 45", "123-45", "12345", "12,345", etc., and obviously a number like 12345 could be found somewhere (Rambot articles, for example). There are just too many ways to do it. Ral315 (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Half seriously, here, do we know that it is indeed Alikvar's phone number? And if so, has anyone gently suggested that it might be time to get it changed to an unlisted number; if it really is his number, he's got to be having enough prank calls to be driven insane. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

We've still got to stop the guy somehow if we can. What happens to the person who gets that number after Alkivar relinquishes it? And it could set future precedents if we let people post phone numbers, real or not, with impunity. Kimchi.sg 08:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinate is up for quite a while but wasn't closed Spearhead 11:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Suns ditto Spearhead 11:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You never performed step 3 of the AfD process (see WP:AFD) by adding it to the daily log, so no-one knew about the nomination except those who saw the notice on the article. I've listed it on today's log. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Something seems to be wrong with this guy's contributions; there are a lot of miscellaneous characters, seemingly inserted between every two good characters. I have seen a mention somewhere of this kind of thing happening when someone uses an open proxy, so I was hoping an admin could look into it. Thanks! Mangojuice^talk 15:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that and if you read between his weird characters the warning he put on the anon's page is a falsified warning from Tawkerbot2. I'm going to try to keep an eye on him. --Syrthiss 20:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I know adding random // slashes can be an indication of a bot, but I've never seen this before. Peculiar. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what you're talking about...care to explain? He has three edits- one is a revert, another is creating his own user page, and the last is a warning (though copy-and-pasted from Tawkerbot's warnings.) I see no peculiar characters. Ral315 (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the editor is using odd characters that you may or may not have in your browser settings or preferences or wherever such things are kept (I'm not an expert on the subject). For example, when I view that Tawkerbot edit in my version of IE, I see almost all odd/nonexistant characters (mostly squares). However, when I view it in my version of Firefox, I see the words perfectly fine. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any odd characters, in the SeaMonkey browser or when I send the edit diff URL to Web Sniffer to see the raw HTTP response. Maybe IE is somehow getting the character encoding wrong? *Dan T.* 04:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I see skull-and-crossbones characters between every letter of his contributions. I'm using Opera for Linux. --Carnildo 04:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Further investigation: It's Unicode code point U+0090, a non-printing control character. Most fonts these days don't have a glyph for it, but some non-Unicode fonts (such as Tengwar Quenya on my machine) do. --Carnildo 04:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Just looks like "......" to me

There is a note at Talk:Digital Rights Management explaining the problem. Briefly, someone decided to redirect a large and active page, and in so doing managed to lose the entire discussion page and history which were both extensive and covered important and continuing aspects othe article content. The original article (that was redirected), and whose discussion page and history should be transferred to the new name as well, is Digital rights management. Thanks, in advance, for assitance with the underlying machinery. ww 16:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The talk page was still there, it just wasn't moved along with the main article because the target talk page did not have an empty edit history. The problem is corrected now. --bainer (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user has been regularly adding spam to this stub page, consisting of an advertisement for (I presume) his or her website at [52]. It gets reverted regularly enough and I left a short message at the user's talk page. It's a fixed IP number assigned to BellSouth and Masatepe is the only article this person edits. I've now reverted the page twice today. This has been going on irregularly since February. Please block this user or find some way to explain why they shouldn't do this. --Diderot 16:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I need help from an admin (or someone with a decent browser ;-)).

User:Kingstonjr and User:Hashbrowns both have user pages contaning an excessive amount of images that are either under fair use or unsourced. Since my browser is extremely slow when loading Images (my computer ends up freezing), could someone look through all the images placed on their user pages and remove fair use/no source images?

On Kingstonjr's page, I removed many fair use/no sourced images already, but he keeps readding him. (I sent him a warning about it). Could somebody do this for me? DGX 20:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added a warning and pointed to Wikipedia:User page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone smarter than I needs to look through the uploads for those two. Despite the fair use images, I see some uploaded that claim that since they're from Usenet, they're in the public domain. I highly doubt that this is a valid claim. Ral315 (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Could somebody with the required technical expertise take a look at this posting on AN/I? A block on a range of IPs has been requested to stop repeated disruptive vandalism from sockpuppets of the permanently banned user User:Irate. Aquilina 21:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That is too wide a range of IPs to block. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. In fact I have blocked it already. (The block should expire in 11 minutes though) Prodego ^talk 00:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest asking for a checkuser first; a quick check of just the /24 revealed at least one legitimate contributor that could have quite easly been blocked as well. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a great idea, I should have thought of that. Anyway here are the known ranges if you want to look:

87.75.130.0/23
84.9.210.0/23
84.9.192.0/22

Prodego ^talk 01:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I have vauge recollections of "watch out for backslashes, for they art the tool of the devil." So, err, is this what that was about? - brenneman^{L} 01:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the hallmark of a bad OP. Backslashes before quote marks. (Although that edit is innocuous.) Kimchi.sg 02:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone scan it? I lost the link to Tawker's OP scanner when my computer went boom. --Rory096 09:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

These backslashing proxies are always CGI proxies, written in PHP, with magic_quotes enabled, and unable to deal correctly with magic_quotes. You do not need a scanner (and in fact a scanner would return a false negative, since these kinds of proxies are just normal web servers); just use a normal web browser. In this particular case, it opens a cPanel page, which means it's a shared web host; that is enough for a indefinite block as an open proxy (someone else already blocked). --cesarb 20:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This arbitration case is closed.

Monicasdude is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses. Monicasdude is banned from making edits related to the deletion process (excepting obvious vandalism and copyright problems) for one year. This is to be interpreted broadly, and includes, but is not limited to, commenting on articles for deletion nominations and removals of nominations for proposed deletion and speedy deletion. He may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to a year.

Should Monicasdude violate any ban imposed by this decision he may be briefly blocked, up to a week for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to a year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Monicasdude#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas&diff=52820462&oldid=52794524

Shared IP, and simple reports of vandalism should go on WP:AIV - when the user has been given a {{test3}}, {{test4}} or {{bv}} warning and has continued to vandalise despite that. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you are the guys to talk to about editing in the wiki.

I got a bit confused and wanted to thank Mr Wales for his site as it helped me in researching for a recent paper i did, but I think i put my comments under the wrong tab or wrong place, i dunno.

I was wondering if there was somewhere i could learn about to edit the wiki properly. i clearly am inadept at it, but i don't think that made name calling a necessity. i mean i don't own any spray paint anyway.

your help would be most appreciated.

ps is there an easy way to sign your name without having to copy the time every time?

tom

User:172.201.101.170 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Introduction, it will teach you. :-) And signatures are done by typing: ~~~~ Kimchi.sg 17:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

So, I've just had a flare-up on Anti-Americanism. After a week of often snarky talk posts with a red-linked editor and another editor who won't use talk at all (user or main space) I have them both on at the same time and, given that neither is particularly active, I got wondering if they're the same person. Anyhow, I was hoping some one could check User:Rkrichbaum and User:Christinam to see if they're editing from the same spot. I could totally be wrong and just have a situation where two newbies disagree with me at once, but I want to do due diligence. I have three reverts there now and I'm a little frustrated: it's a months-old intro and it got gutted without consensus. I asked an admin individually to look at it and thought I'd ask here too. Marskell

I'm not certain that a request for check user would be justified here, but you ought to ask, in any case, at WP:RFCU. Joe 01:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Πrate (talk · contribs) claims to be a Chinese Wikipedian, but the name makes me wonder whether he/she is a sockpuppet of banned user Irate (talk · contribs). Thoughts? --Nlu (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly Π (capital letter π "pi") makes this user's name "pirate" perhaps? — May. 13, '06 [01:52] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

As far as one can tell the edit patters are quite different. (And I like the pi-rate pun.) Dr Zak 02:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Could an admin please take a look at this article? It has had two previous AfD's that resulted in its deletion (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Myg0t and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myg0t (2nd nomination)) and is now undergoing its third. The page needs to speedy deleted as a repost and please protect it this time, as its creators have made it clear they have no respect for policy. Thanks. --Hetar 04:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I've done so. Two AFDs is quite enough for a marginal online crufty article. --maru (talk) contribs 05:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

WRT to the conversation above, can people please comment on this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lupo--Kuban Cossack 13:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi there everybody. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets is a page which was created few weeks ago when WP:SOCK was rewritten. The point of the page is to collect evidence that a user is a sock and then take action. And for action to be taken we need admins. For now, only admin taking part in this project is me. So I'd like to see some more admins participating and giving me a hand there :-) If anybody's interested, it'd be nice to put the page on your watchlist and to comment new cases as they appear. Concerning currently open cases, if you wish, you can take a look at this one as I'm having problems deciding what to do about it... Participation of non-admin users would be just fine too. Since non-admins cannot block, I invite them to comment, propose action or just give their view. --Dijxtra 16:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This case is closed.

Terryeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from articles related to Scientology and Dianetics, placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation and Personal Attack Parole. The usual enforcement provisions apply. See the link above for details.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 17:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The only edit of new user User:JackieChansBiggestFan seems to have this classic signature. [53] This seems to be exactly what User:Cesarb describes above. If this can be confirmed, someone should probably indefinitely block. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I blocked indefinetly and will post something at checkuser to tell them to look up and block the IP. Sasquatch t|c 19:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Mackensen (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous IP address (82.7.136.2 is blanking the Filmography on the Bolo Yeung article. Right after I revert it, he vandalises it again. Assistance would be helpful. Cracker017 00:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for a short while. Stifle (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey -- I haven't been meaning to patrol this, but in the last few days I've come across at least 3 editors who have been username blocked and were confused as hell and wanted to be unblocked, some specifically offering to get a new username. Anyway, it's not that big a deal, but I just wanted to remind the admins who do username blocks to please put {{UsernameBlocked}} on the user's talk page, so they have some clue what has happened. It explains what the block is for, and what they can do to solve the issue. Thanks! Mangojuice^talk 04:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In case you are not aware, I'll inform you that using {{UsernameBlock}} or similar as the block summary (example: [54]) affects what the user sees when he or she attempts to edit. The "edit this page" screen is replaced by the MediaWiki:Blockedtext page. The "$2" parameter on the latter is replaced by whatever the block reason is. If it's a template, the contents of the template are displayed inside the pink box. Thus, if I blocked you for an inappropriate username, it would look something like this:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Freakofnurture for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Your username has been blocked indefinitely because it is either inappropriate or too similar to an existing username (see our blocking policy for more information). You are encouraged to create a new account and contribute to Wikipedia under a more appropriate username, and in a constructive manner. See Wikipedia:Username for guidance on selecting an appropriate username. You may also edit Wikipedia without creating an account. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia under an inappropriate username. If you would like to discuss the block, you may edit your talk page or email the administrator who blocked you. Due to Wikipedia's mechanism for enforcing name changes, your IP address may be temporarily blocked. Unless you have also been engaging in vandalism or impersonation of another user, we will remove that block as soon as possible—if this doesn't happen within an hour or so, please email an administrator and explain the situation (see the list of administrators). If you want to keep the contributions from your old account for your new one, leave a note on Wikipedia:Changing username. This can only be done before you create the new one. If you wish to create a new username, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username for information. Your IP address is 127.0.0.1.

If the user doesn't understand what's going on after reading this message, an identical note on his talk page won't do a damn bit of good either, especially since the message above will appear every time they try to edit, but the "new messages" banner will only appear once. — May. 15, '06 [05:22] <freakofnur_xture|talk>