User:Wiarthurhu has contacted me by email to ask whether his community ban could be lifted. He was banned after exhausting the community's patience after several months of incivility, personal attacks and disruptive behavior. The discussion of his ban can be found here. Wiarthurhu's email proposes a set of conditions he feels are reasonable to accompany the lifting of the ban and which he agrees to abide by. I have listed these below verbatim - although this technically allows a potential breach of the fifth condition he lays down, any discussion of undoing a community ban has to take place in the open and I see no other way to fairly discuss this proposal.

I am an involved party having blocked Wiarthurhu before for WP:POINT violations. My personal opinion is these conditions are not acceptable given the user's past behavior, but might with modification by us be the basis for lifting the ban. Obviously this is the broader community's decision.

Thanks, Gwernol 21:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal:

• I do have a problem with all of the authors listed on my rfC

• I have very few problems with anybody else anywhere else on WP as long as I don't reference anything these above editors have done.

• I agree to a three month self-imposed block on any article ever touched by any of the editors listed on the rfC, including talk pages

• user wiarthurhu and all associated pages and records are deleted

• I get another username which will not be disclosed to the above editors, some who have shown a pattern of searching everywhere I've ever been and attacking both my material and myself. The terms of this user agreement will not be disclosed to the above parties, who will assume that I do not exist, and I will provide no reason for them to believe that I still exist as a WP user. If detected, you can terminate this agreement.

• I will cease to worry about the sort of things you folks have been tasked with fixing such as bullying behavior, or inaccurate content. Therefore, if challenged, I will defer. If ticked off, I will remain silent. It is no longer my job, it's the job of admins to enforce civility and factual correctness until WP rules are changed otherwise.

Can we give this a 1 week trial?

According to WP rules, a ban can be lifted if the user agrees to change behavior. I believe the above rules of engagement will eliminate all cases of conflict.

Ex-wiarthurhu.

I am willing to assume good faith and believe that he wants to change. I would support a second chance for him, but he must realize he is on a very short leash. If this is refused by the community, however, he could take it to the arbitration committee. Cowman109^Talk 22:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As the dispute in question was beyond simply a user dispute but involved repeated violations of content guidelines and policies including WP:POINT, WP:RS, and WP:V, I am uncomfortable giving the user a fresh start unless these issues are addressed. The user still seems to believe the dispute is limited to "problems" between editors, and not incompatibilities with his edits and Wikipedia guidelines and policies. If the proposal is accepted as offered, the user will simply run amok of other editors and the processes we have observed over the last few weeks will be repeated. --Mmx1 22:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't say I care much for "user wiarthurhu and all associated pages and records are deleted", beyond the normal right to vanish I can't see why we'd grant this user any special favours. --pgk^(talk) 22:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm deferring my comments until I see what others like Tony Sidaway or Cyde have to say on the subject. Beyond that, Wiarthurhu has been warned plenty of times that his behavior would either end up in an ArbCom case or a permaban, so he really can't say that he hasn't been warned. I personally warned him of this fact several times, and that didn't stop him from personal attacks or incivility. Perhaps I'll have more to say later, but for now, I'm at a loss for words. CQJ 05:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought ... How about if all that is initially promiced is that he is allowed to edit under the conditions he has set out except that he edits as an anon - which differs from his current position in that it won't be violating his ban. A month from now he can provide a list of his edits and it can be decided whether or not to grant him a user name or not. Just a thought. WAS 4.250 10:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have no problem with him being unbanned; some form of mentorship should be agreed on, a la JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs) - remember Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis 2? --TheM62Manchester 10:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I've had about twelve hours to sleep, eat, and think about this. I think it's obvious to me that Wiarthurhu has a problem with all of the authors listed on his RfC, particularly because some of them (not all of them) tried to get him to edit within the rules several times. I think part of the problem that Wiarthurhu cites was created by Wiarthurhu himself, especially by the creation of the now deleted Wikipedia strategy article and repeated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations time and time again. I saw the problem in WikiProject Automobiles brewing long before he was banned, about the time our mediation at F-14 Tomcat ended, and I didn't interject or start looking for things until the second and third MedCab cases were filed.

Wiarthurhu's references to these editors who he has a problem with are part of the problem itself. He has referred to the editors joining the RfC in a very negative tone, to the point of crossing the WP:CIVIL line, even to the point where some of his comments are within the scope of WP:NPA. He repeatedly has made comments along these lines in reference to Mmx1, ApolloBoy, and Karrmann at least, even going as far to call them Wiki-bullies and their supposed interference with him "evidence of Gang activity on Wikipedia".

If Wiarthurhu is to come back to Wikipedia, I strongly oppose deletion of his userspace and his associated records on the grounds that he's shown the same type of behavior in two separate disputes in two unrelated content areas against two groups of editors. What happens when the third or fourth group runs afoul of his intent? Further, Wiarthurhu has agreed to follow rules or suggested actions before which he's broken, and allowing him to create another name and dissappear from the radar would not be a prudent course of action, in my honest opinion. I don't think that he would follow a three month block of any article that these editors have touched, including talk pages, because if he was capable of self-restraint, I don't think he would have been permablocked in the first place. I don't mean that as a personal attack, either. Wiarthurhu has brokered "cease-fires" and peace agreements before, but when the other person doesn't play the game as he wants it played, then all hell breaks loose and more conflict comes to light.

Wiarthurhu has not been attacked here. To the contrary, it is usually him doing the attacking on other editors, especially ApolloBoy and Mmx1. Karrmann has also been a recent target of Wiarthurhu's scathing wit in addition, albeit Karrmann has also done a bit of pot-stirring in this case as well (for which he's been warned to cease). And, if Wiarthurhu's material and edits are called into question, it is because of the quality of his edits, not the fact that he makes them in the first place. So again, I strongly disagree with the community allowing him to get another username under the pretenses of non-disclosure.

Now, with that said, I would be in favor of Wiarthurhu coming back and being allowed to edit again, but not under the conditions which he proposes, and on a very, and I mean very short leash. I will pause here to save my contribution, and then I will continue in a moment. CQJ 19:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I propose.

1. Accepting that Wiarthurhu has a problem with the authors listed on his RfC, and the authors accepting that they've had problems with him in the past, Wiarthurhu and the editors listed on his RfC agree that they'll mutually avoid each other except through an interlocutor, a mediator, or a neutral third party for a period of no less than three months. Violation of this condition will result in a 72 hour block for any violating party, Wiarthurhu or otherwise.
2. Wiarthurhu agrees to immediately cease and decist in any action deemed to be in violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA against ApolloBoy, Mmx1, SteveBaker, Karrmann, or any other editor that has joined in dispute resolution mechanisms against him in the past. Violation of this condition will result in a one week block for Wiarthurhu - and any editor baiting Wiarthurhu will be subject to the same.
3. Wiarthurhu will avoid any article within the scope of WikiProject Aircraft or WikiProject Automobiles for three months, as he has suggested himself, or be subject to a one week block.
4. Further, a mentor (or several mentors) from the community will be assigned to Wiarthurhu to help him out wherever necessary or possible.

If Wiarthurhu is honestly sincere about becoming a better editor, and can change his Wiki-ways to conform with our standards, practices, the Trifecta, and Foundation goals, then I have no issue with allowing him to return under these pretenses. If he is not, then he shouldn't be allowed back, as the way it stands right now, there is more than enough evidence that I've seen to support a community permablock without question. CQJ 19:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As someone who signed the RFC, and peripherally involved but not closely enough to be emotional about it, I think his proposal is missing the point. Regardless of whether some of the RFCers were more active and emotional, Wiarthurhu's fundamental problem is not that he's being wikistalked. The username change won't help with that, and will help obscure the user history. If he's really willing to reform, he can do it under that username just fine as far as I care. If other editors or admins do start really wikistalking him then that would be a separate issue to be dealt with later, but I hope and suspect that if he does in fact reform he will have very few problems. Georgewilliamherbert 00:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiarthurhu has e-mailed me, stating that he agrees to CQJ's terms, but the issue of him retaining his username or not still lies in question. Should he just use his current account, or should he be allowed to use a new one if his account is unblocked? Cowman109^Talk 02:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I am unblocking Wiarthurhu shortly given confirmation that he accepts the terms CQJ stated above, and CQJ also said he will help keep an eye on Wiarthurhu to get him back on his feet (I guess being a mentor would be the word). I have also suggested that he follows the one revert rule and that if he feels he is being harassed, to come to me or another administrator about it instead of responding in the interest of not sparking more fights. His account will remain under the same name. Cowman109^Talk 21:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked him per CQJ's terms:

1. Accepting that Wiarthurhu has a problem with the authors listed on his RfC, and the authors accepting that they've had problems with him in the past, Wiarthurhu and the editors listed on his RfC agree that they'll mutually avoid each other except through an interlocutor, a mediator, or a neutral third party for a period of no less than three months. Violation of this condition will result in a 72 hour block for any violating party, Wiarthurhu or otherwise.
2. Wiarthurhu agrees to immediately cease and decist in any action deemed to be in violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA against ApolloBoy, Mmx1, SteveBaker, Karrmann, or any other editor that has joined in dispute resolution mechanisms against him in the past. Violation of this condition will result in a one week block for Wiarthurhu - and any editor baiting Wiarthurhu will be subject to the same.
3. Wiarthurhu will avoid any article within the scope of WikiProject Aircraft or WikiProject Automobiles for three months, as he has suggested himself, or be subject to a one week block.
4. Further, a mentor (or several mentors) from the community will be assigned to Wiarthurhu to help him out wherever necessary or possible.

I have asked Wiarthurhu to come to CQJ or me if he has any difficulties. It would be best to keep an eye on him. Cowman109^Talk 04:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm extremely upset that (as one of the aggrieved parties) the first I get to hear about this is when I see the 'unbanned' notice pops up on Wiarthurhu's talk page in 'my watchlist'. I should have been given notice - and given the opportunity to at least say something about the terms and conditions before the unbanning - why did nobody tell me about this via my Talk page or something? I believe unbanning this user after so little time is a serious mistake. Whilst he may be out of my hair for a while longer, I don't see anything in the restrictions imposed upon him that prevents him from terrorizing another neighbourhood as he has in the past with Aircraft and Automobiles. Giving him a fresh identity would just make that even harder to recognise if/when it does happen again. Notably, you are requiring me (an innocent party in this) to involve interlocutors or face a ban myself! I edit widely in Wikipedia - the odds of running into this guy again are rather high and I'm not going to risk a week long ban because of him. I have never been consulted about these terms - nor do I particularly think them appropriate. To expect me to abide by them without my prior agreement is asking a lot. IMHO, Wiarthurhu should remain banned forever - the destruction he has already caused to the encyclopedia in terms of wasted productivity and in people forced to take Wikibreaks in order to avoid the stree by far exceeds all of the contributions he is ever likely to make. We gave the guy a one week ban and he was back causing trouble within a day of it being lifted. Now we're telling him that even an 'indefinite' ban is over in a few weeks. We should have stuck with the ban for at least a year. I'm most unhappy at this decision - and especially how it was (not) publicised to the aggrieved parties. SteveBaker 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve's got a point. We really didn't consult him or any of the other editors that were involved in the situation beyond our involvement at AN/I and our fact finding, especially on the caveat that any editor that doesn't use an interlocutor can get nailed equally. With that said (warning to other editors: CQJ's infamous use of numbering points follows):

1. I have already voiced the opinion that this situation could develop negatively for the encyclopedia. If it does, then we'll take appropriate action when and if the time is necessary.
2. I agree that everyone involved should have had the chance to comment on the conditions of Wiarthurhu's return, especially when punitive action can be taken against a group of editors. However, given the discussion that I've had with Cowman in regards to the situation, and the fact that I'm now partially accountable for Wiarthurhu's actions since I've volunteered to be his "mentor", I will do my best to make sure that this agreement doesn't come back to hurt anyone within the scope of WP:IAR or the Trifecta, and that includes Steve and all of the other editors who listed in the RfC as well as Wiarthurhu himself. But I will not tolerate anyone, neither Wiarthurhu, nor any other editor involved in this dispute (and I won't mention names) spreading incivility and personal attacks on Wikipedia, and those editors know who they are.

As such, I propose modification of the "terms" to the following, and I encourage enforcement of these modified terms unless there is a grave reason to stick with the terms already agreed to. Saving contribs, copying the terms, be back in a moment. CQJ 18:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Wiarthurhu agrees to immediately cease and decist in any action deemed to be in violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA against ApolloBoy, Mmx1, SteveBaker, Karrmann, or any other editor that has joined in dispute resolution mechanisms against him in the past. Violation of this condition will result in a one week block for Wiarthurhu - and any editor baiting Wiarthurhu will be subject to the same.
2. Wiarthurhu will avoid any article within the scope of WikiProject Aircraft or WikiProject Automobiles for three months, as he has suggested himself, or be subject to a one week block.
3. Further, a mentor (or several mentors) from the community will be assigned to Wiarthurhu to help him out wherever necessary or possible.

Is this acceptable? CQJ 18:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know if I am in full support of this. He would often treat me like I don't belong on Wikipedia just because I am 14, and claimed that he is a better editer than me simply because hes older, without even looking over my edit history. He would take pictures of toys, and plaster them all over Wikipedia in places they don't belong, then called me a "Prolific teen vandal" when I took them down (Though I left them where they belonged, like in the Johnny Lightning or slot car articles) I am sorry, but I do not want him to come back.he was a major headache to all of the Wikiproject automobiles, and I felt a LARGE weight was taken off my shoulders when he was banned. I also don't like the idea of giving me a week long ban for getting into a conflict with the guy. I get severly pissed when people claim that I am not as good of an editer as them just because I am 14. If you look at my edit history, you can tell that I am up with par with the older editors. The guys would do crap and age discriminate me, and call me a prolific vandal when I would take down any of his toy car pictures, or remove his POV from articles. I also had a large headace with him combating my liking for the Ford Taurus. In a deleted article, I wrote an entry for the Taurus, which I admit, sounded a little pro Taurus, and he acted like it was pure POV, and rewrote it with stuff like "Many people would be su[rised to hear that this low key fleet special sold 7 million units, but it did" and stuff like that. He claimed he toned it down, but instead, he just turned it around ot make it all anti-Taurus, thus not solving anything. He also based his behavior off of a "nice list" If you were on his nice list, he would treat you like a person, if not, he treated you like crap. And just look at whot he would do with RfCs and AfDs, he would totally interupt, making it sound like none of our opinions mattered. I am sorry, but I am NOT in favor of bringing him back. If it were up to me, I wouldn't just block him, I would set his computer on fire too. Karrmann 19:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like I forgot to change some things in there - basically what I mean to say is that Wiarthurhu is the one who will be watched, and he is agreeing to avoid you guys for the time being while remaining under the same account should he be watched. Others indeed should not be subject to blocking for this, but nonetheless provoking him is innappropriate and people will be warned if they do so. So, here's a revision of the terms.

1. Accepting that Wiarthurhu has a problem with the authors listed on his RfC, and the authors accepting that they've had problems with him in the past, Wiarthurhu agrees that he will avoid the other editors he has had trouble with in the past and will speak with them through a mediator.
2. Wiarthurhu agrees to immediately cease and decist in any action deemed to be in violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA against ApolloBoy, Mmx1, SteveBaker, Karrmann, or any other editor that has joined in dispute resolution mechanisms against him in the past. Violation of this condition will result in another block for Wiarthurhu.
3. Wiarthurhu will avoid any article within the scope of WikiProject Aircraft or WikiProject Automobiles for three months, as he has suggested himself, or be subject to a one week block.
4. Further, a mentor (or several mentors) from the community will be assigned to Wiarthurhu to help him out wherever necessary or possible.
5. Also, other editors are warned to not provoke Wiarthurhu, and warnings will be handed out if that occurs.

There, I admit that I somehow completly overlooked the application of the earlier agreement towards the other parties involved - I guess I was too busy focused on the Wiarthurhu part to realize that. Does this sound more appropriate? Cowman109^Talk 19:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me be frank here. I understand your concerns, and Steve's concerns, and everyone else's concerns as to allowing Wiarthurhu to come back. The behavior you cite above was taken into consideration when Wiarthurhu was blocked in the first place. He was warned for WP:CIVIL violations when calling you a "Prolific teen vandal". We understand why you were making the edits that you were making, and believe me, I'm very familiar with the timelines and who started what, who said what, and when they said it.

Cowman's modified things above (while I was writing this...grrrrr). Wiarthurhu's essentially agreed to leave you guys alone as much as possible, and if he can't, then he's supposed to get a hold of Cowman or I and we're supposed to come help out. At the first hint of impropriety, then we'll cross the bridge of further action. Until then, well, I'd suggest that you not state that you're going to set another contributor's computer on fire, regardless of how you feel. Relax. The situation is well at hand, and neither Cowman or myself or any other administrator or editor that cares about this encyclopedia as deeply as we do will allow things to continue in the manner in which they have in the past. CQJ 19:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Since Wiarthurhu is to be allowed to return (against my better judgement...but whatever) - I have no problem with the present (or previous) requirements on both him and his former victims. My main problem was that I had not been consulted - and now I have, that's OK. For Wiarthurhu to have any chance at a fresh start, far from the people whom he's upset so badly, it is obvously necessary that none of us inflame the situation by chasing after him - so "don't feed the trolls", and "if you do you are in trouble too" are not a bad set of principles (so long as you tell the hypothetical troll feeders first!). Since Cowman and CQJ are both going to be on watch for bad behavior, the rest of us should be able to relax and pretend that life is still good (and if it's not good - it'll get good again within the time it takes someone to type the word "blocked" in the right place). You guys are definitely going the extra mile for Wiarthurhu - I sure hope he appreciates what you are doing for him and adds more value to the encyclopedia than he subtracts from it! Let's all hope this works out. Thanks guys! SteveBaker 20:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiarthurhu contacted me on YouTube, with 3 messages, two that asked is I am "That evil genious kid from Wikipedia", and the other was asking where I got a Taurus commercial from. I think this may be in violation of his agreement, espcailly because he called me an evil geneious. Karrmann 17:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Recently it was brought to the attention of the Arbitration Committee that administrator Everyking (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has posted to an external site in the process of trying to determine the contents of inappropriate material, sensitive personal information, deleted from an article. Everyking looked up the deleted material using his administrator privileges, and offered to post the deleted content publicly. He stated:

I looked for you, but when you look at deleted revisions it doesn't show you the changes (or if so I don't know how to access them). I guess I could just post the full text and you could work out the differences yourself. [1]

It is already known that the user who posts at that forum under the name "everyking" is in fact Everyking because he has confirmed it in email to the Arbitration Committee previously. We view this as a serious misjudgment and a betrayal of the trust the community has given him in adminship. As such, Everyking has been immediately desysopped. Dmcdevit·t 23:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Fred Bauder 00:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is shocking and I call for it to be overturned. I didn't actually post anything (being worried that SlimVirgin might get pissed) and even if I did I don't see how it could be a betrayal of anything. Everyking 23:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Your cooperation with Wikipediareview is questionable enough. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You may not like it that I post there, but since my speech is severely restricted on WP itself I choose to post my views there instead. It violates no policy to do so, and I don't believe it would have been in violation of any policy even if I had posted the text there. In any case I had not posted and about two or three days had passed in which I did not deliberately didn't follow up on it because I thought better of it. Everyking 23:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just thinking that, Zoe. Plus, there he had once advocated unblocking Amorrow. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember ever arguing for him to be unblocked on WP, and I certainly wouldn't want that now. Everyking 23:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I should think that advocating the unblocking of a user is not grounds for any sort of sanction, else we would have had to toss Danny out for advancing the notion that User:Mike Garcia could be reformed. Phil Sandifer 23:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Garcia was bad. Morrow is scary bad. --Golbez 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is moot because I do not think he should be allowed to edit. I'm well aware of his harassment of our female editors. I did argue he should be allowed to post his crap on WR, because I support the notion of it as a free speech forum, but that is not pertinent. Everyking 23:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In this case he was cooperating with banned troll Wordbomb to uncover sensitive deleted information. Thatcher131 (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Tell me how. Everyking 23:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The legal implications of allowing someone who is willing to post personal information removed from an article by an administrator access to sensitive deleted content should be clear. You made it clear that your continued adminship was a liability to the project. Dmcdevit·t 23:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What the? Personal information? I didn't even know what the content was. I still don't know. I sure as hell would never post anybody's personal information. Everyking 00:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it clear that EK recognized what the nature of the deleted content was? Or are we now adopting a policy against posting delete pages, period? Phil Sandifer 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a reason personal information is removed and viewing of it is blocked. Legal reasons. Everyking clearly attempted to get around those reasons. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I explicitly did not know and made that clear in my comment (I stated that I couldn't determine the differences in the revisions). Now I gather that it was personal information, and I take offense at the notion that I would be willing to post that. Nothing in the thread was there to tell me it was personal information. Everyking 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree with Everyking. This seems to me to be a startling failure of WP:AGF. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I will say, given the clearly stated suspicion on the page that the subject was a Wikipedia editor, some more care might have been in order. But honestly, I'm skeptical that this is in and of itself grounds for an emergency desysopping. It seems more like a case of the arbcom seeing an opportunity to justify a penalty they've wanted to put out for quite a while. (After all, Everyking's willingness to support real life harassment of users should hardly be news to anyone who has followed my own case.) Phil Sandifer 00:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That Everyking was willing to "post the full text" of a deleted page without knowing why it was deleted or what it contained is somewhat worrisome. Prodego ^talk 00:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

But did not actually post anything. This is a critical point. What I read there gave me the impression the admin action was done wrongfully, and I was at first willing to help out, assuming that to do so would be OK with policy, but then decided not to because I was worried there could nevertheless be ramifications (as there were anyway, obviously). Everyking 00:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you said anywhere you wouldn't post the content of deleted pages ever? Or apologized for saying you were willing to do so? That would certainly be a start, but without any assurance from you that you won't ever do this, your desysopping should stand as you are a liability. pschemp | talk 00:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't know there was anything wrong with doing so. But given the trouble it has apparently caused, I will make that assurance now. Everyking 00:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please directly address pschemp's questions? She did not ask if you knew there was anything wrong, and your assurance is in response to a sentence. I'm not picking hairs here, please answer the questions. Teke ^(talk) 00:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is outrageous. Retrieving/posting deleted material is a basic right under the GFDL (but one that should not be exercised if the material was deleted for legal reasons or contains sensitive detail, of course.) When are people going to understand that Wikipedia does not own content? It's not OK to copy something I (for example) write into other Wikipedia articles just because I posted it here, without giving me attribution. It's not OK to accept my (for example) contributions under the GFDL then delete them and deny the Commons access to them. What if another site wants to publish it? What right have we got to deny the use of GFDL material to anybody? Absolutely none. I am genuinely shocked and outraged at the suggestion that Wikipedia has any right whatsover to material posted here above and beyond the rights assigned to it under the GFDL. --kingboyk 13:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed - Wikipedia would be hard pressed to persue legal action against someone who posted deleted page content. Hence the lack of takedown effort on Wikitruth. However, the GFDL does not constitute an obligation to make content available, and the GFDL offers no protection outside of legal protection - whether someone is an admin on a website is wholly outside its purview. Phil Sandifer 13:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The answer to both of the questions is no. However, I assure everyone that I will never again offer to post the content of a deleted page anywhere (much less actually do so), no matter what the content. Everyking 00:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess the basic lesson to come away with from this is don't get too cozy with banned trolls anywhere. --Cyde Weys 00:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This was a gross and obvious violation of Administrator trust. Let us all remember that we have the power to do great harm, and we must resist the temptation to do so at all times. Private information is not ours to disclose; we only have administrator powers for one purpose: to improve Wikipedia. We cannot usually do that by publicly compromising private information. --Tony Sidaway 00:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Many administrators including, if I'm not mistaken, you at some point, Tony, have offered to post the content of deleted pages to those interested under certain conditions. Everyking made an offer to post the content of a certain deleted page and then thought better of it. Haukur 09:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not disclose anything. How is it a violation of trust? Everyking 00:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You offered to do so. That you didn't follow through is beside the point: you made the offer. --Calton | Talk 01:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What does the offer matter compared to the act? Isn't the question whether the material is made available? And it was not made available, because I decided not to make it available. And furthermore, the offer is merely a helpful gesture. I thought going through with it might anger SlimVirgin but never imagined that it could get me desysopped, because I never imagined it was a violation of anything. As it turns out, I didn't do it and still got desysopped. Everyking 01:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The disturbing thing is this, as said by you "I didn't know there was anything wrong with doing so." If you weren't capable of understanding that revealing deleted personal information was wrong at the time you made the offer, then you shouldn't be trusted with such information. It shouldn't take a desysopping to make you understand what was morally wrong with that offer. pschemp | talk 01:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You're missing a key detail: I didn't know it was personal information. I would never have made the offer if I had known that. I take a very strong stand against compromising personal information. Everyking 01:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, you're also a liar. We know from long experience what your attitude is to "compromising personal information". Rebecca 01:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

With such long experience, you should be able to recall a few examples to support this claim against my integrity. Everyking 01:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I could post that charming email you sent me after the WR folks started stalking me, or the congratulatory post you made to WR about Kelly Martin after the same, or...shall I go on? Rebecca 02:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see that e-mail, actually... Phil Sandifer 13:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You offered to post deleted content without even knowing what it was? That's even worse.pschemp | talk 01:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you read what I wrote originally on the board this would be obvious. I clearly stated that I did not know what the content of the deleted edit was, and I was offering to post the full text so others could figure out what it was. And when we are talking about what is better and what is worse, we should be mindful that I decided not to do anything at all. Everyking 01:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I did read it. Nowhere there did you say you weren't going to do it. pschemp | talk 01:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You're missing a key detail No, you're obscuring the key detail, given that the subject is your powers of judgment -- or lack thereof: you offered, without investigation, understanding, or thought of the consequences and/or liability -- to reveal something which had been deleted. Your lack of judgment being in question on the issue of whether you should be allowed to have powers that can be abused, it's perfectly relevant to discuss the things you say you're going to do, not just those which you succeed in carrying out. --Calton | Talk 01:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice rhetorical twist there: "succeed in carrying out". What do you suppose kept me from succeeding in this diabolical mission, so that several days passed in which I posted no deleted content, until this desysopping hit me like a bolt from the blue? Everyking 01:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Rhetorical twist? No, a reality check. And given your history of nitpicking wikilawyering, to accuse someone else of twisting words is a bit rich. Project much? --Calton | Talk 02:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Come on, man, tell me why I didn't "succeed in carrying it out". Everyking 02:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest everyone abstain from replying for now, since this discussion is rapidly deteriorating. Prodego ^talk 02:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Prodego. Nothing is to be settled here, at least until the emails and other communications stop flying. This was a notice; while commentation is encouraged I think Everyking and all the other users need to walk away for a day. Teke ^(talk) 02:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that, I just abstained from replying to the thread any further. Everyking 01:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the situation at hand, I do want to remind everyone that deleted content - especially deleted revisions of an article - are deleted for a reason, and that special concern needs to be taken when viewing and discussing the material. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Special concern, yes, but withholding GFDL text from the commons if it doesn't contain sensitive info, absolutely not. If Everyking didn't post such info I don't see what the problem is. Furthermore, am I to remove {{user recovery}} from my user page?! --kingboyk 13:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Special concern, definitely. But I do want to point out - again, disregarding the situation at hand - that Wikipedia policy is sometimes more restrictive than outside law. In other words, even though something may be legal, it may be prohibited under Wikipedia policy. However, I do reiterate that I'm not commenting on the situation at hand. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Last I checked, Wikipedia doesn't own the internet. In the past, deleted content was retrieved and posted elsewhere. The highly controversial Brian Peppers fiasco came to a close when Jimbo deleted the article and the article was transwiki'd in full on the YTMND Wiki, and remains there to this day. There should be no reason why in this case posting deleted content outside Wikipedia is against Wikipedia policy. The content is outside Wikipedia, not in it. Stuff that is unsuitable for Wikipedia isn't to be censored and banned from view by the entire world. What Everyking did may have been wrong morally, but to impose a sanction on him before he actually did it without warning is just as bad. I say resysop him and let the community vote to see if there's a consensus to take him down. I don't think showing deleted content is a breach of trust on us. Rather, I think quite the opposite. Refusing to allow people to view things, especially if they wrote them, is a breach of trust. I don't know exactly the situation completely, but I do think that there should have been less unilateral action. Sir Crazyswordsman 02:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's funny, but the question of a warning, or some sort of prior contact, hasn't been mentioned before. There were three days that passed between my suggestion and the "emergency" desysopping. If somebody believed even after that interval that I still might post the content, and felt strongly that I should not, then the obvious first option should've been to simply say to me: "Hey, in case you were still thinking of doing that, please don't; I believe it may contain personal information." In this case the response from me would have been: "I wasn't planning to post it, and now that I know it contains personal information I am very happy that I did not." Everyking 05:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The deleted content apparently contained personal information. In the past, such personal information has been used to harass editors, etc. Revealing that information would not be like letting an editor simply view a bad vanity article he wrote, it would be exposing rather private information to some persons who have in the past used such information in threatening ways. —Centrx→talk • 05:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We should be glad that this did not occur, then. Everyking offered to post the contents of a deleted article, which is a common enough occurrence, but as he says, he did not realise that it contained personal information. The key point is that the personal information was not posted. The over-reaction is akin to taking away someone's driving licence for speeding when a driver says that he will travel at a certain speed. Even if he is aware that the speed limit has been lowered on that road, there is no act to warrant punishment. Seems to me that policy is being made on the fly here.

I'm all in favour of desysopping for misbehaviour, but let's leave it until we have a clear case, because if we start desysopping for what people think but don't do, then we might as well say goodbye to a whole swag of admins. --Jumbo 06:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I ought to mention that I also responded to that thread, having checked the contents of the deleted revision. I made this reply, saying that the revision was deleted because it contained "what appears to be personally identifiable information". I did not say what that information was. My intent was to establish that the revision was properly deleted, and to defend the admin in question.

On one or two other occasions in the past I have responded to posts on Wikipedia Review, having checked deleted revisions, with the intention of defending other admins' actions. I have not actually publicly disclosed the contents of any deleted revisions. I ask the community to advise whether these actions were acceptable. --bainer (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you should definitely discontinue that practice, though I don't think any action should be taken against you in the circumstances, since you were apparently motivated by loyalty to WP and your colleagues. I can't say the same for Everyking. We have every reason to lose confidence in an admin who would even contemplate posting deleted information on another site. It's not a matter of whether there's a specific policy against it; it should go without saying - a matter of basic common sense and team loyalty. Everyking is entitled to have certain ideals of free speech, or whatever they are, but if he is at all inclined to pursue them to assist Wikipedia Review then the honourable course for him is to avoid any conflict of interest between his ideals and his corporate loyalties. The way to do that would have been by voluntary relinquishment of his admin powers. This desysopping should not even have been needed. Metamagician3000 01:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have made the offer just the same on WP itself if the question had come up and nobody else addressed it. There is no "conflict of interest". Everyking 01:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: The signpost will be covering this this week so some names maybe mentioned in the article. ForestH2 t/c 01:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In this case, I would like to read the article before it is published to ensure that nothing inaccurate is said about me. Everyking 01:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I'll show you the article when it is done. ForestH2 t/c 01:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Discontinue the practice? Defending admins on Wikipedia Review, while probably futile, is hardly harmful; if Bainer finds this a useful pursuit, why shouldn't he keep it up? — Dan | talk 02:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree while I would urge Bainer to excercise caution letting them know why something was deleted might help matters. JoshuaZ 16:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

... Checking in both the user rights and a log search shows that Everyking still retains his sysop powers. Anomo 02:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't. My rollback, delete and protect buttons are gone. Everyking 02:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you check the meta rights log? Desysoppings show up there, not on the local wiki. --Cyde Weys 02:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I checked the user list and it doesn't show sysop anymore. Anomo 02:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that nobody get involved with Wikipedia Review in any capacity. It's not even worth it to show up there to try to defend yourself or other Wikipedians. Just ignore them. --Cyde Weys 02:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As a personal matter I agree because frankly most of the people there are trolls or worse, but if a user or an admin wishes to slum, we shouldn't stop them (I am strongly not endorsing Everyking here. To even think about posting deleted material without talking to the admin who removed it is appalling. To do so for known trolls and banned users is unacceptable). JoshuaZ 16:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a good place to talk about Wikipedia freely if you aren't allowed to do so on-wiki, as in my case. The downside, obviously, is that certain people monitor your every word and look for something to use against you. Everyking 02:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately your action — that is your words — have lost the trust that is necessary for working together, not to mention showing a lack of awareness of possible consequences. If there is a fault with wikipedia, and you can't talk about things that are necessary to talk about, then that should be addressed here, to improve the project. I think you're going to have to build up trust again. Tyrenius 02:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Almost every administrator who is outspoken or active in any way has lost the trust of a substantial portion of the community. My biggest offense was to offer to do something in ignorance, never mind my decision to not actually do it. Everyking 02:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

See, if you are that ignorant, you shouldn't be a sysop anyway, however I'm not really buying the ignorance defense. pschemp | talk 02:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Two and a half years and I seem to have done OK with sysop tools. When the worst thing a person can come up with is that you offered to do something that you in fact refrained from doing, it's almost a compliment. Everyking 02:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude we rely on admins being ignorant to get through the day. Aside form that admins are ignorant of all sorts of things. Copyright law. How to do range blocks how to use the whitelist. The fact there is a whitelist. How to close an AFD. What the exact CSD criteria are (they keep changeing for some reason). No admin knows everthing thing.Geni 02:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If this was a reply to pschemp, pschemp's not a dude :) Anyways, admins are supposed to be rational in every decision they make. I don't really have a stance towards either side, but considering EveryKing has a prior history of blocks, I didn't surprise me that he was desysopped for something like this. How to close an AFD is one of the most basic admin activites. If an admin candidate doesn't know how to do that, I would be surprised if the RFA passed. Admins don't know how to do everything perfectly, but they should have a general idea of what to do in a situation. — The Future 03:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I reserve the right to call anyone dude. In case you forget AFD in it's current form didn't exists when many of us were promoted.Geni 10:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line: don't try to hunt with the hounds and run with the hare. Metamagician3000 03:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The defense that an action was performed in ignorance is hard to take seriously. Everyking was certainly not in ignorance of the fact that he was taking that action apparently on behalf of a community riddled with disruptive, destructive elements. It's impossible to believe that an individual of good judgment would blithely assume all was well with the request, considering the venue. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The people at thge other end could have had no idea what the deleted material was.If it was harmless then there was no need to allow uncertianly that could be used in attacks to continue

I think wikipedia review isn't a good place to criticize wikipedia. There's criticizing to improve and just being anti-wikipedia and wikipedia review is sort of the later. They are really picky on registration and it seems they only allow in vandals and those that they want to corrupt (like wikipedia admins). I don't think it's wrong to complain about wikipedia, it's like complaining about your tap water quality or TV programming... you sort of need it, but you can always want it to be better. Maybe someone can host a wikipedia criticism forum that is more inline with wanting to help wikipedia. I don't want to, though. For those who do, there's lots of free forums like network54 and stuff. Anomo 06:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, well, when you have the arbs putting ten draconian restrictions on what you can say, you tend to relish the opportunity to talk about WP freely, even if you do have to do so among a bunch of people who are broadly anti-Wikipedia. Everyking 06:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if you didn't have such a long history of bullying and personal abuse you wouldn't need the only wiki-restraining-order in the project's history to keep you from doing it. Rebecca 07:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca, I'm glad Everyking is desysopped. He seemed to be the worst POV-pusher around at Ashlee Simpson. I think he should be blocked for 1 year, in addition to his desysopping, as is the norm with such ArbCom block decisions. He's not the first - remember Karmafist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - now blocked indefinitely, but still sockpuppetteering. No doubt Everyking will do that here, and we'll have to use ((some template)) to list his sockpuppets. --Langwath 09:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never even seen your user name before. Everyking 09:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a suspicion the Langwath is a troll user. Anyone object to blocking Langwath? Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please go right ahead. A genuine newcomer doesn't jump straight into things like this. AnnH ♫ 10:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, well, I would kinda prefer it if he got a warning first. His talk page is still a red link. Everyking 10:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Appreciate your openness Everyking, but I don't think that this is a good faith contributor. Starting off by making a taunt against you at such a sensitive time is highly inappropriate and removes any vestige of assumption of good faith I might have against Pelican Shit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Langweth is unblocked after posting an apology here, but please keep an eye out for him. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Langwath is blocked again for being a lying vandalising troll. The cluster of sockpuppets I have so far are Langwath; Dukaks; StephenColbert X-Line; Piperuniverse; WolfStar2; WolfStar3. I have absolutely no doubt there are more. DHCP only covers you so far - David Gerard 22:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is ludicrous. I can see no point to engaging with Wikipedia Review. But there is no reason whatsoever to desysop people on this basis. There is no claim that any confidential, harmful or even just plain deleted information was disclosed. Whatever people might think of Everyking overall is irrelevant to this case. I strongly urge ArbCom to open a case on this and give the matter full consideration instead of what looks like a knee-jerk reaction. The Land 11:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that two ArbCom members are the ones who pushed forth the desysopping, an ArbCom case would be fairly pointless at this point except to satisfy process. Most probably Fred Bauder and Dmcdevit consulted with other ArbCom members secretly and obtained their approval. Captainktainer * Talk 12:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Doubtful not if they were acting at that speed. 2 arbcom members is less than 20% of the Committee.Geni 12:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Even ArbCom members might benefit from a few days' reflection on the matter. The Land 12:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with The Land on this issue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I support this action, and gave my support in private before the action was taken. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We're into denying admins the right to freedom of speech now too are we? This is getting beyond a joke. --kingboyk 13:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think we ever had freedom of speech here? We routinely block users for harrassing and personally attacking other users. Free speech is a government censorship issue. Here on Wikipedia we do what is necessary to foster a productive editing environment, and someone trying to push the limits of "free speech" is liable to get blocked. And frankly, offering to abuse admin tools to aid a banned user is a lot worse than just a "fuck you" anyway. --Cyde Weys 16:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This is the first time I have ever said this about the community here- I am disgusted. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 13:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the desysopping was an overreaction. What Everyking said was "I guess I could etc." and then, upon further consideration, he didn't. Haukur 13:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason why Everyking didn't do it wasn't because he had reflected and decided not to, it was because he couldn't get to the material that he wanted to provide to WR. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't even understand your accusation. Why couldn't I "get to the material"? Everyking 17:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hummm, after reading this, I wonder what the long ranging implications of this will be, aside from the stern warning to the community in general. One important issue is that it is all a matter of timing. The information was available for some time, and in that time, it could have been cached by a webcrawler (google, answers, whatever), and be available permanetly outside Wikipedia. Or it could have been stored by a visitor and made publicly available (all allowed under GFDL). The conflict here is between the openness at one hand (everybody can at a specific time get all available information and store it off-wiki, regardless of libel, Copyvio, personal information etc), while at the otherhand desysopping for just offering to do the exact same thing. For me at the moment, that does not compute, and I would like to have some input on this from others on the timing aspect before making up my mind on whether the desysopping was good or not. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I have to set the question somewhat more pointed: If I had stored the information in question on my harddisk between being posted and being deleted and would now make it available externally, it would be ok under GFDL and I would not lose my sysop powers, while if I would use my sysop powers to retrieve the deleted version and make it available, I immediatly would lose my sysop powers? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Kim van der Linde, it is a matter of User:Everyking offering to use his admin tools to assist a banned user to gain access to information. Copyright status of the material is not the issue. FloNight 15:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And since when has that been an offence, and an offence punishable by summary desysopping? --kingboyk 15:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Since when has it been an offense to assist a banned user with the use of administrative tools? Since when has murder been illegal? --Cyde Weys 16:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

depending on the legal system that is quite a complicated question. While you are deciding which legal system you mean you might want to consider why comparing everykings actions to murder is not an entirely logical course.Geni 17:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so the criteria is the usage of the admin tools. So, if this information is available, it is ok to post that somewhere else under the condition that it is not retrieved using admin tools. Good to know. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Appears to me that Everyking was acting as a surrogate for banned user User:WordBomb. My dealings with WordBomb make me think that EK's actions need a full arbitration case. EK willingness to assist a banned user in general, and WordBomb in particular, needs to be addressed. Knowing what I know about WordBomb, this is broader in scope than EK's use of his admin tools. FloNight 16:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the case in sufficient detail have an opinion about that. I am more interested in the implications, and especially when information added to wikipedia is under GFDL, and when the same information is not. Because what happens here is that information can be at the same time under GFDL and not, depending on how it was retrieved. That is a legal impossibility. Either it is under GFDL, or it is not. If it is under GFDL, I would think that people can actually request or sue the foundation for it if they want to have it, while we at the same time desysop people for doing the same thing. That just confuses me. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody can require the foundation to provide any piece of information simply because it was edited into Wikipedia. The foundation can hardly be required to publish or distribute information to which it does not even hold the copyright simply because another individual has released it under the GFDL. (This ignores the fact that much personal information is not subject to copyright, and that therefore the GFDL has no bearing on its publication.) The Foundation would certainly exercise judgment in releasing deleted revisions. Everyking lost his sysop bit precisely because he appeared uninterested in demonstrating such judgment. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like few, if any, are sad to see Everyking lose the sysop tools. But, the excuse used for removing them was fairly sad. Maybe a generic "exhausting of ArbCom's patience" type reason should be used in cases like these. Friday (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is all this discussion heading? Everyking was emergency desysopped apparently because of a sworn desire to make deleted content available to non-admins. Whilst this is occasionally appropriate, it is most definitely not appropriate to post it to Wikipedia Review. However, Everyking has made clear above that he has no intention to make such content available to non-admins, and unless we doubt his word, why does he not have his sysop bit back? Emergency desysoppings are not permanent unless they get ratified by the ArbCom or under WP:OFFICE, as far as I understand it. - Mark 17:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I just want to point out that I had no "sworn desire", otherwise I would have posted it instead of choosing not to. Everyking 17:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Were you planning on posting the entire GFDL wording, as is required by GFDL, when you posted the deleted information on Wikipedia Review? Or did you not care about the copyright status of the information? User:Zoe|(talk) 17:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on doing anything, as you can see by the fact that I posted nothing. Everyking 17:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Presumably because the circumstances of the incident have brought his judgement into question to such an extent that the ArbCom feels his retaining the bit would be a liability to the project? I doubt this can be boiled down to a simple question of promising not to do someting in particular (e.g. not make deleted content available to non-admins); the broader issue is whether someone who considers—even fleetingly—using his sysop tools to help the nice folks at WR can be trusted with access to them. Kirill Lokshin 17:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I frequently use my admin tools to help people.Geni 17:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why were assisting an user banned from Wikipedia? WordBomb is not welcome on this site for a very good reason. You should assume good faith towards the admins that blocked WordBomb. WordBomb has openly expressed contempt for Wikipedia. There is no valid reason for your actions. Period. FloNight 17:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't assist him; how could what I wrote have assisted him? And I don't determine whether I assume good faith just based on whether someone is an admin or is banned; I assume good faith at the outset as a general principle and withdraw the assumption if I see good reason to. Everyking 17:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Acting as a surrogate for WordBomb by looking at deleted information shows no respect for Wikipedia users and admins that are being harassed by WordBomb and sock/meatpuppets on an ongoing basis . FloNight 18:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This would be more meaningful if WordBomb had gained something from it. All he got was me saying I looked at it and couldn't determine anything about it. Everyking 18:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And it didn't occur to you to talk to the blocking admins at all? Do you realize what a lapse in judgement that is? You seem to be saying that you knew that the user had been indefinitely blocked by community consensus and you still assumed good faith without asking the other admins for any input? What about that doesn't strike you as wrong? JoshuaZ 18:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I know that user is blocked, but not how that came to be. I guess I would have said something to SV about it if I was going to actually post it, considering my concern about her reaction was significant enough that I decided not to continue with the matter at all. At the time, however, my assumption was that the content had just been deleted as part of some crackdown against an individual, so I was less concerned; had I known the information was sensitive I would never have even suggested the possibility that I might post it. Everyking 18:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

sensitive information? Haven't been able to find any in there yet.Geni 18:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

People here tell me there's sensitive personal info in there, but I still have no idea what it is; I'm just assuming they are correct about that. Everyking 18:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Everyking on this matter. He should not have been punished just because he intended to give out confidential information, which he never actually did. --Ixfd64 18:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Even "intended" is too strong; I put the offer on the table, thought about it, decided not to. Everyking 18:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

While I'm sure we're all glad that in the end Everyking decided to not start posting said information on WR, that fact that it was ever an option is disturbing. Admins are supposed to be trustworthy. If I started muttering on WR about providing the IP addresses of fellow sysops, I suspect I'd find myself desysoped, uncheckusered, and at the wrong end of an IP block for the forseeable future–and rightly so. From his recent post above, Everyking is displaying at best questionable judgement. You'd been a sysop for a long time–longer than I have. Why did you even have to think about it? Mackensen (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

certianly. Because checkuser was provided on the understanding that you would never give out IPs. Admins frequently provide information about deleted articles.Geni 20:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

They do? to blocked users? Show me where. pschemp | talk 20:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A couple of hours ago someone on IRC asked me to post the text of a page deleted by Dmcdevit. I did. For all I know the person I was talking to is a banned user on enwiki (though I think that's quite unlikely). This happens all the time. As long as the content is harmless it's fine. Everyking was in a dodgy forum and he implied he might post the contents of a page without reviewing it carefully first. That was a mistake. Then he decided not to do it and let the matter drop. That was the right call. Haukur 22:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Without knowing that the content was sensitive, it seemed just like any case of making the contents of a deleted page available to an interested party, and I'm not aware that's considered a problem. I thought people did that all the time. Everyking 21:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

While you may not have thought about whether or not the information was sensitive, you should have. There is a difference between providing the contents of a deleted page to an editor (a vanity bio, promotional page, or some sort of facruft, say, that a newbie didn't realize was inappropriate for Wikipedia) and providing the contents of a deleted revision. Deleting individual revisions from a page history is more effort and inconvenience than reverting an edit or deleting a page, and admins only tend to do it when there is a good reason for that extra effort. Straight vandalism gets reverted; revisions are only removed in special, exceptional circumstances.

When any editor asks for a copy of a deleted page revision, it should prompt careful questions and investigation before releasing the material. When a banned sockpuppetting troll (WordBomb) asks for a deleted page revision – surely out of innocent curiosity and a sense of civic duty...*cough* – that should trigger very loud alarm bells in the mind of an admin.

Before offering to release the information – before thinking about releasing the information – you might have asked the deleting admin why the revisions were deleted. That could have cleared things up nicely. Choosing not to release the information not out of respect for another admin's judgement, nor out of respect for the privacy of the involved individuals, nor because you didn't want to be used as a tool of some trolls...but rather because you were "worried that SlimVirgin might get pissed" does not inspire confidence in your ability to handle admin tools.

I've had run-ins with you before over your interactions with other editors, particularly other admins. I've been concerned about your occasional lack of civility. However, I've defended your contributions. I've never suggested that you should be desysopped; I have in fact argued against such suggestions in the past. Aside from a few regrettable mistakes during the Ashlee Simpson edit wars two years ago, I've never seen you misuse your admin privileges. But this is beyond the pale. If the only thing that stops you from handing out deleted page revisions to banned trolls bent on harrassing SlimVirgin and other admins is your fear that you'll piss off SlimVirgin, your judgement is no longer sound. I don't know whether it's because you're mad at Wikipedia, or mad at SlimVirgin, or mad at me (now, at least) or what—but this sort of offer shows a contempt for the Wikipedia community and for your Wikipedia colleagues. You've done a great deal of good here, but I just can't see how you can be trusted with admin privileges now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Out of all this, what you are really saying is that I should have consulted SlimVirgin before suggesting I might post the contents of the page. I have said that, in the unlikely instance that I chose to actually post the contents, I would have said something to her about it first—but this is not good enough for you, I need to consult her before I even make the suggestion. At some point it begins to look like you're grasping at straws here. Everyking 06:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You completely missed his point. The point is there is a huge difference between deleted revisions and an article that was just deleted for mundane reasons such as meeting the speedy criteria, AfD, etc. Deleted revisions require extra effort and are only done to keep that information away from non admins. The fact that you didn't even know what the information was you were offering to post is a problem, in addition to all the other problems people have noted here. - Taxman ^Talk 14:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades did you ever read the deleted edits?Geni 12:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This reminds of a suggestion I brouhgt up a while ago- to have an open log of what admins accessed what deleted pages when. It might help deal with this sort of situation somewhat. JoshuaZ 20:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

How could this have prevented anything? We'd find out that Everyking looked at the deleted content, a fact we already know. --Conti|✉ 20:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to not hide non-sensitive deleted articles from non-administrators. Deleting articles because they don't fit editorially should be factored from deleting articles or revisions that have personal information etc. Almost all articles deleted via prod or AFD could be viewable by anyone. Then it would make sense to log viewing articles that truely need to be hidden. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-09-04 21:17Z

Also stewards can truly delete sensitive edits now, of course. The problem I imagine is that many of those still remain unnoticed in the deleted articles tables. I wonder how many deleted articles we actually have?! --kingboyk 21:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If we make deleted articles generally visible unless specifically set otherwise, we're going to have to use that setting a lot. Huge chunks of our material is deleted because it's a copyright violation, and allowing that to be publicly visible defeats the entire point of deleting it, which is no longer to publish the material... Shimgray | talk | 21:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There wouldn't be a default in either direction. There would be two possible actions, both equally easy to do: 1) hide from non-administrators and 2) editorial removal without hiding, similar to blanking a page, but makes it a redlink and otherwise appear as a non-article. There's no problem if either one of these two ends up being used more than the other. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-09-05 14:57Z

I believe it is fine for admins to give out a deleted article if it's been AFD'd as non-notable. Right? Even though in the instance where SlimVirgin deleted specific revisions those should have been kept secret. Right? Anomo 23:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, it was clear that Slim Virgin had her reasons for deleting a quite specific revision. It was also clear that digging around to try to discover the content of that revision for the purpose of making it available to a banned user with an evident grudge against Wikipedia was something that a good colleague on the admin team would never even have thought of doing. When Everyking says he never actually did it, that's a relief. But he's still questioning (as of yesterday) whether there would have been anything wrong with it if he'd gone ahead. I can't trust him with the admin tools in those circumstances, no matter how good an editor he is otherwise. This is definitely not like userfying an article that was deleted because it was on a non-notable topic or userfying a userbox that did not belong in template space but had no particular tendency to disrupt the project or bring it into disrepute. We are expected to have good enough judgment to make such distinctions. Metamagician3000 00:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Specific reason? The only thing I could find was stuff about a case settled out of court.Geni 00:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Asking an admin for the contents of an article that was AFD'd as non-notable to put it on another website and the admin giving it is still acceptable, right? Anomo 11:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I may not be an admin, but it seems that we all experience lapses in judgement from time to time. Everyking made an intemperate post -- it's all too easy to post first and think later when it comes to message boards. Lapses happen. A single, and in this case, harmless, lapse is not sufficient cause for a permanent desysopping, else we'd likely have no admins at all. I anticipate, at least, that an arbitration will be forthcoming to decide whether the desysopping is permanent? Powers ^T 13:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. I believe they intended it to be permanent right from the beginning. Everyking 19:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I personally am concerned, you have eroded all the trust placed in you by the community and this was the straw that broke the camel's back. There's no prohibition on you standing for RfA and I doubt the Committee would overrule community consensus were you to succeed, but I know I'd oppose. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the tiny part of the community that is me still trusts you, James. You were always responsible and did a large amount of valuable work as an admin. I'll gladly renominate you for adminship any time you want. Haukur 21:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The emergency desysopping was understandable, but is no longer necessary. I may disagree with some of his actions, but in this case, the thread doesn't show a deliberate attempt to abuse the sysop tools. He looked at the deleted revisions and commented on them. He did offer to post it, 'tis true, but if he had known it contained personal information, he wouldn't have done it. While the emergency desysopping might have been warranted because of the potential for dissemination of personal information, I'm sure this will serve as a lesson to be more careful when dealing with banned users, and as such, the emergency desysopping is no longer necessary. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Deathphoenix here. But unless I've missed something, nobody was suggesting that this emergency desysopping was in fact temporary. Friday (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware that nobody suggest that this is a temporary desysopping, but I'm suggesting that it should be. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be, but the way people get adminned or de-adminned seems to be changing quite rapidly in recent days. I think we at least deserve to know who's on the special list of people that get to make such decisions. Friday (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom and Jimbo. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Everyking is an excellent vandal fighter. I'd support a speedy restoration of his admin priviledges. --Ixfd64 16:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless there's more to this issue than this one incident, I would agree. And if there is more to this issue than this one incident, then an ArbCom case needs to be opened if this "emergency" measure is to be permanent. Powers ^T 19:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Deathphoenix, and LtPowers. Any emergency desysopping should either be followed by resysopping after a suitable explanation (which is the case here in my opinion), or an ArbCom case to determine the appropriate long-term action. If the current situation continues, then Everyking has been punished without a trial. I realise that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but there does need to be some process here.-gadfium 01:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is exceptionally stupid. Say I pick up someone's valid credit card and someone else asks me to give it to them. I tell that person "I'll think about it". Then I throw the credit card into a fire and nothing else comes of it. Do I get arrested for identity theft? ugen64 04:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but if you were a police officer who offered to pass the credit card to a conman, you'd lose your job if caught, whether you actually went ahead and did it or not. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In this case the offer isn't cause for dismissal. Everyking has stated that he didn't know there were personal details in the material. It's not like knowingly offering to hand over a credit card to somebody inappropriate - more like picking up an advertising flyer and offering it to an interested person. After all, most deleted articles are of that ilk and there is nothing controversial about their content. And as we find out from another comment, there may not actually be any personal information at all. I'm not an administrator, but I'm beginning to have grave doubts about the professional attitude on display here. Surely we should investigate the facts before acting? If there is a proven case, then apply an appropriate penalty. If there's nothing to it, then clear the suspect. --Jumbo 20:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Your analogy is wrong. He knew an admin had deleted a small number of edits, which strongly indicates it's personal information or defamation, as those are the most common reason for that kind of delete. But he offered to show the information to a bunch of trolls on an attack site anyway, some of whom have stalked people on-wiki and in real life. Whether he went ahead with it is irrelevant. He considered it, so he shouldn't be an admin. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This WP:COPY may be interesting reading. IANAL but I am not reading an obligation for us to make material (licensed by others under GFDL as all text content is here) available forever. GFDL infers redistribution rights (or imposes making material available for redistribution, subject only to reasonable charges for media and costs) but only if we ourselves are using it. If we're not using it (that is, if it's deleted) we don't HAVE to make it available to anyone, the seeker should go to the source. Availability is then up to the original author to determine. If that author chooses to make themselves anonymous or is a troll, and thus we are not quite sure who that is, it's sort of not our problem to help the seeker determine who it was. Therefore to the points said above, I'm not seeing a need to make deleted content available on request, in general, despite it being GFDL licensed. We're not. after all, still using it. We can do so if we choose to but we don't have to. Again IANAL and I may be all wet but I found that implication interesting. ++Lar: t/c 18:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no obligation to make available any GFDL content at all or for any length of time; only, if made available it must be able to be read or copied. —Centrx→talk • 05:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the deleted version (NO, I am not going to reveal its content), I actually question whether there is any personal information revealed in the post. I personally would have reverted the post as vandalism but not have deleted the revision. If this post is an example of revealing personal information, a hell of a lot of revisions should be deleted from various other articles as well. So, could some admins shime in on this? without revealing anything of the content. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to know what the information was. It's good enough for me that Slim Virgin, a colleague in good standing, thought it necessary to delete certain quite specific revisions of the article. I then see a banned user who has an obvious grudge against Wikipedia trying to get hold of it in a way that shows he is hoping to use the information for some purpose such as undermining Wikipedia or Slim Virgin, or both. I then see an admin hanging around on an anti-Wikipedia attack site openly talking to the banned user about using his admin powers to dig out the information for the banned user's benefit, and evidently seeing nothing wrong with this.

Folks, this is far worse than a bit of wheel warring (for example). I don't care that Everyking did not actually go through with it - the way he openly discussed doing so, refrained only because he was afraid Slim Virgin would be "pissed off", rather than because it would be undermining collegiality, and was still suggesting after being desysopped that there was nothing wrong with what he was offering to do all add up to this: Everyking is not someone I trust with admin powers. Given his judgments in this instance, I don't know what he would do next to undermine people whom he is supposed to be supporting. We can't afford to leave admin powers in the hands of people who have lost our trust. End of story. Metamagician3000 02:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, the information has been deleted entirely so that it's not visible to admins, so I don't know what it is KimvdLinde thinks she's reading. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I saved a copy of the revision to my harddisk before it was oversighted. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

First, can I ask why you did that? And secondly, if you did, why can't you see why it was removed? It was personal information (alleged, but not known, to be correct). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want a detailed discussion here about the content, that is fine with me, but I think that would exactly opposite of what you tried to achieve in the first place. I dispute your assessment of the post and that if you want an answer, I would have to make statements that I rather do not see here, knowing the apparent sensitivity of the deleted revision. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Everyking said he was going to repost deleted content, a common occurrence. He didn't repost deleted content. Said deleted content included personal information. Everyking didn't know this (unless he's lying about that). Everyking didn't actually do much of anything, and yet was punished as if he was a convicted felon. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Reading through this thread, I am somewhat shocked a sysop is being punished for association with a forum that WP is highly critical of, claiming the forum is not a place for constructive criticism, but a place for trolls, which is a way of dismissing the forum as a whole. However, demanding no admin be part of the forum is to give the forum de-facto validation, saying they indeed got something right, when WP should instead say WPR is of no concenquence. Also, I am surprised over the protectionism over deleted information. It is as if Wikipedia suddenly laid claim to the information that was offered by the admin, reasoning the posting of the information is a betrayal of another admin. However, this fundamentally contradicts the copyright-less nature of Wikipedia. The texts, even when deleted is not owned by either Wikipedia or the Admin who deleted the information.

This desysop is not based on factual concerns, but it is a witch hunt, which Everyking has been unfortunately targeted.--OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 18:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

These are very sensible points. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No they aren't. The above ignores the nature of the information in question and the nature of the person who was asking for it. The notion that it is somehow a bad thing to not release personal info to banned users is simply absurd. To claim that this has something to do with the nature of the copyright on the information shows such a basic misunderstanding of the GFDL that I don't evene know where to begin. While it is true that admins have a right to edit on Wikipedia Review it is accurate that it is by and large full of unproductive trolls and banned editors and that such editing will be rarely productive. JoshuaZ 19:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you please expand on your claims? Such as how I have misunderstood the nature of Wikipedia? What personal information? How personal was that information? --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 19:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the edit in question, but how personal isn't relevant. That it was personal and that the ArbCom thought it was personal is what matters. The fundamental misunderstanding concerns the assertion that Wikipedia is "copyright-less" This is both wrong and irrelevant. It is wrong because there is a GFDL and it is irrelevant because the issue here had nothing to do with whether or not the info was copyrighted the problem was the idea of retrieval of deleted personal content and giving that deleted personal info to a banned user. JoshuaZ 04:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

To answer briefly the last three: Who knows, since it wasn't what was actually claimed ("GFDL" =/= "Wikipedia"); the probable personal informaton in the deleted revision; and completely irrelevent. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify the GFDL thing: GFDL requirements only come into play when something is being redistributed. If we've deleted something from Wikipedia we have no obligation to release that material to anyone. Now, if some current version of an article is based on a previous version that has been deleted then that is a problem, because attribution information has been removed. However, what we are talking about here is some random personal information that was deleted, so any GFDL concerns are irrelevant. There's this misconception out there that the GFDL requires that every single edit to Wikipedia be available when this is simply not the case; only the edits on pages that are published must be available. --Cyde Weys 05:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, once the information is on an article, it is legally published, and once someone distributes it, that version is no longer in your hands, and once it is deleted from wikipedia, the versions in the wild do not get deleted either. And GFDL is a copyleft, not a copyright.(added later) Still though, no one has cared to address how Wikipedia owns the information that was deleted or how the GFDL gives any rights to Wikipedia to decide who can or cannot publish previously deleted content. Still though, no one has addressed why no admin may be part of this forum without being attacked by peers when the forum in question is disputed in validity, which is the same as to question if anything the forum says should be taken seriously, which is the same as saying what ever happens on that forum does not matter, which means Wikipedia should concern itself with only the information it currently is displaying and not with the information others are displaying. I also question the validity of the argument that the users who recieved this information were banned and therefor were ineligable for possession of any wiki information, or atleast ineligable of possession of information from a sysops or should be barred from association with sysops. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 08:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, under the GFDL he may. That's beside the point. The point is that he may not use his Wikipedia administrator privileges to do so. Everyking could not have acted in contravention of the GFDL (presuming he credited the authors), but he would have abused his administrative privileges. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

But then we return to the freedom of association and validating WPR issues. Also, I never have seen clear rules as to what one may or may not do in this regard, so unless there are rules that predate Everykings actions, he has not abused his powers, but brought up a new issue that should be addressed. So far though, addressing the issue has been limited to making an example of Everyking. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 10:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There are no clear rules because we have made no clear rules. We have made no clear rules because doing so would make it easy to circumvent them. The rules are to apply common sense and discretion. Yes, that's vague. But if someone can't manage to follow them, that person should not be a Wikipedia sysop. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Part of being an Admin is using one's own judgement. Now for me, going onto a wikipedia attack forum, and offering to give deleted content, which contained personal information, to a banned user without even contacting the deleting admin, and then, to top it all off, state that the reason he didn't post the content was because he might piss off SlimVirgin, is a gross lack of judgement. I've seen a lot of words like witch hunt, and making an example of Everyking, but the truth is that he has lost the trust of the community. Simple as that. As far as validating WPR, well, I disagree with you on that point. Again, what's important here is judgement. Going onto WPR, and mixing with banned users, wiki-haters, and a general bunch of trolls is likely to have some of the community, some of them being constantly attacked by WPR, wonder why Everyking would want to be there in the first place. However, I think that Everyking's de-sysoping comes down to this: It is debatable if he abused his powers, but he has abused the trust of the community with his actions. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

But again, there is an allussion of ownership to the text. As for mingling with banned users, why do you feel you have the right to control who your peers can mingle with? As for the trust of the community, I cannot care less about what Everyking does on WPR, as long as his actions on Wikipedia are fair and reasonable to other users of Wikipedia and helps improve Wikipedia. Everyking has done nothing to destroy my trust of him and my trust for him is just as important as your trust for him.

Also, I question the wisdom of 'super users', users who are a little more than all other editors, making the foggy rules of trust. The everyday editors of Wikipedia need to trust you, the sysops, more than you need to trust each other and without our input, editors can feel invalidated personally at times and come to feel distrust. A picture as an example would be an overlord commanding the underlings. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 12:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...a very interesting reply to say the least. I wasn't aware that I ever said that your trust for Everyking was less important than mine. As you can see from my edit summery, this is just my humble opinion of the situation. I'm sorry if you feel it is something more. As far as "...why do you feel you have the right to control who your peers can mingle with?" is concerned, again, I never wrote that Everyking's movements or who he talks to on the internet should be restricted. He makes a choice of who he talks to. However, that choice has a consequence. I believe that one of the Admin's duties are as to act as ambassadors of Wikipedia, and, as such, I hold them in higher reard when interacting with Wikipedians, and talking about Wikipedia elsewhere. As for "Super user", well, I don't think that they do make foggy rules of trust. Everyone's idea of trust is different, yours from mine, mine from Tony Sidaway's, Tony's from Everyking's etc. However, it is my firm opinion that Everyking, with his actions, has lost the trust of at least part of the community. Thε Halo ^Θ 13:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should make clear who I am addressing. I am addressing multiple users, all of whom support the removal of Everyking as a sysop, and at the same time, no users. As such, I will address arguments individually as if they created and argued for themselves instead of addressing users. I, in this method, avoid offending people without intention. The exception is when I ask people to expand on their own arguments.

Our differing ideas of trust is exactly why mods, admins, sysops, crats and so on, should not define what trust is. However, at the very top of this thread, it was declared by a single entity that Wikipedia has lost trust for this user. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 13:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This editor keeps obstgruction the development of this article. His latest attempt is to claim that google scholar cannot be used as a reference , thus he is is blanking out this paragraph from the impact section :

Hagarims is widely cited by many contemporary historiographers and historians of early Islam, such as: Bernard Lewis, Robert G. Hoyland, Reza Aslan, G. R. Hawting, Herbert Berg, Francis Edwards Peters, S. N. Eisenstadt, Ziauddin Sardar, Malise Ruthven,Richard Landes, Ibn Warraq and John Wansbrough.[2].

--CltFn 04:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A search link is not an appropriate reference. I think if you look at the history of the article you'll find that CltFn continues to remove as many cited criticisms as possible, and insert his original research (sometimes trying to weaken the criticisms) often with quite misleading edit summaries used for reverts. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are some diffs supporting my claim: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30].

Read the talk page (and its archive) for background. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been established that CltFn has used sockpuppets to influence the development of this article. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mughalstan, if a site is the only primary source for an information, and the site is no longer active, does Google's cache count as an acceptable reference? Note that the article in question doesn't have any other primary sources (only some web based forums/blogs, which in turn refers to the no-longer-existing site as their source), and the site that is supposedly the all-encompassing source is no longer active. So, in absence of any other primary sources of information, does google's cache count as proof of verifiability of the information presented? --Ragib 23:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If I was able to use the WayBack machine for some articles, then a Google Cache should be good too. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Google cache expires rather quickly. Wayback is commonly used and safer in this regard. Pavel Vozenilek 17:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Pavel, but I could see it being moderately useful as an interim source if it's already available, while a search of WayBack happens. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 16:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This page was deleted without discussion, so I nominated its deletion for review. The result was that the speedy deletion was overturned (see here, but the page has not yet been restored. Could an admin please do so?--Lorrainier 23:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I redeleted it. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Blocked users with bizarre usernames. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think ANOTHER speedy is going to help anything. When something was just undeleted by the DRV to be run through an XfD, re-speedying it is a violation of consensus that it go through full process. Please undelete, and reopen the discussion for the sake of process. --tjstrf 00:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I quickened it up as there was an overwhelming consensus to delete. It wasn't a full-speedy, it was a part-speedy as the conclusion is foregone conclusion to expedite WP:DENY ASAP. If you disagree, please come to my talk page.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Remember, my offer to have the page userfied in my userspace is still open, so the ball is in yall's court to see if this is a good idea or not. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That MfD had a thumping consensus for delete and has been closed twice per the Snowball clause and Deny recognition. Please let's just allow it to die. No amount of wikilaawyering and handwringing will do anything to bring it back. --Tony Sidaway 00:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly (or not, depending on your perspective), neither of thsoe are actionable as actual, legitimate reasons to do anything. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact of their being cited continuously to justify actions such as Tony's (and some actions with which you might even agree, such as closing failing RFAs to prevent unnecessary ill will) seems to contradict this assertion. — Dan | talk 01:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I've yet to hear anyone who has supported this page's deletion explain how it glorifies vandalism any more than the rest of BJAODN, and, therefore, why it was singled out.--Lorrainier 02:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply Neither have I, and if a certain out-of-process admin would bother to stop enforcing proposed policies as CSD's, maybe we could actually discuss it. However, the fact remains that the page sucks, and bizzare is an absurdly POV judgment for categorization in the first place. --tjstrf 02:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - You thinking the page sucks is not reason for deletion.--Lorrainier 21:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he used the wrong wording, but the fact remains that the page was a breeding ground for vandalism and "bizarre" username creations to get it placed on the page. No reason to restore this page. — The Future 21:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

All of BJAODN can be seen as a breeding ground for vandalism and the creation of "bad jokes" and "other deleted nonsense" to get placed in it. If you find that to be a problem, then consider discussing the possibility of having the entire BJAODN deleted, but still no legitimate reason has been given for singling this page out.--Lorrainier 23:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally I do believe BJAODN does need to be deleted per the reason this page was deleted. This page was more than likely singled out because it wasn't on BJAODN. And it doesn't need to be, nor do we need vandalism sub-pages. WP:SAND works just as well. We shouldn't be encouraging stupidity. Were here to create a encyclopedia, not give vandalism and literally bad jokes and other deleted nonsense a place for viewieng. If it's deleted nonsense, it needs to stay that way. — The Future 23:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I give up; I won't have it moved to my userpage. I am no way emotionally attached to that page at all, was trying to see if that was a happy medium people might like. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If no one objects, I wouldn't mind it in my user space if that is an acceptable compromise. I do however think that speedy deletion of this page was unwise and it isn't even clear to me if it even falls undery DENY anyways. I would however like it if users would stop focusing on the details of possibly questionable speedies and just get back to the article space(and this applies to those who feel a need to speedy so much as well). JoshuaZ 03:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, while I'm commenting: Speedy out of process deletions make sense when a page is producing divisions and distractions from editing the encyclopedia. If a discussion is otherwise more or less civil and is not actively disrupting the wiki such deletions are not helpful and will often harm more than help. That said, users who focus on out of process procedures, especially to defend non-encyclopedic material are being just as disruptive and unproductive as the admins who go out of their way to delete such material in out of process fashions. We should not forget that we are trying to write an encyclopedia. JoshuaZ 03:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Joshua: You are the wind beneath my wings. Nandesuka 03:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point: as far as I can tell, this does not glorify vandalism any more than the rest of BJAODN, which should be deleted for the same reasons as this page has been. — Dan | talk 04:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocked users with bizarre usernames was simply a list of usernames, very few of which were creative or funny (even knock-knock jokes take up more space than one of the bizarre userames). BJAODN, on the other hand, actually require some amount of creativity sometimes, they're not necessarily just your garden-variety User:Fatmanpoop or User:1800-kiss-my-ass. --Interiot 09:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But you're forgetting about "IwanttobeapagemovevandalwhenIgrowup...on wheels!", "In Soviet Russia, me block you!", and "I'm begging you to unblock me! How can I face my family!".--Lorrainier 21:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked this chap because he seems to have taken a bee in his bonnet about drini (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to the point of campaigning for the removal of his sysop bit. talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 00:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Is calling for the de-sysopping of an admin now a blockable offense? I don't think so. --Nscheffey 01:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There are disruptive ways of doing it. Kelly Martin has informed me that she has discovered that the troll in question was an abusive sock master, and I understand that other administrators have blocked the socks she detected. See the notices on ShortJason's user page for more information. --Tony Sidaway 01:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Try reading this before jerking the ol' knee. --Calton | Talk 02:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I read that, and have seen those diffs before. Apart from this whole Checkuser deal, nothing ShortJason said merited a block. Describing an admin's actions as "wholly inappropriate" and calling for his removal should never result in a block, and it is a frightening precedent to set. --Nscheffey 02:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

We have a Civility policy. Not having sysop access, and not having read up on this fellow's history, places you at a disadvantage. You cannot see all of the actions that editor took during his mercifully brief and unlamented campaign against Drini. --Tony Sidaway 02:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well can you at least tell me what he did, or is that a sysop-secret? --Nscheffey^(T/C) 02:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I read that, and have seen those diffs before. So your rhetorical question ("Is calling for the de-sysopping of an admin now a blockable offense?") was knowingly false, then? --Calton | Talk 03:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Knowingly true. The diffs show ShortJason calling for the de-sysopping of Drini. The worst he says is that Drini is a "bad admin". I do not consider this a blockable offense. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 04:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It is most likey the method that the user used was the reason why he was blocked by Tony. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually just the demeanor and circumstances. Something about it wasn't right. I blocked and brought it here for review. Immediately afterwards someone investigated and discovered a whole slew of socks. I guess this was what is sometimes known as "copper's nose". I regret that I clean forgot to read him his miranda rights. --Tony Sidaway 05:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You really think of yourself as a "cop", huh? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This line of discussion is unlikely to lead to any useful result. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was just struck by the oddness of it. For what it's worth, I support the block. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A very appropriate block. Nscheffey, this was the same user that made an attack userbox against Drini, that has since been deleted. Agree that his behaviour is akin to trolling, and I'm not surprised by the discovery of the socks -- Samir 05:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that making a Userbox advocating recall of an admin is enough of a personal attack to merit an indefinite block. I think it is a dumb idea that won't advance one's goals, and I agree that such a Userbox should be deleted, but I don't see anything in WP:BLOCK that implies it should result in an indefinite block. I also don't think it is befitting of an admin to inform an editor, with many constructive edits to the encyclopedia, that they are blocked indefinitely in this manner. As to the allegations of sockpuppetry, of which I have seen no evidence, "block first, find reasons later" is not an acceptable policy, nor do I think editors should be blocked for setting off someone's spidey-senses. --Nscheffey 06:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with Nscheffey that the attack probably didn't merit an indefinite block. That's why I brought it here saying: "Please review and fix block, block duration, etc, appropriately." I felt that he was certainly up to no good but wasn't sure how grave a matter it was. Events developed from there. Judgement of whether someone is simply expressing concern or is actively seeking to disrupt Wikipedia is typically something an administrator does, although of course we make a point of reviewing one another's actions. --Tony Sidaway 06:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, he wasn't campaigning for my sysop removal, but for my removal (from wikipedia), as he never qualified his statement in a precise way. Still, he's the same user as Orange Rocks and TJWhite, both usernames being abusive sockpuppets (among many) and therefore he has been indefblocked, using a newaccount to circunvent blocking is a no-no. -- Drini 18:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I heartily endorse this event or product. Mackensen (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiko,_Princess_Toshi

This page has been clearly vandalised with an inappropriate graphic.

It's gone now. I looked, saw it, checked the page history, couldn't find the addition... went back to the page and it was gone. Peculiar. --Lord Deskana (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

An IP from the University of Maryland vandalized Template:Japanese Imperial Family. I would dearly like for someone to have a chat with their ITS department. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? This is convenient. I happen to go to the University of Maryland. Deliver me a list of vandalizing edits from UMD IPs on my talk page and I will forward them to a guy I know in OIT. --Cyde Weys 18:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So I contacted OIT and it turns out that the vandalism came from publicly accessible terminals that do not require logins. The kind of vandalism from these IPs (insertion of penises into high-visibility templates) is indicative of an experienced, vicious vandal. I'm just kind of surprised that someone went to all of the trouble to logon from three different terminals in the library at my university just to vandalize. --Cyde Weys 05:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious what others make of this new user, particulary his user page and his first article. Am I being paranoid or is it a little off? Canderson7 ^(talk) 18:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That's patently a troll. Indef blocked and deleted. Goodnight. --Doc 19:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't sure why it looked trollish until I saw the user page history. Is it just me, or are editors with "wiki" in their usernames disproportionately problematic? Friday (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

hello, I am The Wiki Fan. First of all I am a girl not a boy, and secondly why am I banned? Thirdly, what is with the weird message I got about right guard? 84.9.74.146 20:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC) (The Wiki Fan)

Aye right, and you just happened to find this page - troll begone! (blocked) --Doc 21:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked at your contributions - if this page is a secret sorry but it's not very secret LOL 84.9.86.121 21:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC) (The Wiki Fan)

Aye right! A newbie who knows to lookup contributions! -- Drini 22:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've already done an English (and maths!) GCSE (I know you don't have them in Scotland, but I think they're the same here), and I'm sorry for having the brains to work stuff out, and anyway I've been lurking here for a while. But if you don't believe me, fine, screw you guys, I've tried talking nicely and I guess I'll have to tell my friends and teachers not to bother with wikipedia in the future. If you won't let me edit for stupid reaosns then it's more your loss than mine, I already know the facts I can add to articles, wikipedia doesn't. 84.9.86.121 23:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this story as it was posted on another website. It said to see the edit summary so I looked over many contributions. I can't see any contributions other than making the right guard deorderant add so I don't know what they did in the deleted pages. However, Canderson7 handled the unblock horribly. He is supposed to make it unblock reviewed and give a reason. Instead he gave no reason and blanked the notice, only even saying denied in the edit summary. [31] Then The Wiki Fan not knowing Canderson was an admin and not say a vandal (the handling did look like it wasn't an admin to me), put it back [32], Canderson blanked it again and actually bothered to say in the talk it was denied while committing the horrid crime of protecting the talk page without good reason. [33]. Anomo 03:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What is this? Be nice to trolls week? Give me a break. --Doc 10:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Anomo, I'm always open to criticism of my actions, but I believe my handling of the unblock template was fully justified. There's no reason to tolerate a troll after they've been blocked, and The Wiki Fan was clearly trolling. However, there's no way to really understand that without looking at Wiki Fan's deleted contributions. I'm curious what site you read the story on. Canderson7 ^(talk) 12:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The site I found it on is not a liked site and I don't want to associate myself with it by naming it. But I'm objecting to the use of the unblock template. It looks like its first edit or two was to make on article on the real name of Linuxbeak, so it should have {{unblockreviewed| as something like "single purpose account, account exists for harassment/trolling, see deleted edits" and not just the notice blanked. It just looked like unfamiliarity with the unblock template. It is evolving all the time. Recently, I saw it has "NO REASON GIVEN." I didn't realize that could be done with wiki code and the whole thing of {{{1}}} being blank doing that is just lovely skilled code! So I'm just saying I think some text should have been written on the talk page as documentation, that's all. Anomo 13:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

My goal at the time was to feed the trolls as little as possible. As for that site, I encourage you not to take anything you read on it at face value. I always welcome feedback; I'll keep your opinion in mind. Canderson7 ^(talk) 13:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This may be a bit of a long shot but I thought I'd ask... I need to go through the edit history of a page to identify 3RR violations for an arbitration case. Unfortunately it's an extensive and complex edit history involving multiple editors. Is there any way of automating things so that I can automatically identify instances where an editor has reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours? Is there perhaps some sort of script that would do the job? Any advice or pointers would be much appreciated. -- ChrisO 22:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that have horrible risks of accidently blocking people for 3RR who were reverting vandals? --tjstrf 23:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, since it would merely identify who had done 3> reverts. No blocking is involved - all I'm after is data for an arbitration case. I'm only interested in edits performed by those involved in the case. -- ChrisO 23:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Just set the history to grab a large page size worth of edits and process them with a suitable perlscript. Shouldn't take much more than half an hour to write. --Tony Sidaway 23:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not worth the hassle; just say that they were edit-warring. If they were obviously edit-warring, you don't need to just look through their contributions for the arbitrary 4 reverts in 24 hours violations. The ArbCom understands this. --Cyde Weys 18:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to do about this, but we have a user (with what appears to be a number of sockpuppets that have followed an almost identical editing pattern) whose sole purpose has been to revert the Ars Technica article every few days (or sometimes multiple to their preferred version. Mediation was called in, but Tatsuma has refused to participate, and as a result, nothing came of that. An RfC was filed [34] but nothing came of that either. There was a Mediation Cabal case filed back in July, too, .[35] I don't know if a block is called for in this case, but it's really getting tiresome. What can be done? Thanks. -/- Warren 02:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I know this guy from Fark (though I haven't had a lot of discussions with him). He's usually an exceptionally reasonable guy; I really don't think this is anything malicious at all. I have his email address and am sending him an email, asking him what's going on and explaining the consternation his edits are causing. Tatsuma could be a really helpful and knowledgeable editor (particularly on articles related to Israel); I think he just doesn't know about the talk page. If he has to be blocked he has to be blocked, of course, but I really think this is a matter of ignorance about Wikipedia policies more than anything. Captainktainer * Talk 04:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As I posted in the RfC, this account's sole purpose is to 1) tendentiously edit Ars Technica and 2) impersonate a member of another community. Recommend a block (ideally in a way that frees up the username so a responsible person can take the name). Captainktainer * Talk 12:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Violations by "Devios" is against the pillar of Wikipedia's Rules! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grapefruit_seed_extract&oldid=72495019 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grapefruit_seed_extract&oldid=72467578

Compare the info which Judith Sims wrote and the illegal info Devios is putting and reverting to copyright info on wikipedia's website is considered VANDALISM!!! Read carefully. You will find copyrighted info on wikipedia's website. This is against the law.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2603/is_0003/ai_2603000396 < Judith Sims

Thanks in advance for conducting an investigation into this violation. The current version of the grapefruit seed extract article still has some illegal copyrighted information left in it. The second part of my complaint is the user Drini who has wrongfully protected this article. This user Drini has protected information in the article that is copyright violated information. Again, Drini has protected this article which has illegal information in it. Drini has reverted to illegal copyrighted information and protected this illegal copyrighted information which is against wikipedia's rules which can be proven by looking at the history section of the grapefruit seed extract article. Here is a link to prove Drini is protecting illegal copyrighted info written by Judith Sims: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grapefruit_seed_extract&oldid=72496406 Wikipedia does NOT have written permission from the copyright holder to use this information. Again, the current version still has some illegal copyright violations remaining in it.

You mean this section that was removed? Syrthiss 18:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this section was removed but there is still some more illegal info that needs to be removed. I want to REVERT back to before August 25 to fix the copyright violations but Drini has blocked me from fixing the article. Drini has protected this info (intentional vandalism) that is illegal to have in this article. Why? This is obvious copyright violations!

Do note that the anon above has made 17 edits to the article at this point today, after Drini unprotected. [36] Seems to be working along fine. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: Only after much hassle and making an official complaint about DRINI did I get help. Also, this is not over by a long shot. The user Devios put copyrighted info on the GSE website and Drini is the one who protected this illegal info about the Grapefruit Seed Extract article. DO NOT PUSH THIS INCIDENT UNDER THE RUG. I WILL RAISE MY VOICE EVEN LOUDER NOW. I declare here set forth that I am making an official complainst against the user Devios for copyright violations put in the grapefruit seed extract article. I demand and investigation into the user Devios!

Y'all might want to lighten up. The page is unprotected, you're editing away merrily, looks like you've reverted extensively to remove the copyvio, and suggesting edit wars as you did on my talk page [37] is probably not a good idea. WP:CHILL might apply here. (Boy, a guy offers a bit of followup info, and he falls right into the middle of things...) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Sir, I am interested in AVOIDING edit wars. Please STOP the user Devios from puting illegal copyrighted info on the GSE article again. I would expect an investigation into the copyright infringement. I think it is appropiate to STOP the user from violated the law again and again and again. Remember, I want to stop the edit wars once and for all by the user Devios.

uh.. scary.. an official complaint about me ... -- Drini 21:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

IF YOU AIN'T GOT MOJO NIXON THEN YOUR STORE COULD USE SOME FIXIN'! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Again, Devios illegally put copyrighted materials on the grapefruit seed extract article. Where is my JUSTICE. Where is the investigation. Please tell Devios to STOP illegally putting copyrighted materials on the GSE article over and over again. Also, DRINI told me she unprotected the article but if you look at the time she claimed she did this the article was still blocked at that time. When DRINI claimed the GSE article was unprotected is was still protected. The KEY is the time. Check the user talk of DRINI that proves this BOYOND any shadow of any dissenters. I can prove it DRINI lied to ME at that time. Just check the times!!!!!!!!!! JUST SHALL PREVAIL.

Good god, you're right. Your yelling has worked. Just for you, I'm going to block both of them indefinitely, protect the article to your preferred version, and get a steward to speedy-sysop you right away. Good work, man! No, you have inspired me... I mean GOOD WORK MAN!!!!! JUST HAS PREVAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, ranting on WP:AN (or WP:ANI, for that matter) is likely to get you ignored. Or, apparently, made fun of. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Rebels must rise." Notice how so-called wikipedians FAIL to deflect attention away from the issues at hand. WHERE IS YOUR HEART?

Remember How The Grinch Stole Christmas? How tiny his heart was at the beginning? That's kinda like what I've got, but colder. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please check the history of DRINI: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Drini Drini has ERASED info from her/his discussion page but I have the link that proves DRINI was dishonest with me. I am tracking this users activity on GSE. Drini seems to be playing around with the article recently. This is beyond odd.

User:63.42.146.93 and User:63.42.128.154 blocked due to trolling and wikistalking for a day -- Drini 00:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

WHERE IS YOUR HEART??? (ahem) Tony Fox (arf!) 02:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we please get some "official" word on all of this? Or a range block? This is getting irritating. [38] Tony Fox (arf!) 03:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

While some of the information is similar, the comparisons that I did does not really constitute a blatant copyright infringement. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I notice at the History section, a lot of the text was copied and reworded, same with the paragraph on General use. My apologies to all. However, I am not sure if the text can be removed from it;s history. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

We have both User:Future and User:The Future. Given the potential for confusion, I'm inclined to think that we should require one of them to change their username. Since User:The Future is new, we might ask him/her to choose a different name. It doesn't appear that the "new" account is in any way an attempt to impersonate User:Future, so I'm not sure of policy in this case. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We have User:FireFox and User:Firefox, User:Halo and User:The Halo (to my knowledge). Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 20:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate usernames states Wikipedia does not allow certain types of usernames, including the following: ...Names that can be confused with other contributors. It is a policy. --Golden Wattle ^talk 20:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the addition of "The" makes the usernames sufficiently different. I suggest to do precisely nothing until actual there is actual evidence of confusion. Kusma (討論) 21:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Err.. sorry if I caused any confusion. I didn't realize there were any other usernames in relation to mine until a few days ago :\ The greatest argument I could present is that we haven't blocked User:Firefox or ask him/her to change thier name despite it being very similar to admin User:FireFox. I do think the "The" part of my name is enough of a distinction between User:Future. Also take into consideration that the editor has only 4 contributions and has been inactive since May. I don't think anyone should have to change thier username, as the other is relatively inactive, or not active enough to cause confusion. But thats my $0.02.. — The Future 21:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the very few contributions by the 'older' user, I tend to agree with Kusma. However, confusion has occurred [39] so I am not entirely sure. Future has signed up to sk, but I don't think has contributed much there. --Golden Wattle ^talk 21:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it has occured, which I recognized, hence my edit above about realizing this a few days ago. But this editor who got us confused was also legit trolling around Wikipedia blaming actions over on a talk page about masturbation. I think the inactivity of User:Future is enough to not get us confused. — The Future 21:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There is also User:Solipsist and User:Solipsist3 (who has made some troll edits) which confused me at first. I suggest we leave the existing names, but implement a policy from now on that names should not have a close similarity to an existing name. Tyrenius 23:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, we already have that policy. However, similar names get through. If they are good faith editors and confusing isn't happening on a daily basis, just leave them be. pschemp | talk 02:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with pschemp, many are blocked at creation but those blocking tend not to know every username on wikipedia and certainly not the less active ones. If everything is going ok and no general confusion then there seems little reason to do anything. If it bothers you, you can ask one or other to consider changing name voluntarily and if that doesn't sort it out there is WP:RFC/NAME to deal with such issues. --pgk 06:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest creating a page User:Future (disambiguation)? -- Eugène van der Pijll 07:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, done -- Future (disambiguation)18:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the IP of the Swedish darknet provider "Relakks", it's currently not banned from editing. Make it so :) 83.233.84.31 21:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A proxy is fine (well, fine enough for now, anyway). It's the open proxies that we're not too keen on. So, which is it? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a private, encrypted proxy that requires a monthly subscription to access. I guess it's up to your definition of what an "open" proxy is, but I think it qualifies, even if it isn't monetarily free. Plus it's still a violation of WP:NOP, since it is anonymous. - Debuskjt 00:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an open proxy IMO. Mike _{(T C)} 01:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this needs blocking. I doubt any vandals are willing to pay money to engage in vandalism. It's the free proxies, which anyone can access, which are problematic. --bainer (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Proxies such as this are ok because you have to pay. The problem ones are free proxies, i.e. anyone can access it. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There are (as I understand it) two other problems with open proxies. One GFDL which requires some form of attribution. I think this proxy server lacks that problem. Second if users are making sockpuppets or placing defamatory or libelous material (or related problems) we need checkuser data. Therefore a non-free open proxy is still highly problematic. This is a serious policy issue that needs to be addressed. JoshuaZ 02:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I'd just like to have the following clarified. I've heard it discussed before on IRC, but I haven't actually found any policy that implicitly allows or encourages it:

If a user has requested to exercise their meta:Right to vanish and have their talk pages deleted/protected, is it a good practice to indefinitely block their accounts to:

1. Protect against account hijacking or prevent further misuse
2. Force them to request an unblock thus giving an administrator the opportunity to restore their talk page history.
3. Provide a record that such user claimed to have left the project on a specified date
4. Discourage theatrics because "quiting" would be taken much more seriously.

If the above procedure is indeed commonly accepted, could we please have it codified somewhere? Thanks,  Netsnipe  ►  04:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This makes a lot of sense. I have seen at least three problematic users vanish and then decide to return leaving the previous material deleted. The correct place to put this is on the village pump policy page I imagine (and since right to vanish is cross-projects this may need to be brought up on meta for among other things making sure that individual projects can have different versions of how the right is implemented. ) JoshuaZ 05:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of discussion around meta:Right to vanish -- see this discussion on VP (policy) for example that included Jimbo Wales. --Ben Houston 06:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the VP link. I've cross-posted my proposal there. --  Netsnipe  ►  07:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure it does much really. For (1) if it get hijacked they can do (2) so the hijack is just a little more drawn out. For (2) general opinion seems to have been not to delete talk pages but just blank them. For (3) not sure why we need such a record. --pgk 06:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Three makes sense so if a user repeatedl claims they are vanishing and then shows up again we can take their vanishing less seriously. JoshuaZ 14:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess I don't take people vanishing that seriously anyway, people have all sorts of reasons for wanting to leave and later return. --pgk 17:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I was going through what links here on my talk page, and there appears to be a problem with what one person claimed about me. User:XClyn is an imposter of me. I despise that someone would make those harsh statements, and use my name as a scapegoat in order to benefit their views, at my expense. But know, that this person was not me, and is not affiliated with me in any way shape or form. I would appreciate it if you would block the user indefinately for something else, but not as my imposter, because it makes me look bad for something I would have never done. You know my nature by now, and know how I operate, and it is clear that this is not me at all. I dont use vulgar language, and I find it pathetic that someone would become an imposter of me just to make me look bad. So, please at least know that this was not me, and I have no clue who it was that made these statements to Will Beback, and then reverted them (while using my name as the signature). But, I just do not want to be affiliated with a baffoon like this user in any way. Sincerely, User:Ericsaindon2

Please stop editing...you're just resetting the ban. Now it's four days longer than it was before. Hbdragon88 07:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ericsaindon2 did have a point though, XClyn did indeed place {{sockpuppetproven|Ericsaindon2}} on his own userpage.[40] I've removed it now. --  Netsnipe  ►  07:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

He coudl have just emailed an admin about it though. Now the ban is five days longer than it would ahve been. Hbdragon88 04:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I happened upon Execution by single firearm tonight, and the history of the page looks suspect to me. I was unsure if this was a 3rr vio, or even a possible edit war between users MarkV, AbuAmir, and a few anonymous ip addresses, but figured an admin should probably take a closer look at it. Autopilots 08:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR violations have their own subpage. WP:AN/3RR --tjstrf 09:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

A simple solution presents itself, given that this term scores precisely four Google hits, all four on Wikipedia. Guy 13:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll speedy the talk page too since it is now orphaned. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow! O.K., that was an unexpected response. Though I think I understand your reasons for deleting that article, I can't say that I wholly agree with them. I felt that it was a noteworthy article, but felt that the circumstances of the editing were suspect, prompting me to post my concerns here. Therefore, I humbly request an undeletion (Execution by firing squad is an example of why to keep the article) and put a request cleanup tag on it. Autopilots 07:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

“

Our belief is that since every post is attributed to an individual, is time-stamped and is retained in the database, the foundation itself is not publishing that content. We view individual editors as responsible and have prominently displayed on every edit page that individuals are responsible for their own contributions. We take the position that we are a service provider and are protected under §230. We try to emphasize to everyone who posts that they, as publishers, have responsibility for what they add. — Brad Patrick, September 7, 2006

”

We try to emphasize to everyone who posts that they, as publishers, have responsibility for what they add. [41] Uh, no we don't? I've been here for three years and I'm hearing today that I'm considered a "publisher" with all the legal responsibility that entails. This would never have occurred to me. Should we add something somewhere prominent in MediaWiki space? Does someone have a mandate from the Board to publicize this more widely? Haukur 13:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Fully endorse Haukur, that's a very good point. First I've heard of it, too. Brad, you have prominently displayed where on every edit page that individuals are responsible for their own contributions? I'm serious, please go look. Or are you just now about to prominently display, etc...? That would be akin to shouting "You get back in here! I'm shutting the door right now!" after the horse that trotted out of the stable some years ago. Bishonen | talk 13:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC).

Brad's the Foundation attorney. While his statement may be influenced by his relationship with the Foundation, it rings true to me. Even if the Foundation were to be held to be a content provider (which Brad apparently thinks isn't the case), the editors of Wikipedia would be held responsible in law for their own contributions. If you put something libellous on Wikipedia, that doesn't automatically absolve you of responsibility for what you've done. It doesn't make any difference what the Foundation says, this is the law. --Tony Sidaway 17:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well... "You agree to license your contributions " always meant to me that they're my contributions, and I've only granted (GFDL) license to republish or redistribute content. however it may not be obvious to everyone not already a lawyer or familiar with copyright and publishing. ++Lar: t/c 14:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, IANAL, but as you say that says I merely license my contributions. Presumably, the Foundation takes that license and....does somethingthatisnotpublishingbutlooksquitealotlikeit with it. Surely, even in lawyerdom, licensing is not the same as publishing. -Splash - tk 14:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That's quite correct as far as it goes but the issue here isn't a question of copyright. I've always thought that I contribute content which is then published by the Wikimedia Foundation - just like I contribute articles to magazines and they are then published by someone else. Until I stumbled upon the above quote today no-one has told me different. Haukur 14:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The distinction arrises because the Foundation and its agents (through OFFICE) exercises almost no control over what appears on the site. In particular what you post on this site will appear without anyone having approved it, and hence you are solely responsible for that content. Others might come along later and remove what you posted, but that is not the same as the agents of a magazine deciding whether or not something should be printed in the first place. Dragons flight 14:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, okay - who's an agent of the Foundation? (I assume this has some particular legal meaning.) Are you sure that sysops don't qualify as such agents? If I unprotect George W. Bush and it gets vandalized with libel (a real enough example) then I can't be held responsible for the libel as an 'agent'? Haukur 14:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sysops, as a class, are not agents of the Foundation; they are (usually) appointed by the community. In rough terms, agents of the Foundation are those individuals employed or appointed by the Foundation and who are exercising special authority derived from that employment or appointment. This would include Jimbo, Danny, the Board, Brion, the election officials. It may include ArbCom, OTRS, and the Devs. It is unlikely to include sysops, burueacrats, etc. As a sysop you are personally responsible for your actions (so you could be liable if you chose to restore or protect libelous content), but you are not (usually) responsible for the actions of others. Dragons flight 15:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I always assumed this was the case (after reading some discussions about s.230). It is much better that individual contributors are responsible in law for their edits than that the Foundation assumes responsibility when it has no way of preventing defamatory articles. However I've never heard anyone emphasise this point to anybody. The Land 13:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have long assumed this was the case as well, and have said so on a number of occasions. I'm also pretty sure I've seen similar quotes from the foundation in the distant past, though I wouldn't know where just now. (Haukur, where does this particular one come from?) However, I would agree with the above comments that this is not necessarily clear to the average user. Dragons flight 14:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Link's up there but here it is again: [42] Haukur 14:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I saw the link was an external site and skipped past it. Thanks. Dragons flight 14:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If I am the publisher, is someone else allowed to remove it? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what happens when your published materials are licensed under the GFDL. Dragons flight 15:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia-Watch.org/wikitort.html deserves some credit for looking closely at this issue. 68.90.179.78 15:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this is the law which protects public internet forums, chat rooms, etc. from being liable for something that someone does in that forum/chat room/etc. I remember when blogging on LiveJournal was half-of-the-time called "publishing" - pretty much posting anything for public access seems to be "publishing". I think it's an important concept for the Internet to separate the infrastructure from those who abuse the infrastructure - I wouldn't see why Wikipedia wouldn't work the same way. The provider is already damaged enough by the abuse, so they shouldn't be doubly injured through legal troubles on top of that. —AySz88\^-^ 19:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The Lost episodes mediation has been at a standstill for about a month now. The mediator, ^demon, took a wikibreak in the middle of the mediation without handing it off to anybody else. Two notes were left on Essjay's talk page (here and here) and two follow ups have been posted, but he has ignored all of them. I, along with everyone else involved in this mediation, would appreciate it if somebody could do something to get it moving along again. Thanks. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 14:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Still no response to this, and the current discussion is at a standstill (and at a pinnacle of frustration for all involved, unfortunately). Could we please get some kind of momentum back in terms of mediation? Thanks, PKtm 22:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Same sentiments as Jtrost and PKtm really. Our mediation has been left out in the cold, and this issue is tiring. I hope an admin will take what we're asking seriously. -- Wikipedical 22:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed. We've been discussing things since July (and the disagreement started months earlier than that). It had been our hope that a mediator would help finally resolve things, but with Demon AWOL, the frustration level is very high right now, especially because the next season is starting in a few weeks. A mediator (or even an uninvolved admin) would be greatly appreciated. --Elonka 23:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

How do I give a Barnstar Award to a entire Wikipedia Unit, such as this one, for helping Wikipedia become a better place, to thank the unit for its valued assisstance to me many times ? Have I done so ? Appreciate the assisstance. Martial Law 22:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No need, just a simple thank you is enough. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Xosa2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) requested assistance from me concerning the indefinite blocking of his/her account Xosa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) by User:SlimVirgin. SlimVirgin appears to have indef. blocked this account as being "almost certainly" Zephram Stark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Now for all I know her block is correct but without being familar with the details of Zephram Stark's blocking I don't see where a case has been made that Xosa (talk · contribs) is indeed a sock. In response to a content RfC User:Xosa became involved in a content dispute with User:SlimVirgin on the new anti-Semitism article so an unproven case of sockpuppetry could be a bit improprietous. Due to Xosa's request and the possibility of a "conflict of interest" blocking, would another administrator kindly take a look at this and just verify that this indefinite blocking was correct? Thanks. (→Netscott) 11:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The original RFAr is here. And here is information on the long term abuse that Zephram Stark has engaged in. Nothing immediately jumps out... but it could be a clever puppet. Bear in mind that nothing comes up in the RFCU archives, so the ident is likely to be on the basis of editing patterns or personal emails sent to SlimVirgin. Captainktainer * Talk 11:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

A user has created user-name Wikipedia.org@bulk.pompom.se which seems to be objectionable. I am a new editor so I am not sure where to report. Forgive me if this is the wrong place, but it seems nobody noticed this name so far. India Gate 12:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked the user. Thanks for letting us know. —Mets501 (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

As I peterol, is this the place where I should report such names. Or is there a better place. I need your guidance as I am still very new to the Wiki. India Gate 03:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No, report to WP:AIV for offensive names. alphaChimp^(talk) 03:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have started a list of things that are frequently proposed and have already been debated to death (e.g. "we need content warnings" or "protect the article on the main page") along with brief indications on why these are not good ideas. Feedback would be appreciated, as would more perennial issues that people have dealt with. >Radiant< 15:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. Mackensen (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Would this be any different than Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals)? —Mets501 (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is a concise list, and the part on the village pump is an ongoing discussion. >Radiant< 16:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, looks good to me then! —Mets501 (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Very useful.--Andeh 12:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That Numa Numa guy is now cashing in on his fame and launching some kind of viral/youtube style ringtone service or something. His new project New Numa probably is notable enough compared to the amount of crap we have in the webcomic section, but it looks planted by the company backing him, and might be more suitable for a merge. I first became aware of this after spotting New Numa's press section on their website, http://www.newnuma.com/news.html , where you'll see that 2 of the 3 links respond to Wikipedia articles. You'll also find that User:Jaeter (Jaeter is the company behind New Numa) has uploaded a nice GFDL image of Brolsma at Image:GaryBrolsmaNewNumaJaeterCorporationOffcialPressRelease.jpg, in which he wears a nice fat tshirt promoting the new venture. So, what do you think? - Hahnchen 15:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

prod and if that doesn't work AFD.Geni 18:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

The page Lottery contains the text "http://www.lotto.pl (This site cannot be a link because the Wikimedia software declares it a spam site and will not allow the page to save if it is a link.)". Assuming that this site isn't spam, I thought I would bring this to your attention so that it may be fixed. I don't speak polish so can't comment. 84.9.83.105 17:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that the link is clearly allowed given that it auto linked, so will edit the page myself.

And BTW, I've now got an account. Reformed Vandal 17:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to invite other administrators to add this article to their watchlists until October. It appears to me that any criticism of the proposal is being removed whether it conforms to the WP:NOR and WP:NPOV policies or not. Please check the history to see if you agree. There is a referendum coming up in Panama next month and so it is important that this article treats both sides fairly. That's why i think we should collectively pay some attention to the article over the next month. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What those reversions are saying is that your agenda is a little too obvious in the content you add. Consider debating the issue on Talk instead. Guy 21:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I haven't added any content. It's others who are being reverted but apart from that, yes, exactly. Talk page debate is needed rather than what is happening just now. However I have a feeling it's only going to happen if we start taking an interest in what the current editors are doing there. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

On August 29, 2006, Bobby Boulders, a vandal indefinitely banned from Wikipedia, nominated the Counter-Vandalism Unit for deletion, using the sockpuppet User:Dr Chatterjee -- see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (second nomination) and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr Chatterjee. The Counter-Vandalism Unit was speedily deleted by Drini as a result of Bobby Boulders' MFD nomination, and arguments against the existence of the Counter-Vandalism Unit made by Bobby Boulders, using User:Dr Chatterjee and other sockpuppets. This action was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit, and Bobby Boulders' MFD nomination was relisted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (third nomination). Although it has now been revealed that this MFD nomination was initiated by an indefinitely banned vandal who admitted that he initiated the nomination process and argued against the Counter-Vandalism Unit in a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (third nomination) was not closed as a speedy keep. Indeed, this MFD discussion remains active, even after MFD nominations made a day later, such as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:City Naming Strawpoll (US), were closed. Since Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (third nomination) was initiated and argued for by a banned vandal for the purpose of disruption, and since a strong supermajority of established users have recommended keeping the Counter-Vandalism Unit, it would seem advisable to close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (third nomination), thereby ending Bobby Boulders' disruption of the Counter-Vandalism Unit's project page. Continuing to maintain this MFD discussion initiated by Bobby Boulders seems to facilitate and encourage trolling/vandalism by this banned user. John254 19:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Can't see the harm in letting the discussion continue without drumming-up a speedy close. The CVU will be kept. So let's have the full authority of a keep behind it and WP:DENY the nominator the ants-running-around-a-crumpled-mound that they seek from us. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not requesting "a speedy close". In practice, MFD nominations are ordinarily closed after five days -- see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The BYC, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Earth, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:City Naming Strawpoll (US). However, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (third nomination) has been running for over seven days. It is high time that we end this disruptive MFD nomination, and firmly establish that the Counter-Vandalism Unit will be kept. John254 20:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that MFD's usually run for five to eight days. The intro to MfD says that "Items sent here are usually discussed for eight days," but as you noted some discussions are closed after five. I think it's probably a good idea to give the discussion every second it's 'entitled' to. No matter what the decision, there are going to be a lot of people who won't agree with it, and the last thing anyone needs is for the page to go through another deletion review because it was closed 'early.' It'll be over in around 24 hours, anyway. -- Vary | Talk 21:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to use the username Reformed Vandal, which has been blocked because of WP:USERNAME. There are quite a few ways of going about this, so I would like to solicit advice from anyone using this noticeboard. I have given my three most favoured methods, but would love to hear of other plans.

Please assume for the sake of this discussion that I am absolutely, positively, dead set on using the name - because I am.

Methods:

1. File RFC or similar, pointing out that although WP:USERNAME forbids keywords with 'Vandal' in the title, there is an existance of a much more imporant rule, namely: Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. Clearly Reformed Vandal will not be a username that will cause trouble to any English-speaking human. Therefore it is within the spirit of both Wikipedia in general and the Username policy in paticular that I should be allowed to keep this name. This is my favourite option.
2. Push for explicit modification of the username rules to allow potentially controversial usernames with community consensus (which I believe I should get for this paticular name).
3. Try to make myself an exception by some means. This is certainly my least favoured option.

Your thoughts?

RVTA 20:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Usernames which include the word "vandal" are properly considered to be inappropriate for editing on Wikipedia. If a user is a "reformed vandal", they are well advised to avoid disclosure of this fact. John254 20:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is that 'proper'? I can understand why something like "Vandal - the vandal on wheels!!!!" would be banned, but I see no reason for a blanket ban. As I have no interest in wikipolitics, I feel free to reveal what I like, as I do not have anything to fear from the consequences. I fully understand why in pragmatic terms it may be unwise to reveal the fact (given the temperments of some of the more vocal admins here), but I feel I have to - and that includes the username (plus the username is memorable, which I like). Thanks for your contribution though. RVTA 20:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would a legitimate editor, seeking to expand Wikipedia, want to refer to a past history of vandalism? Why would such a username be important other than to validate the "ex"-vandal: requiring us all to judge every edit against his/her previous vandalism and leaving us all open to accusations of failing to WP:AGF the moment the user turned on us and started borderline vandalising? If a former vandal had legitimately turned to positive editing, they would, of course, create a new account that gave no suggest of their previous behaviour and would never mention it again. Human nature. Statistically, more than one current admin would fall under this category. But a vandal wishing to parade the fact they were previously a vandal? What would that mean? ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite. Being a reformed vandal is something which will become less significant with every good edit, why be lumbered with a username you will later regret? My children have boringly conventional names for much the same reason :-) Choose a neutral username and then say you are a reformed vandal on your userpage. Guy 21:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I will address these points if you really want me to (as I don't want to seem to be evading questions) - but I am primarily looking for information/guidance on the username issue.

One thing I will say: I am happy to be judged more harshly, even with a zero tolerance policy. I am also happy to give away my real identity to a trustworthy admin if that helps. RVTA 21:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

On the username issue: the policy at WP:USERNAME has an "eye of the beholder" clause. So, yes, you may be blocked from editing under a name that another editor finds offensive, because another editor finds that name offensive. That's what the policy says, so you need to take any issues up with the policy, not the editor who blocked you. In other news: yes, I would like the questions I asked answering. I'd be very interested to hear your opinions. ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be option 2 then?

The username would not 'validate' me - I can not envisage a situation in which, in practice, I would be shown more leeway - if anything the converse is true. However, I have offered to have a voluntary zero tolerance policy placed on me to alleviate this concern. Your description of human nature is simply correct - there are many historical cases of poachers proudly turning game keeper, again I can provide cites if you like. As for the meaning, I suppose it must be related to what generally drives people towards guilty conscience type confessions, where one feels more comfortable having oneself, warts and all, on display at all times. I think the meaning is in there somewhere, but I am no psychologist. RVTA 22:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition to this, I suppose I'm motivated by what seems to be injustness of the username policy. I do not blame anyone involved at all for this - the problems caused seem to be accidental but I believe that it can be improved upon. RVTA 22:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Enough. You don't get to vandalise and then come here and wikilawyer about our policies. Go forth and edit constructively – then once you’re contributing usefully perhaps you’ll earn the right to a hearing. Right now, you’re looking a lot like a troll, and I eat trolls for dinner. --Doc 23:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You've also banned several non trolls for trolling. Anyway, this is neither wikilawyering nor trolling, it's asking clearly for advice. RVTA 00:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that one more 'non troll' banned 'for trolling' :) Night, night. --Doc 01:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What the hell? Power-tripping much, there? PurplePlatypus 03:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Having vandal in your username is ridiculous and will likely cause unneccasary work for rc patrollers.--Andeh 12:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to go about this in a more 'constructive' manner, so this section can be archived. I won't forget the useful advice I got from pretty much everyone on the noticeboard, but I will try to forgive the attitude by Dr. G - from my years as a vandal tbh he was very good at blocking vandal accounts; definitely in violation of good faith, and certainly stopping genuine contributers (I know of at least 8) but also stopping a lot more real troll/vandal accounts (at least an order of magnitude more - just like Curps/Cryptoderk/Lucky 6.9/etc). Although I have quite a few issues with the current priorities of the Wikipedia project, I'd like to record my genuine appreciation for how admins and others have treated me over the last few days. 84.9.83.105 23:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Tchadienne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Ya ya ya ya ya ya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are all self-admittedly the same user. Not sure if anything needs doing right now, but this does look a lot like a troll at the moment. Guy 20:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless the user is hard-banned (ie, we reject all edits from them on principle) or is using sockpuppets abusively (there's no crime against socks, just their use abusively) then there's nothing we can do. We must WP:AGF on the above. If any one of the accounts is breaking an ArbCom resolution, or is being used abusively, then all can be blocked... although confirmation from the puppeteer is always better than confirmation from the puppets - the puppets generally being distrusted already. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a checkuser I can confirm that they're all the same user. At the moment Ya ya has been blocked for disruption and FSF is openly evading the block. Mackensen (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If they are openly evading the block, and the block is for disruption, and they are being disruptive, then they should be blocked. Clearly and now. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

At some point the assumption of good faith has to run out. All three editors have a long history of blocks for civility violations, personal attacks, and edit warring. I am blocking Tchadienne and Ya⁶ as disruptive sockpuppets. I am also blocking Freestylefrappe for a week for running disruptive socks and block evasion. If he would like to use one of the other accounts, I'd be pleased to block FSF indef and put the short block on a different account. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

As a first step, I blocked FSF to the end of Ya ya ya's block. Feel free to extend. Tchadienne is unused since August, I indef-blocked that. Guy 22:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've extended the socks to indefinite blocks; I've left your block of FSF alone. If he doesn't get the point, I would recommend a much longer subsequent block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

And I blocked the IP he used today to coincide with the FSF block length. NoSeptember 22:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd humbly suggest that throwing the "proven sockpuppet" tags on User:Tchadienne is a little gratuitous, see See [43] and [44] for the last two AN/I threads on this topic, where it's been long admitted by freestylefrappe himself that KI and Tchadienne were new accounts for the same user. I say new accounts and not sockpuppets: other than the block-evasion aspects (which I do not try to minimize), he has not used the accounts to my knowledge in any significant simultaneous way. Anyway, if people making decisions here could please have a look at the links I've provided there, it would be good background. Thanks. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Folks chill. The heinous 'block evade' today was to point out vandalism ("blah blah blah") which I had overlooked when I protected a page. If that's 'evading a block to be disruptive' then I encourage all users to engage in 'disruption' of that sort. Further, he has disclosed each of those accounts himself without there ever having been any need for a checkuser to do so. Not to say that there haven't been other problems (incivility, personal attacks, et cetera), but let's try to stick to those and not invent ones that don't exist. --CBD 23:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not as clear cut as you indicate. Many edits were made after the block, the one you mention was the most useful one, not the only one. Also, while it is true that disclosure of who he is has often happened before checkuser, it seems to always be after he runs into disruption problems (when I assume he knows it is time to create yet another anonymous account). Remember, KI ran for adminship without revealing the FSF connection. Removing the tags and having the accounts redirect to his "current" account, whatever it is, is fine by me. Using a single account, with full disclosure of who he is, seems a reasonable thing to require for this user. NoSeptember 23:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting to evade a block is, in my opinion, a fairly clear third-rail activity. If "But, but, but, I had a really good reason for evading my block" becomes an acceptable excuse for this sort of disruption, we may as well all pack it up and stop editing now. Nandesuka 23:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it 'sockpuppeting' when you disclose who you are? I wouldn't think so. Block evasion yes. Sockpuppeting, no. That implies subterfuge... which isn't on the menu here. Evading blocks is bad, but I hardly think we need to "pack it up and stop editing now" if someone isn't crucified for saying, 'There is vandalism over here and I couldn't tell you about it any other way because you protected my talk page'. --CBD 23:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't recall that he ran for admin as KI, but I assume that was after the FSF had been desysoped? If so, I'm not sure that he should have been required to disclose it... so long as it wasn't an attempt to get two admin accounts. As to sticking to one account... I think it would certainly be in the user's best interest, but I don't think anyone has ever shown that two of these accounts ever 'voted together' or were used to 'evade 3RR' together or... anything other than complaining about blocks on other manifestations. As I said, lots of problems... but I don't think sockpuppet abuse is really one of them unless I missed some instance of it. --CBD 23:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

FSF was desysopped on Feb 12th, KI started RfA 1 on Feb 19th and started RfA 2 on April 10th. I would hope that disclosing that you have been desysopped by an ArbCom decision is an expected requirement before applying for adminship, don't you? NoSeptember 23:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, FSF also redirected the user page of User:Republitarian to point to his own user page. Is this yet another sock, and should it be retired or not? I note that It's the only FSF account that hasn't ever received a block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering he redirected all other socks to his userpage, ie. KI and others, I would suppose that is his his sockpuppet. — The Future 00:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And by this edit [45] Freestylefrappe openly admits to being Ya ya ya ya ya ya, KI, Tchadienne. As well as to being the users Republitarian and User:NOBS. — The Future 01:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Brodycloss moved Cast members of Laguna Beach tp ==Talan Torriero==, one of the characters on the show. To me, at least, it's a pretty obvious case of vandalism, and I'd undo it, but I have no idea how to safely undo a page move. Thanks. -- ArglebargleIV 23:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• I took care of it. All better. :) – ClockworkSoul 23:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you! -- ArglebargleIV 17:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Basically, this account seems to have been created to vandalize the article David Quinn (actor). Round about the end of the school year last year there was a minor controversy surrounding that article. The new user duplicated the talk page and user page of the other user. Plus their only contribution besides their user page was the above mentioned article, and their only edit was to reinstate a non verifiable sentence that another single use account added.TheRingess 00:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's either a mistake or an impostor. I blocked User:Midnight TOKer, let's see what it has to say for itself. Guy 10:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

User "IrishGuy" insists on deleting comments; this has happened to several users over the course of the last week. I am not alone. This is Vandalism according to wikipedia policies. Despite warnings, he persists. Please do something to help preserve wikipedia.

an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A75.8.108.201&diff=74816340&oldid=74815940

The comments I deleted on my own talk page were abusive comments from annoyed users whose article was deleted under AfD. This is well within the parameters of WP:TALK which states: Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings. Additionally, the user who posted this has been banned multiple times today for harassment and vandalism. IrishGuy ^talk 01:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It happened again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A75.8.108.201&diff=74819025&oldid=74818455

Nothing was erased on the page in question by myself, only by IrishGuy. I have never been banned from wikipedia and do not appreciate the libelous accusation. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else? Still, this does not exuse your vandalism of my comments. Administrators, I implore your to take decisive action against this vandal. Thank you.

Actually, neither of those link show me removing anything. This link, however, does show you removing a comment and claiming that I am responsible for removing comments. Also, your first edit is identical to the edits of other blocked users: [46], [47], [48]. So yes, you have been blocked numerous times today. Please stop harassing me. IrishGuy ^talk 01:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought I'd come by and say what I've seen. Irishguy has just been reverting nuisance messages, and I believe reverting the removal of legitimate warnings on sockpuppet IPs. 75.8.108.201 has a track record of leaving miscellaneous unsigned comments on talk pages, and then (for some unknown reason) removing or tampering with the {{Unsigned}} tags. Since being told to stop their actions, 75.8.108.201 and suspected sockpuppets have attacked Irishguy (and now several other editors who've interviened in this case) by doing things like vandalising his User and User talk page. Also makes some wild accusations, such as Irish 'removing' messages in a previous edit and how 75.8.108.201 was going to be warning him shortly via the edit note. In that case, Irish was simply reverting the tampering with {{Unsigned}} --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 09:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Anon blocked for trolling. Nothing to see here, move along now... Guy 09:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that this 75.8.107.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has done some recent vandalism too. Ryūlóng 10:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Just another user trying to make life hard for admins, nothing new here. Basically per JzG.--Andeh 12:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Trying to create an account with username "Sergei" fails with error "Username entered already in use". But there is no user/talk/contribs page for Sergei. I'd like to register as Sergei, because it is my real name. Is there something that can be done about that? 213.148.24.18 08:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That username is taken, you can always tell by typing in the user page (User:Sergei), and if the 'User contributions' button is in the toolbox, the name is taken. There was discussion at Wikipedia:Delete unused username after 90 days about the subject so you might have better luck with it in the future. - Bobet 09:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You (if you're reading this thread) could also register a variation, Sergei1 or SergeiX or whatever. Newyorkbrad 20:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course. I wonder now will script or whatever from Bug 6614 be ever executed. The bug looks abandoned with the last comment dated July 23. That's sad :(. 213.148.24.18 07:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Fred Bauder blocked Etaonsh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for gross incivility, making an ongoing request for arbitration moot. I'd just like to register the fact that if he had not blocked, I would have. This user has a habit of calling others "nazis" in edit summaries, and of including uncited and highly biased content into articles. There being few if any redeeming edits, a discretionary block is entirely reasonable. I'm guessing Mgm would also have endorsed this. So: user indef-blocked, bringing here so that everyone knows and so that if we hear about further nonsense on Emil Kraepelin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) we'll know who it is and what to do about it. Guy 10:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Etaonsh was the username of the user who filed the RFAr with londheart as his signature. My comment in the RFAr should say how I thought about this user. I recommended the Arbcom to take the case, if they decide to block immediately, I'm fine with it. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/January 3:

Please, can somebody (an administrator) add the interwikis to this kind of templates (selected anniversaries templates) if it is possible? Only the month of january yet. I would do it myself but it's impossible. The interwiki of this day is [[eu:Txantiloi:Urtarrila 3]] and the next days are similar; only changes the number ([[eu:Txantiloi:Urtarrila 4]], [[eu:Txantiloi:Urtarrila 5]]... ...[[eu:Txantiloi:Urtarrila 31]]). It seems that bots do not run with administrator rights, so a bot cannot do that task. Thanks in advance. If there are any trouble, my talk page is always open for questions. Berria · (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on continually doing these edits by hand, so does anyone else have a suggestion on how we can do this, or are we too scared to give a bot +sysop strictly for interwiking editprotected pages and have it switched on only when required? --  Netsnipe  ►  13:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Would it make sense to include a new search utility run by users?For instance,all relevent search results from search engines(google,yahoo..) could be added by the user along with contextual information.This would help other users looking for such a link. Are there any copyright implications in posting links found from commercial search engines.I think this would be a good source for non-commercial search that users have found useful.

Regards MikeSam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.135.197.101 (talk • contribs) .

If this was to be a WikiMedia project, Meta would be a better place to propose it. And, yes, search companies do hold copyright on their results. And this idea, in part, already exists as dmoz (not a WikiMedia site). But keep up the generation of ideas and thanks! ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm, just curious; how does Dogpile ([49]) stay around? (or do they pay for the service?) —AySz88\^-^ 18:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, a metasearch engine isn't infringing the database rights of the original database so long as the originating database is credited. This would be similar to our WP:FU in images. But a search engine that, for instance, provided a frontend for Google results and reported nothing but Google results back, but didn't credit them and had no further use other than to do so would not be fair use. Certainly search engines could ask to be excluded, and meta searches could refuse to do so, but it would all end up in court. But like "fair use" on images, so far it hasn't happened. IANAL. The use of the logos on Dogpile suggests a contract, though. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Database rights are a concept that exists in Europe but which is not mirrored in the US. The US does not allow copyright to be applied to mechanically generated collections or organizations of factual information. If you live in the US you would be entirely within your rights to simply parrot the URLs returned by Google (though you might get in trouble if the presentation of your results stylistically imitated Google, or your actions gave the impression of being sanctioned by them). More likely Google would just block you for running too many queries. I have no idea what specific arrangements Dogpile may have made, however. Dragons flight 19:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi's probation, a remedy imposed in the Aucaman arbitration, has been rescinded by the Arbitration Committee [50].

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe, who has been disruptive since he was desysopped, is limited henceforth to editing from one account [51].

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The AfD for Ex-christian shows that closing consensus was to merge with Apostasy...but that never happened. That was a few months ago. Did something change? IrishGuy ^talk 19:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably nothing changed, but no one ever bothered to do it. Feel free to do the merge yourself. Joyous! | Talk 19:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. IrishGuy ^talk 19:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to be.--Doc 19:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If there's a clear consensus for anything on AfD (other than a delete, and then only for tool-having reasons) then carry out the consensus. Every user should be acting like an admin in general edits, so acting like one in AfD etc is good too. It also proves trustworthiness in tool-having, which is the main criterion (other users' mileage may differ) for being given the tools. When users nominate for a speedy delete, they should be acting as an admin - given a different universe, they would be deleting the article; if something is reported to WP:ANI that can be dealt with without tools, then users should deal with it - given a different universe, they would be dealing with it.

Adminship is all about the tools and nothing whatsoever about anything else. We have useless users and useless admins. We have very good users who are admins and very good users who aren't. We have people who need the tools for what they do here and users who don't need them. Adminship is no big deal. If it's an "admin job" but doesn't need admin tools, then it's an "editor job" - and can and should be done by anyone. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. I merged the content and redirected Ex-Christian to Apostasy. I just didn't want to step on any toes so I wanted to make sure this was something I was legitimately able to do. Thanks. IrishGuy ^talk 20:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Advocate Required In an article i.e. Marwat, there is section for noteable Marwats. Whenever I tried to enter the most noteable personalities, the artcile was reverted, as there are 2-3 who are personally opossite to the tribe of those person whom I mention. I can also provide evidence and proofs of their personal enimity and the reason of deletion. Here, I must tell you that oenof the entries I add is an Ex-President, Ex-Chairmn Senate, Ex-Minister, Ex-Chief Justice of the country. If he is deleted from noteable personalities so who have place in that article God? This clearly proves that the article is always reverted on personal enimity.

• 'Actually' it should have been me to report User: A M. Khan for his consistent vandalizing of the article Marwat. It was in response to my request that an administrator User: RexNL initialized full protection on this page due to his blatant vandalization. This user, who frequently logs on to Wikipedia as an anonymous editor under IP Address User: 203.175.64.10 or as a Sock User: Ghazni Khel has even tried to delete my AFD Tag from an article on Khan Habibullah Khan (as per Wikipedia’s policy I warned him for doing so on his talk page). He has also tried to become personal with me by inviting me to chat with him on MSN (he provided his MSN ID batgram786@hotmail.com and which I ignored for obvious reasons). Additionally he has been inconsiderate of all other editors who have voted Delete on a AFD Debate on Akhtar Munir Khan and had tried to pass personal remarks. This user was repeatedly asked by me to provide sources of his preposterous claims but he never came up with any. Finally as per Wikipedia's policy I merged/redirected his two line entry on Mina Khel (a sub clan of Marwat) with the main article of Marwat but he recreated the same and which is now pending for a decision by the editors for deletion/merging/redirecting. He was also requested to discuss his additions on the discussion page on Marwat but he turned personal. He has been consistently trying to produce vanity pages and it is my humble opinion to block this user from Wikipedia. -- Marwatt 23:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Copied & Pasted from the WP:AMARQ page. This is more of an "admin needed" that anything else. -Royalguard11(Talk)(Desk) 00:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This proposal calls for a template to be added each debate in order to categorise it. {{afd2}} was edited in order to carry this out, however it was decided to place the categorisation template above the heading. The result of this is that when one clicks the edit link beside a heading on an AfD day page (which I presume is how most admins begin to close debates), one brings up section 1 of the debate page (everything under the heading), but not section 0 (the lead) which is where the template is.

The end result is that for every AfD started between 00:25 (UTC) 2 September and 02:22 (UTC) 11 September, closers will have to use the edit link from the AfD day page, then click the "project page" tab in the top left (or the "cancel" link below the edit window), and then click the edit tab again to edit the whole page.

Note that this proposal has been implemented without updating any of the documentation for closing admins either, so if someone would like to do that that'd be great. --bainer (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That is a very good point, and explains why I didn't notice the categories. I use AFD Helper to nominate and click the header edit link to close, as you say, which also means the article name appears redlinked in the RC list if the article is deleted, which is nicely informative. Guy 12:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It won't break the system if you change {{afd2}} (in fact, that's already been done) to reorder the tag (saying this as tech author of the system), and that would probably make it easier for closers. (I'd forgotten the way that AfD's edit links worked, and thought it would be more visible above the title...oops...) I've already created a bot to detag any AfDs that admins missed and am awaiting approval, and it's hardly an urgent problem anyway. --ais523 12:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place to request this, but could an admin take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game junkie and make a decision on it? It's been open for over a week, and after discounting the sizable number of meatpuppet votes, there appears (at least in my view) a consensus to delete. Is there's a reason this one hasn't been touched yet (sheer size of the debate, someone more experienced doesn't feel there's a consensus, or some other problem)? —NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 04:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Closed. Naconkantari 04:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much. —NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 04:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a heads up: I'm sure I can't be the only one that dislikes the arbitrary {{talkheader}} and the clutter it adds to talk pages. We have a Mediawiki message available to us (MediaWiki:Talkpagetext) which is only displayed when a talk page is edited, making it the ideal place to store such a message - why have thousands of transclusions in the database when we can use this message? Currently however that message is empty. Please join me at MediaWiki talk:Talkpagetext to discuss implementing this message space and getting rid of talkheader. --kingboyk 08:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It will be pretty obvious here that I am sick and tired of this particular argument, nonetheless the other party has asked for an external opinion, so here goes.

A website, fisheaters dot com, was spam blacklisted, see User:JzG/Fisheaters. This followed a brief but intense edit war by the site owner, then using User:Used2BAnonymous, over a large number of links to her site. Since then the site owner has spent many hours arguing for the blacklisting to be lifted. During this time I have no evidence that she has added actual content, her sole intent appears to be to add links, not information. I can't see much evidence of adding of the site owner actual content before then, either, although she asserts that she did so, because for most of her time on Wikipedia she has not used an account, for whatever reason.

The final catalyst for blacklisting was the addition of a link to a mirror of a document which is hosted and freely available on the Vatican website, which is the original and authoritative source for that document. This was added (as were most of the links) by an anon, whether the site owner or one of her forum members or some other person I cannot tell. The blacklisting was approved and subsequently confirmed several times based largely on my evidence - the meta spam blacklist talkpage is not I think often visited by anyone other than a few admins and people trying to get thier sites delisted.

Fsheaters is a Traditionalist Catholic site, supporting a minority point of view within the Roman Catholic Church. It is not the official site of any known organisation. It is not linked with any identified authority. The largest "trad" Catholic organisation is the Society of St. Pius X, and we link to their site on various articles. There are a small number of historied editors who share this minority position, and they are active on the article Traditionalist Catholic. There are occasional amusing moments of dispute on articles such as Papal inauguration, where it is asserted that the failure to take a supposed Papal oath renders recent primacies invalid. But this is an aside. Suffice it to say that this site, although it contains some good content, espouses a minority POV. Some at least of the good content is available elsewhere.

As far as I can tell the site is run by a single, unidentified individual (or perhaps a small group of individuals), with no known or provable authority, which supports a minority viewpoint, which was linked to a very large number of articles by the site owner and members of the site's forums, where the site owner conducted a bitter edit war over removal of said links, where an agreement to "a few" links was used as an opportunity to constantly reinterpret "few" upwards, where links were added with misleading link titles (e.g. Catholic view of foo, not Traditionalist Catholic view of foo) and with misleading edit summaries. I can find no credible evidence that the site owner intends to beenfit the project by adding information, only links to her site. Discussions tend to follow a similar pattern of her repeating that she did not know that what she was doing was wrong, that WP:EL did not say avoid links to your own site when they were originally added, that I am an evil rouge admin, that I bear a grudge, etc. etc. And generally they descend to trolling once she realises that endlessly repeating the same arguments is not going tohave a different result where I am concerned. Apparently this is founded not in my well-known disloike of spammer, but in some personal animus towards this minority group of Catholics of whom I had never heard prior to the December 2005 edit war.

Nonetheless, she has requested yet again that her site be removed, and has asked that some "independent third party" review the request. Since I am now sick to the back teeth of the endless argumentation and offsite attacks, such as www.fisheaters.com/evangelize.html and www.fisheaters.com/wikipedia2.html, I would like to know if perhaps I am being unreasonable, or alternatively whether there is more widespread support and we can send her packing. The debate is at m:Talk:Spam blacklist#Fish_Eaters.28dot.29com. Guy 14:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• If they can't keep a discussion civil, but instead resort to off-wiki attacks, I think that's clear evidence they're just spamming, not trying to improve the wiki. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I made a bit of a mess. I saw that the page for The Covenant discussed a group of science fiction characters, and I thought that since a movie of that name is currently in theaters, that title should go to a redirect page. I moved The Covenant to The Covenant (video game), where I think it is now, but when I looked at the "What Links Here" page (yes, I should have done that first), I saw that The Covenant (Halo) had previously existed, and in fact still is pointed to by many links. However, I cannot now move the main page to The Covenant (Halo) because the redirect pages no longer have only one line in the page history (this is also my fault, as I had the erroneous idea that moving The Covenant (Halo) to a temporary name The Covenant (Halo1) would make room for the main page to go there; I see now that this was entirely mistaken).

I don't want to do cut-and-paste moves, but I don't think I have the authority to clean up the mess I've made. The result I would think is best is that 1) The Covenant (video game) be moved to The Covenant (Halo), 2) the temporary page The Covenant (Halo1) be deleted altogether, and 3) The Covenant contain a redirect to Covenant (disambiguation). I apologize for my bumbling. --Tisco 14:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting the right assortment of tags on the page to get the move done (I'm not an admin). --ais523 14:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Now tagged. It seems that this sort of thing happens often enough that there's an assortment of speedy tags ready for just such a situation (I've used G6 and G7 here). --ais523 14:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(By the way, cut-and-paste moves would have made the situation even worse, because then the history would have to be figured out as well.) --ais523 14:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I at least knew that much. :) --Tisco 17:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The move has now been sorted out. --ais523 15:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've sorted all this out now. --bainer (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Looks great. --Tisco 17:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

On September 9, 2006, I closed the CFD debate for this category as "speedy keep"

due to unanimous consensus at a recent DRV to retain categories which index articles that contain unreferenced material, as a result of which this category was undeleted. No justification has been offered for renominating this category for deletion so soon after the DRV result.

Apparently dissatisfied with the representativeness of the editors who participated in the deletion review, Casper Claiborne unclosed the discussion, and wrote this on my talk page. Since the deletion review recently resolved this issue, and since having categories repeatedly nominated for deletion, deleted, then restored as a result of deletion reviews disrupts the usability of these categories, reclosing of the CFD debate for Category:Articles with unsourced statements might be advisable. John254 15:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. More needless disputation. It's not going to get consensus for deletion, so I closed it again. Guy 17:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This is something that came up at WP:TE (and I don't have anyone in particular in mind, just the general idea)... we've got the occasional community ban sometimes discussed on this noticeboard. So how would people feel about community probation? It's a bit like ArbCom probation - the intent is to allow us a lightweight way to tell User:Some User to stay away from Some Article for the next month or so. This would be useful if that Someone was in general a useful editor but is going bonkers on one particular subject. Radiant! 17:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What is WP:TE? More granular community remedies (probations, paroles, article and topical bans, etc) are going to happen sooner rather than later. We're just waiting for a suitable test case. --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I tried a community probation (on releasing an indefblock) with an editor back in May 2006 that ended up badly (editor is currently again indefblocked) but there wasn't any specific articles that they were banned from as conditions of it. Syrthiss 18:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. We can already do community bans; community probations and community article bans are actually less severe, and could help to keep around good editors who are just incapable of NPOV on a certain narrow topic range. --Cyde Weys 18:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This is already possible. Here's how it works: Admin sees Problem User disrupting an article. Admin tells Problem User to stop disruption. Perfect world: Problem User stops disrupting. Real world: Problem User continues. Admin blocks Problem User. Admin makes offer to Problem User: "stop editing that article and you'll be unblocked". This happens regularly and we don't need to formalise it. If we can avoid formalising, we do. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The only problem is making it stick. Mackensen (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• We don't need a separate policy, it can be included in the blocking or banning policy. A little support of the arbcom in this would probably help. If they support it, there's no need to go to RFAr. I would restrict executing probations to uninvolved admins, after multiple users (unrelated to the subject) have shown they believe the user's editing to be tendentious. Perhaps following an RFC? - Mgm|^(talk) 22:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's clue-based adminship, and I'm all for it. No need to write it down, we know that some people are OK as long as they avoid some subjects, and some people should be politely shown the door. It's only when it's ambiguous that we need ArbCom. The current Arbustoo / Vivaldi dispute, and the Sathya Sai Baba dispute, are good examples: it's not open and shut, and many good-faith edits are involved. The project is pretty mature now, some people are arriving with the intent of causing trouble, and we can see them a mile off. Guy 22:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Something along these lines was proposed by User:Bishonen regarding a user posting on WP:ANI. There was a consensus to ban a user from posting to ANI for a period of time. I don't see why this same logic couldn't be applied elsewhere. (→Netscott) 23:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

She also banned someone from WP:FAC and subpages for a while once. She is a rogue admin and/or ahead of her time. Obviously this is something we can do. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe community-based probations and community-approved compulsory mentorship is a good thing. In my opinion it maybe useful for such users as User:SuperDeng, User:Molobo, User:Nixer etc. as an alternative to the long blocks and permabans. abakharev 23:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I managed to do a bot edit, but I'm not an admin, or a bot, or anything special.

I reverted vandalism on the Nasal mucus page, but my revert doesn't show up in the history. Recalling that adding &bot=1 shows bot edits, I did that myself to make this URL and suddenly my edit shows up. (it's at 02:25 9 September 2006)

I didn't do anything special, no tools, no scripts, no VandalProof, no popups, nothing. I just went to the previous version before the vandalism, hit Edit, filled in the edit summary with rvv and a description, and hit save.

I am mystified as to why that edit only shows in the history when &bot=1 is present. Reswobslc 21:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Both links show the same result for me. Edits by bots do show up in page histories. (e.g. Orphanbot [52]) pgk 21:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Try to bypass your cache or add &action=purge to the end of the URL (though I'm not sure whether page histories have the purge functionality). —AySz88\^-^ 21:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

bot edits are only hidden in special:recent changes. They should always show up in the page history. Thatcher131 (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the cache was it. I didn't realize that refresh could still pull up a cached page and that holding the CTRL key overrides that. Thanks Reswobslc 22:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Intangible and AaronS are placed on probation and may be banned for appropriate periods from any article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing. Should any user placed on Probation under this ruling violate any ban imposed under this decision, they may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Jason Fortuny is the guy who posted a fake personal ad on Craigslist and then put the emails and photos he received in response on ED.[53] I'm rather concerned about elements of the ED page - especially the victims' personal details and photos - making it into the article, considering the following this guy seems to have on ED and LJ. Personally, I'd love to go all rouge and just delete the thing as unencyclopedic, but I don't think it qualifies for a speedy. Anyone disagree, or barring that, anyone mind watchlisting? -- Vary | Talk 04:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I sent it to AFD. Dragons flight 05:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You did right. I nuked it. The WP:BLP concerns are pretty much insurmountable - there is no appropriately neutral and reliable source for an article on this person, and several people on the AfD pointed this out. With several experienced editors in agreement that no copliant article can be compiled from the available sources, killing it before the puppet theatre starts seemed the smart move. Guy 09:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree for now although I think this got mentioned on slashdot. However a mention on slashdot hardly constitues enough reliable sources to write an article anyways and it is hard to see how an essentially internet based phenomenon can count as notable with only one such reference. Between these problems and the WP:BLP issues this was a correct decision. JoshuaZ 00:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really agree with the protection of the page though. The story could still build you see, if say, someone visits Jason with a brick. I think salting the earth may be a bit premature, but it's suitable as a temporary measure until the "drama" dies down. This story has been picked up in Metro[54] BBC[55], and in numerous blogs such as Wired and Waxy.org. - Hahnchen 15:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Salting is overused, though warranted here. I'm sure there's a de-salting procedure in the event something drastic were to change. Newyorkbrad 16:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• What's ED? - Mgm|^(talk) 21:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Encyclopedia Dramatica. Dragons flight 21:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorse the speedy deletion. This was a serious privacy issue for many non-prominent people. Newyorkbrad 00:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 11#Jason_Fortuny - the ED crowd are kicking up the usual fuss. Guy 22:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not connected to ED in any way, and I disagree with the above characterization of the debate on DRV. When I looked for news sources, I found several meeting WP:RS (including BBC News and the Associated Press), providing more than enough information to support a reasonable article about this person. Given that, I think it's entirely appropriate for people to "kick up a fuss" at DRV. If we're concerned about the privacy of the poor bastards who got caught in his sick little trap, then don't put any of their personal information in the article (and apply appropriate punishment to anyone who tries to add it). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• These are about a privacy incident not about a person. We can cover this with a paragraph in an article on online privacy, and that is no problem, but we have no sources about Jason Fortuny, only sources which mention Jason Fortuny in the context of a privacy issue. This is also a perfect example of the proiblems caused by indecent haste to document things on The Internets - the Google index had not even seen those news sources when I searched yesterday. There being no deadline, why not wait and see how it pans out? Guy 08:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• A lack of verifiable info from reliable sources was the main issue raised at the AFD, and now that those sources are available, it seems reasonable to revisit the result of the discussion. If we need sources covering other aspects of Mr. Fortuny's life, there's no harm in adding what we have now and filling in the gaps later as the information becomes available. As for the Google news thing, Google is nice but it's not the be-all and end-all of info-tracking. If an article meets our policies and guidelines, Google's opinion shouldn't really factor into the decision. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've commented at the deletion discussion, to which I would draw attention, and won't repeat myself here -- except to note that if this article were to come back, which I hope it won't, it will have to be continually monitored for privacy and legal issues, possibly by WP:OFFICE. Incivility in some of the comments on the DRV may also warrant admin attention. Newyorkbrad 15:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

William Pietri, one of my favourite purveyors of neutrality and civility in heated situations, has written this up in Internet privacy#Noted_cases. I suggest a redirect and leave it at that for now. Guy 18:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As noted, page will need to be monitored closely for privacy violations. Newyorkbrad 02:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Can some admin please review the harrassment by User:Scribner on my talk page and his repeated allegations that I am a sock of another user. I've kind of been on a hiatus here editing so I don't know why I'm even involved in this. I'd block myself, but I'm sort of involved (though I don't know how). Pepsidrinka 00:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm that this guy is a problem. He is in mediation with User:Publicola over something or other; Publicola is an admitted second account created to push a particular editing style as an "experiment." Scribner is convinced Pepsidrinka is the master account, and that User:Starcare is another sock. A checkuser request was declined; in my opinion based on the request and on a discussion with Scribner on my talk page it was misleadingly filed as well. I tried to explain that even if Pepsidrinka was Publicola's master account, they haven't edited the same things so there is no violation. I would suggest a final warning to desist with a civility block the next step, but as a !admin, I'd rather not warn him without the muscle to back it up. Thatcher131 (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

heh, i'll warn him about it. He needs one. Sasquatch t|c 18:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There is currently quite a backlog of several hundered categories, articles, and images for speedy deletion (including a couple of attack pages). Admin attention would be appreciated. Thanks! Deli nk 15:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Would an administrator do me the favor of blocking my account for a period of one year? Seriously. It would be much appreciated, as I do not need the distraction right now, and I am sorely lacking in moderation. Rohirok 19:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That used to be done with regularity (and some admins used to do it to themselves), but with the increased number of users and the problems with the autoblock, this is rarely done anymore. While other admins may disagree with me, I strongly suggest that you apply self-discipline instead of resorting to a block that may result in collateral damage on other users. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have successfully achieved the desired result by entering a local IP as an entry in the hosts file for en.wikipedia.org. Agathoclea 21:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There is also a Javascript Wikibreak Enforcer that would do the trick. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Constitutional Court of Thailand contains a huge (>250k) pile of information, all in comments, and presumably a copyvio. Any action need taking? Dave 23:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Not any more it doesn't. Nevertheless, what is policy? (See history of that article to see what I mean) Dave 00:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:CP#Instructions. Conscious 11:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• User:Analfuckbaggage articles
• User:Wikipedia articles for analfuckbaggage

Vandalism only accounts, and from the usernames. -Royalguard11(Talk)(Desk) 00:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Mets501 (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Use WP:AIV next time, this is obvious stuff. Yanksox 02:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, there is a huge backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves. I've taken care of quite a few move requests over the past half hour, but my current semi-wikibreak, as well as my inability to take care of many of the moves, prevents from doing more. Perhaps several admins with time on their hands could tackle the situation. Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu 01:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Workin' on it. But if others want to help, dive right in folks :)--Woohookitty^(meow) 07:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll do a few, as I just haven't been yelled at enough lately for administrative decisions. Also, I have yet to be called a Nazi or fascist. -- Kjkolb 02:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL! I love admin humor. :) From what I see though, it's relatively uncontroversial stuff. It's a little like closing AfD votes. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

File:P11 kasparov breakout.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) contains a number of revisions which have been vandalized. The small U.S. flag has been replaced with a Nazi flag. The revisions in question are those which are sized 498×304. The current revision is fine, but the others should probably be removed, as this is a fair-use promotional image from IBM. —ptk✰fgs 20:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

They're gone now. Thanks for the heads-up. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Templar34 created a fake user: User:David_Duchovny. It has been there since March 10th. Unless I'm missing something, this should be deleted. Thank you. --Ouzo 22:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. It's zapped. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, that was't a fake username. Templar34 had just changed his name and the original was never removed. My mistake. --Ouzo 00:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

But using the names of celebrities is a no-no. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Even if he changed his name from it, leaving the (defunct) celebrity-named user page around is undesirable. It's all still good. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to report this, but this site is using wikipedia material without following licencing requirments.--Peta 01:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

<meta name="description" content="WELCOME TO ONE OF THE BEST LINKS SITE ON THE NET..."> hmm, {{db-nocontext}} perhaps? Dave 01:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the issue.--Peta 02:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What you're looking for is WP:FORKS. —ptk✰fgs 02:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I just found out about this... apparently our bots are choking on the sheer amount of "user" or "Wikipedian" categories to be renamed or deleted. We presently have categories for users who like every known piece of software, every conceivable sports team, and any type of food you can name. A quick scan of Special:Prefixindex shows about 5600 of them. I can pretty much bear their existence by ignoring them, but the fact that they are clogging up our CFD process is definitely a Bad Thing. My first thought would be to ask a dev to DELETE * FROM wi_categories WHERE name LIKE "user*"; but perhaps somebody here has a better solution? >Radiant< 21:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

User pages are of such negligible utility, and are a never-ending source of diversionary problems unrelated to the encyclopedia (and frequently related to trivial, selfish, and malicious uses that mostly arise from people willfully mistaking Wikipedia for Angelfire or MySpace) that you should change your proposed SQL query to zap not the user page categories, but the user pages themselves. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we're here to build an encyclopedia, not share hobbies, interests and personal preferences through the category system. But then we're still having this fight over userboxes. I'd gladly delete the lot, userpages should be the only space for personal expression but it would take a Jimbo edict to ram that through, the community is so fractured now. Talk to that dev quick. Hiding Talk 21:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There might be a whole lot more queued up for deletion if this nomination - Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006_September_10#Wikipedians_by_diet - is successful. --kingboyk 22:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Its not like deleting / renaming user categories is actually important. I'd still go with mostly ignoring the problem. Just shove the user categories aside and deal with them when people get around to it, which is mostly what happens now, as I understand it. Or one could recruit more people to run cat bots. Dragons flight 23:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I like Radiant's first thought, except that the language ones are actually useful, as are some of the knowledge specialities. If we could keep those, and delete the rest... pizza eating is not relevant, nor is liking a certain type of music. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with KillerChihauhua. On a related note someone a while ago brought up the notion of having another space for user:categories. That might make the more trivial user categories more tolerable and even if we only keep a few of them would still be good since these cats blur the line between article space and user space. JoshuaZ 01:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As someone who does a LOT of discussion closing at CFD, I'd be perfectly happy with jettisoning the whole mess. It just takes up too much time and resources to deal with, even with all of them lumped on one page. If people want to have their userboxes, I really don't care, but I don't think a category is needed for every single one of them (save maybe the language ones). --Kbdank71 02:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Radiant!, for your information, I believe you were on your 7+ month long wikibreak when these type of categories were first created. They were originally started to keep track of which users were using what userbox (e.g. Category:Wikipedians who eat apples lists every Wikipedian who has {{User Apples}} on his or her user page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Why did we need to keep track? Wouldn't a what links here work? I'm still not clear why we need to know that some wikipedians eat apples. I have no objection to being told that on a user's page, but I'm unsure how the grouping of such users through the category system helps the Wikipedia. Would we eventually have to kill all users who eat apples, and this is the hit list? Hiding Talk 10:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the idea is so that apple-eaters can find other apple eating editors on wikipedia, which will result in lots of wiki-love through people's shared love of apples. Dave 14:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Lol. Is that so? I'd better withdraw the nomination then... On second thoughts... no! ;) --kingboyk 14:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, I think it's so that we can check their bias when editing articles about apples. Any chance someone could quickly run a comparison and see if any of them have actually edited articles regarding apples before they catch wind of it and game the system? :) Hiding Talk 16:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well, at least we can't compare those to the Wikipedians who like oranges... >Radiant< 19:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• OK, since I'm the person who's been doing most of the nominating of these things, let me speak up in defense of the approach of just getting it out of the way. When I got there, there were hundreds of user categories that were named like mainspace categories (category:Capuchin alumni, for example). There was a clear consensus to put "Wikipedians" in the title of all of them, so there wouldn't be any confusion. But this led to other questions: If Wikipedian was needed for several hundred categories, wouldn't it be better if there was no confusion whatsoever about how categories should be named? And thus the long nominations, which some have welcomed and others have despised. My thought is this: Let's get it all out of the way now, then (as I've proposed elsewhere) move it to its own renaming process so that those who do care can take care of it. I think it's worth it to run through the last sets of categories and then deal with wiping out entire sections if that's the consensus. Hope that helps.--Mike Selinker 12:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In my view, the problem is simply that the Category: namespace has to cover too many bases. The Category: namespace should be purely for encyclopedic categorisation of articles. A User category: namespace would be helpful with the immediate problem being discussed here. While we're at it, we could have a Wikipedia category: namespace for admin categories, such as Category:Wikipedia categorization and its sub categories. By extension, I think I'm suggesting a category scheme for each namespace (Image: categorisation, Template: categorisation, MediaWiki: categorisation and Help: categorisation all seem to me to be non-encyclopedic, but potentially useful). I just float this as it occurs to me: does anyone think this is a good idea, one that could be suggested tentatively to developers? --RobertG ♬ talk 16:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Okay. For the time being, I have moved all User categories into Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. I hope that will help. >Radiant< 17:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how it helps - isn't it just hiding them away in a cesspool of a Wikipedia page so we can pretend they don't exist? --kingboyk 19:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That's the approach that worked for userboxes, right...? ;) -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Precisely so, it's a rather British way of doing things I suppose. Anyway, I'm just getting started with creating my user page, and userboxes are terribly good at allowing me to expand it with very little effort. I've yet to be contacted by someone that shares the esoteric hobby of eating at burger king occassionally, but there's hope yet and the only way they're going to find me is by retaining the categories. Dave 22:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Isn't that a bit wimpy? At the risk of coming across as a goody goody or a little Caesar, the whole point of this discussion is that your contacting fellow burger afficionados is not Wikipedia's purpose:-) --RobertG ♬ talk 09:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes I suppose it is a bit British, and I'm all for hiding my head in the sand when things go wrong :), so - Support! :) --kingboyk 09:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Time to just start deleting useless user categories. There's way too many of them to try running through CFD, and it really is distracting CFD from its encyclopedic purpose. --Cyde Weys 23:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fine, I'll work for getting Reformed Vandal when I'm a more established editor... to get started on this I've been doing some useful work on random articles tonight, and am going to patrol rc for a bit after posting this message. Anyway, users Dave and David both exist, but neither have done anything. May I please have one of these usernames? I really want to have a proper username so that everything I do can be associated with me, but at the same time am pretty picky about the username itself. 84.9.83.105 22:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe David and an initial? JoshuaZ 22:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If the accounts haven't made an edit, maybe a 'crat could clear the way for you. Yanksox 22:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Would be handy - do I just wait here for a bureaucrat to read it, or do I do something else? 84.9.83.105 22:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about the exact details, I'm copying and pasting this to WP:BN. Yanksox 22:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Changing username and ask if it's possible to do such a thing. I wish I knew more/could be a better help. Yanksox 22:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help - I've put a request up 84.9.83.105 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've had a request pending since 2004. :( Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the following on the alerts board and think it's meritorious. Cutting and pasting:

• LordByronKing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been systematically making changes that lead me to believe he has an agenda, and may also be using a bot due to the manner and duration of his contributions. By manner, I specifically am referring to the fact that he makes about ten small changes to an article within approx. 1 min. of eachother, then moves on to a related topic and does the same thing. On Sept. 11, LordByronKing made changes almost every minute (a few times there were lapses between 3-5 min long) for the period of about five hours. -21:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Many of these seem like attempts to raise the name presence of a single author and to capitalize phrases used in articles into correspondence with the title of that author's book. Smells like a form of spam? Durova 03:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed a lot of his spam, and have warned him, expect to see me get attacked. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

User:LordByronKing is now back as Onedayoneday (talk · contribs). He's re-added himself to one article already. I've given him a final warning. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

And I have now blocked Onedayoneday for this threat. The LordByronKing account is still unblocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Karwynn showed up a few months back, and was involved in trying to push material attacking MONGO onto Wikipedia, for which I blocked him. More recently he's resumed trollish behavior, including this edit. Enough's enough. Time to invite Karwynn to go and troll elsewhere. --Tony Sidaway 23:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This is long overdue. Now there's only one ED troll left who hasn't been blocked yet ... Cyde Weys 23:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards endorsing this block but I'm not completely convinced. Karwynn has been disruptive but has also tried to contribute. Possibly unblock the user with the promise to only edit in article space for some set amount of time? JoshuaZ 23:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Who's the only "ED troll" left? —Nate Scheffey 23:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

None other than Badlydrawnjeff, I suppose... Scobell302 23:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to adjust duration or lift this block. My usual block principles apply. Fully reviewable and I've no objection to alteration. --Tony Sidaway 23:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this block makes sense as a preventative measure. This user "showed up" 6 months ago and has 2000+ edits. The edit cited was not a good idea on Karwaynn's part, but after Nandesuka changed it, Karwynn agreed to a compromise which they apparently both were happy with.[56] I think an indef block with no warning is a bit much. —Nate Scheffey 23:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't actually "happy" with it, but I was busy and figured someone else would block him for being disruptive and incivil. I thought that my little performance art on his page should have been enough to get the message across, but he insisted on replacing the insults, which told me that this was going nowhere fast. So I let it drop. While one can agree or disagree with Tony's block, claiming that Karwynn wasn't warned is pretty disingenuous, given that his edit summaries indicate that he full well knew just how rude and disruptive he was being.

I'm not inclined to second guess Tony in this particular matter. Nandesuka 00:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean that "his edit summaries indicate that he full well knew just how rude and disruptive he was being." Could you cite one? And, I think it should be noted that Tony was involved in a heated discussion with Karwynn yesterday.—Nate Scheffey 00:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of having responded to Karwynn's trolling lately. Apologies if it should turn out that I have. --Tony Sidaway 00:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You're not aware of a conversation you had less than 24 hours ago, and most recently commented in one minute ago?[57] And, for the record, disagreement is not "trolling". —Nate Scheffey 00:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. When you said I had been "involved in a heated discussion" with Karwynn, I thought you meant that I had engaged in discussion with him. I see now that you merely mean that he and I both contributed to the same discussion thread. --Tony Sidaway

I'm fuzzy on the distintion between engaging in discussion with someone and both contributing to the same discussion thread. Are you saying it wasn't a discussion because you never replied directly to him? —Nate Scheffey 01:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying it wasn't a discussion because I didn't give his trolling the time of day. --Tony Sidaway 01:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly this: [58] Mackensen (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Per Tony's above permission I have reduced the block to 1 week. I think we should strongly encourage Karwynn to only edit in article space for an extended amount of time. JoshuaZ 00:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this shows a fairly complete awareness of the inappropriateness of his message. Don't you? Nandesuka 00:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more along the lines of "I'll probably be indef-blocked for commenting on the state of Wikipedia on my own talk page." —Nate Scheffey 01:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between constructive criticism (which a lot of people manage to do just fine with) and trolling. --Cyde Weys 06:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I should think it an incontrovertible principle that editors are expected to swing by the article space now again. For an active editor Karwynn has sworn off the article space to an astonishing degree ([59]). Mackensen (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to keep around an otherwise disruptive user who doesn't contribute to the encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 01:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say pragmatic unblock, as otherwise he'll just go off somewhere winging about the conspiracy and within a week or two there'll be a new user with suspiciously similar editing patterns. Dave 01:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Lol at all of you who think I edit at ED. Blocks for good reasons sound great, but when those reasons are false, it restricts the value of the block. Karwynn (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Reblocked :-/ This guy just keeps on doing more of the same. --Cyde Weys 06:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Sad but true. Endorsing a palpable sockpuppet does not exactly endear Karwynn to me either. From the negligible participation in mainspace I would say this is not going to impact the project at all - I should probably have done this yesterday, actually, instead of just asking Karwynn to stop. So: endorse block. Guy 11:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have had to restrain myself from taking care of this situation for some time. If anyone wants further evidence why this editor needs to find a new playground, just ask me. Cyde and Tony Sidaway deserve medals.--MONGO 06:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Got a dilemma. I've heard from a blocked user, Wiki brah who created a benign sockpuppet account under Le Wiki Brah in order to contact me. This fellow was a problem user, but I don't believe the problems were intentional. Rather, I believe it's because he's slightly autistic and has admitted as such. He wishes to reestablish an account under the original user name but I don't want to override another admin, in this case, Tony Sidaway. I know how I felt when I was overturned a few months ago by another admin. I've left word with Tony but I haven't heard back. So...what to do? Thanks, guys and gals. - Lucky 6.9 07:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony did, in fact, respond, you must have missed it (I've moved this from ANI as per his request):

Please raise this on WP:AN. He was subject to a community ban and I'd like to see how people feel about him coming back. See here. As a matter of personal opinion, I would strenuously oppose his return under any restrictions. I just don't know that he ever helped the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 04:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

El_C 07:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for not checking this myself. --Tony Sidaway 08:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• So far he's used his alternate account only to contact an admin and revert a case of silly vandalism. I'd be happy to give him a second chance. We can always community ban him again if even the beginning of a problem arises. Vandals and troublemakers can change and as Lucky said, the ban may have been due to other reasons. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Concur. I see no immediate harm in giving the user a 2nd chance. El_C 08:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen the block log? In particular:

02:08, 16 August 2005 Lucky 6.9 (Talk | contribs) unblocked Wiki brah (contribs) (Autistic user who is asking for another chance)

Regards, Ben Aveling 08:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I fail to see the relevence of a year-old unblock. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I believe the point he's making is that we've been down this road before. Mackensen (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, that's all. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." And people do change, though if the behaviour problems arise from the fact that he's autistic, that's maybe unlikely. Does this suggest we need a parole board? Category:Users on parole? Regards, Ben Aveling 23:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not comfortable with unblocking someone who has a history of poor behaviour, followed by contrition, followed by poor behaviour. That's not autism, it's trolling. Add to this a general lack of edits to the encyclopedia itself (out of the user's final 100 edits, just 5 were to the mainspace) and I think we're inviting trouble by letting this user back. ➨ ЯEDVERS 08:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  I am somewhat weary of autism being used to disguise trolling. ^[60] El_C 09:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Autistic people can be good encyclopedic contributors; I think we could overturn the community ban on him if he's willing to work with us... I would help him if he wants it. --LiverpoolCommander 10:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think that as long as he is prepared to exercise self-restraint and accept a zero tolerance approach to incivility on his part then a second chance is not so much to ask. I suspect he will be closely watched. I view it as a good sign that he asked rather than simply create a new account. The worst that can happen is that we have to block him again, which is not so very terrible. Guy 12:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  The worst thing that can happen? We spend another six months nursemaiding an editor who shows little or no inclination to improve the encyclopedia, and shows every sign of wanting to flaunt his anti-social habits in the hope of gaining attention. --Tony Sidaway 16:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• You may be right, Tony. Let's let it ride. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 22:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe raise it to the ArbCom, see if they want to reconsider, either now or at some point in the future. In the meantime, if he wants to make any suggestions for changes/report vandalism etc he can always do it on his talk page. I'll watch list it and follow up on anything he raises, and I'm sure others will too. That allows him to make a contribution and show good faith, or otherwise. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MutterErde&diff=75673503&oldid=75673413

curiuos 195.93.60.102 09:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This person has an inappropriate username and I can't click on "Edit this page". So much red text... O.O User_talk:Randomvandal40000000000000000 is his talk page. --WikiSlasher 11:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AIV, you are more likely to get admin attention over there. MER-C 11:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Keenstar (Talk | Cont) Appears to have been set up solely to promote his/her site contactmusic. User has been warned twice (diffs [61][62]) but has not responded or changed behavior. Sample of edits being made: [63][64] [65]. All edits so far (except uploading company logo) have been of similar type. --SiobhanHansa 15:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have given the user a 24 hour block. If it continues after the block has expired I will move it up to indefinite. JoshuaZ 21:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This site appears to be across a lot of articles[66].--Andeh 22:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of these at first glance look like they were put there by legitimate editors. Anyone want to help me go through and make determinations? There are about 400 or so to deal with. JoshuaZ 23:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

400 what? -- Drini 23:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't realized you could search on a URL like that. It's always good to learn something new. I'll start looking through (if there's an easier way to find out who added the link and when, other than wading through the history, please someone let me know :-) --SiobhanHansa 23:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Of the remainder, most use the website as a reference. I'm not convinced that it meets WP:RS but there isn't any WP:SPAM/WP:EL issue for most of the remaining links. JoshuaZ 23:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That's great! Thanks --SiobhanHansa 00:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Eternal Equinox continues to edit anonymously, both disrupting articles and continuing to violate bans received under probation for the disruption. Eternal Equinox is hereby limited to one publicly known account, preferably Eternal Equinox. All edits by Eternal Equinox under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user.

Passed by 6-0. 17:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 17:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

However, Eternal Equinox has still continued to edit anonymously after this ruling took effect[67] as might have been expected from her history (this is User:Hollow Wilerding, for those who remember) and the imperious tone she took at the request to use an account. She edits from the 64.231.0.0/16 range, principally pop music articles. Please roll back IP edits from this range per the ruling above. The range can be blocked for a couple of hours at a time, anonymous users only and account creation enabled, to encourage the user to create an account as requested. (She claims to have munged the password for the preferred User:Eternal Equinox account.) Bishonen | talk 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC).

That's not violating the new ruling. Who do you think you are? I have a life and incase you didn't notice (which you didn't) I made those edits after the new ruling without any acknowledge that it had taken place. I don't always check on WP:RFAR and there was no message posted on any of my talk pages. All those edits have been restored anonymously and this new account has been created for the sole purpose of posting this message. Actually, I'm not fond of this account's name and will abandon it for one with a preferable name. Identifycommunication 23:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

And yes, I'm going to munge this password too. Identifycommunication 23:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked, etc. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Eternal Equinox has been told to choose a new account name and stick to it. --Tony Sidaway 23:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sticking with this account. Will access on occasion. Veltron 01:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read User:David Gerard/Process essay and hack it into teeny little bits with your cluesticks. It needs Bastard Peer-Reviewing From Hell - David Gerard 17:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't use the proper process to write your essay!! you are not following the policy on essay drafts to be created in userspace nor you submited by triplicate your annoucement to the appropiate forums. It's an Out Of Process Essay!! thus it should be deleted. -- Drini 20:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion was transferred to User_talk:Tony_Sidaway/Archive_2006_09_24#Community_block_of_Tony_Sidaways_is_hereby_proposed

Drini, please do not remove the information from exactly appropriate space. While Admins are not the whole community, the community blocks are customarely discusses here because administrators are the only part of community that can implement them. This censorship isn't helpful. --Irpen 23:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Censorship: the authoritarian control of speech and other forms of human expression. I'm not controlling your speech. I'm not hiding your words. I'm moving it out from where it doesn belong. I'll put it then to Village Pump AND WHEN vconsensus to block tony is reached, a note can be post here for the adminsitrative action to take place

MOved to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) post a note back when consensus is reached. -- Drini 23:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have already warned Irpen about 3RR violation on this page, which he chose to delete from his Talk page as patronizing, so I'm putting it here. But I think the same warning needs to be given to Drini, as well. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning taken. -- Drini 23:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Several of my posts have been deleted tonight. I protest. Here they are again, with original timestamps. In one of his removals, Drini apparently mislaid this counterproposal of mine to the community block of Tony :

The transferred discussion has some omission. The most complete version before deletion by Drini can be accessed here --Irpen 01:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't endorse blocking Tony. In view of many comments from respected editors above, and especially the reasoning of Bunchofgrapes and Newyorkbrad, I call on Tony to take a complete and officially announced break from the block button, for a suitable period of time pre-determined by himself. Please just pretend you don't have it, Tony. 22:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC).

And this post of mine was a comment on Drini's removal of text, which I would be interested in getting a response to:

An ill-judged move, Drini. AN is not a discussion forum? Since when? Sure it is. Why is the long discussion immediately above, not to mention the other long discussions on this page, appropriate for WP:AN — just not this one? A discussion of a proposal for a community block? Moving it to ANI might have been appropriate, but what business does it have on Tony's page? It's a proposal to the community, not to Tony. (Excepting my counterproposal, which is indeed to Tony.) You should move it back. 23:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC).

Bishonen | talk 00:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC).

Were they deleted or moved? There's a very important difference, and someone around as long as you knows what it is. Let's not stir up unnecessary drama here. Mackensen (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted and moved. The reason I re-posted my proposal above was that it was no longer anywhere. Drini moved the discussion to User talk:Tony Sidaway [68], then deleted my proposal from there. It didn't come along for the brief round trip to the Village Pump and back. Drini's actions stirred up unnecessary drama, especially by having no edit summaries. Haven't you been here long enough not to pick on people, Mackensen? Bishonen | talk 01:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC).

Oh, probably. I'm not picking on you, I'm asking a very serious question, and I thank you for giving me the answer I wanted. I 'm certain I could have phrased that better, but what's said is said. For my part, I urged some time go that discussion of this matter either find its way to dispute resolution or simply be would up, instead of playing out here, where nothing will be accomplished except we'll all yell at each other a whole bunch more. Mackensen (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The threads were moved multiple times (for good-faith reasons although it got to be a bit much), not deleted wholesale, but in the process, a few posts got lost in the shuffle. I had to post one comment four times before it stuck, because I was trying to add it to a thread that wasn't on the page where it was when I started typing. Newyorkbrad 00:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The transferred discussion has some omission. The compelete version before deletion by Drini can be accessed here --Irpen 01:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously malice aforethought. Let's ban him. I recall a charming posse calling for such an action just last week–and we had a devil of time chasing them off. I've been calling for the termination of the discussion, and I already admitted to attempted censorship above. I should probably be blocked as well for holding contrarian views and for desiring peace and quiet on the noticeboard. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll do my bit for peace and quiet here by not responding to that last comment. Oh dear, wait a minute, I seem to have ... (see paradox or self-reference). Newyorkbrad 01:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to burden you guys, but you are admins and did at some point accept your post, with all the unpleasant drudgery that reports like this require ;). Anyway, Langstaff_Secondary_School seems to have had a lot of unreverted vandalism over the last couple of days, and quite possibly plenty before then. It is completely beyond me (well, it woul take an hour or so) to try and fix it and work out the isp to block (there have been a lot of pretty similar ip edits to it). It also seems like it needs protecting. At the moment it's at least partly vandalism, but my options were to revert to a prior state that was probably vandalised, blank it, or stubify it... I wasn't too happy with doing any of these. I don't envy the job of whoever has to fix this Dave 22:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Could someone undelete, User:ForestH2/Signpost/In the news 9/4, User:ForestH2/Signpost/Candidate sues 9/4, and User:ForestH2/Signpost/Technology report 9/4? Thanks. ForestH2 t/h/c 00:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-09-05/Technology report
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-09-05/In the news

Feel free to recreate those redirects yourself. The third page was deleted as it was only three lines and "not worthy of an article" apparently. -- Steel 00:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canton Crusaders has not been touched for about eight days, and there is a conflicting consensus. Can someone close this as "No consensus?" I was going to, but I remembered that those who have participated in AfDs cannot close them. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Relisted. --bainer (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is filled to the brim. Many of these are obvious deletions (i.e. subpages of banned users). Can some admin just dive in? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've started on it, btw, but there is quite a bit. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping in, I need to get back to the good 'ole stuff. Yanksox 01:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)