aug 14th to aug 18th

This 'article' was deleted yesterday, imo validly under CSD A7. Yesterday's article was identical save for the word "Notable" at the start. User:NoPuzzleStranger took the article to WP:VfU where the vote is presently a unanimous keep deleted. The recreation of this article is not only a WP:POINT, it is also gaming the system, against consensus and out of process. User:NoPuzzleStranger has thus far declined the opportunity to improve the article toward a stub.

Could an admin kindly redelete this? Thanks. -Splash 23:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Imo the article is a stub. If not, kindly tell me what an "assertion of notability" requires beyond asserting notability as the article obviously does? If you want, I can add the Google count - which would typically be used to demonstrate notability on VfD - into the article, although I think that would be a rather unusual thing to do. NoPuzzleStranger 23:06, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Reproducing the entire contents here: "Notable American porn-star who entered the business in 1993." Are "American", "porn star" and "1993" somehow indicators of something unusually notable? Are you arguing that since the word "notable" asserts notability in the most literal sense, you have successfully demonstrated that the vanity criterion is broken? JRM · Talk 23:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

<removed personal attack> NoPuzzleStranger has been blocked for 24 hours for repeatedly recreating Monique deMoan and Monique DeMoan. Zoe 23:46, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Unnecessary demonstration, though. Repeatedly recreated articles need to be overwritten with the template and locked in place anyway. Did constitute WP:POINT, of course. JRM · Talk 23:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

<removed personal attack> Tony Sidaway has now undeleted the page, removed the deletedpage template, and removed the protection without discussion, in violation of the consensus at Votes for undeletion. He has been reverted. Wasn't there an RfA on him? Zoe 00:10, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, it's going to be one of those nights, is it? People making a fuss over a ten word article because they've got a thing or two to prove about proper conduct and due process?
No, there was no RFAr against him (not any recent one I know of, that is); there was a recent RfC. Which, I see, you've just added to, so you know about it. :-) JRM · Talk 00:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Tony has also unblocked NoPuzzleStranger, again with no discussion anywhere. Zoe 00:24, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, everyone, we have succeeded once again in making asses out of ourselves! (Excuse me if this may be construed as being uncivil, but this seems to be the only accurate description of the situation.) At the time of writing, this article has been restored and deleted at least 7 times, before, curiously, the entire edit history disappeared. The database may have been trying to save us from our own stupidity, here.

Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, the fact that anyone could think this is such an important issue that admins must hold deletion wars over it is, to put it mildly, absurd. Can we stop holding pissing contests for a few hours while we talk? Can we tolerate The Wrong Version for a while, please, if only just to make ourselves look slightly better than this? Are there any admins out there who think their actions will stick better because they shine with the light of appropriateness? JRM · Talk 01:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a concerted campaign to stop the VfD on this article proceeding. The article was a speedy call by Lucky 6.9--not a big deal, the kind of thing I habitually restore and cleanup. But this action was impeded somewhat during my cleanup attempts (I seem to recall it had already been VfD'd, which is of course okay) by several more speedies. There have been persistent attempts to protect this article and all kinds of other stuff. Now this is a very easily verifiable subject, she's a well known porn actress with copious entries on Internet Adult Film Database and (according to Kappa) apparently even imdb! She's appeared in scores of porn movies. I've expanded the article well beyond the point where it can be called a small or inconsequential article, and having a place on imdb places her well into the zone where her notability is debatable--she cannot be written off under CSD 7.

I expect this will be continually speeded throughout the five-day duration of the VfD. Some help in preventing this abuse of CSD would be welcome. We don't go around speedying articles without good, solid reasons. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps is has oh, I don't know, something to do with the fact that the consensus on VfU is to keep it deleted? Zoe 01:12, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

VFU isn't VfD. Only the latter has the authority to decide whether to delete a disputed article in the first place. The article has repeatedly been subject to bad speedies. Let's allow the VfD to proceed. This is a reasonably famous porn star, the article could well survive VfD, and in my experience it wouldn't be the first time someone had misinterpreted CSD7--I pick up the pieces quite often. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikilawyering is deeply tiresome in the face of virtually unanimous support for the original speedy deletion, as in the VfU debate. Everyone knows that VfU covers invalid speedies just as much as it covers invalid VfDs. Everyone. There is unanimous support for the original speedy; this is one of those occasions where you simply have to live with the community voice. The author of the article has done not inconsiderable damage to his/her case by their subsequent behaviour, too, although that's a side point, I do not think the original block was in any way inappropriate: multiple removals of a speedy tag, multiple creation of a deleted article, and minor vandalism along the way, is good enough for me. -Splash 01:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I think Splash and I worked out our differences in a friendly enough way. The article either is or isn't being discussed on VfD right now (depending on how many times that VfD been pre-emptively closed). I do think it's important to state, however, that no amount of "keep deleted" votes on VFU can or should stop a sysop from resurrecting speedied material that could make a good article. That happens to be one of the things I specialize in doing--it's something that only a sysop can do because it requires the power to undelete. I've resurrected and expanded many articles, and even seen a few of them go through a subsequent VfD with a keep result. It isn't something everybody can do, but as can be seen here it's a perfectly valid technique for expanding the encyclopedia. Very small stubs often demonstrate an encyclopedic idea that needs a small amount of work to become a good article. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

1) There's no rule against removal of invalid speedy tags. 2) There's no rule against recreation of speedied articles with different content. 3) There was no "minor vandalism". NoPuzzleStranger 01:52, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

1)Yes there is, it says it in the tag itself: "but do not remove this notice from an article that you have created yourself". 2)Yes there is, if that content is "substantially identical" per CSD A4 — note it need only be "substantially" identical. 3) Yes there was: [1] for example. 4)I'm less interested in the ruleslawyering you seem intent on than encouraging a good article out of this mess: if you'd just done the research that Tony did, this would all never have happened. And you were told that before it did all happen. -Splash 02:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

1) I wasn't the original creator of the article. 2) It wasn't substantially identical, as the original was speedied for lack of "assertion of notability", which I tried to remedy. 3) I already explained twice that it wasn't me who added "Faggot" there; you're willfully repeating that slander. 4) If you'd just undeleted as soon as I first requested it, there would never have been a mess. Instead you wasted all that time making up excuses for allowing Lucky to violate the rules. I don't have to expand every article improperly speedied by Lucky. I simply want that such valid stubs are not deleted. NoPuzzleStranger 02:21, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

NoPuzzleStranger[edit]

It may or may not be pertinent to note that "NoPuzzleStranger" is a perfect anagram of User:Gzornenplatz, who was in turn User:Wik. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:45, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, took us that long. Though not quite. It lacks a u, s, and er. You end up with "NoP-zzle-trang--". Pretty close though. --Golbez 07:04, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Um, that's why "User" is there to be added to "Gzornenplatz". "Gzornenplatz" by its own isn't the anagram. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:21, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well slap me around and call my susie, I even had "u, s, and er" in perfect order. Good show. :) --Golbez 07:33, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Can't take all the credit - Lucky 6.9 noticed it first, but missed the "user" letters too. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:44, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

to be fair cantus figured it way back (ok last may) when he was edit waring with him on template:Europe. They both reported each other under the 3RR and I decided to leave the whole issue alone.Geni 19:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to note, I've posted on Requests for arbitration about this issue. I intend to block NoPuzzleStranger as a reincarnation unless the arbitrators give me a reason not to. However, I ask everyone to give the arbitrators a little time to respond and not impose the block yet. As Geni notes, the possibility was known a while ago, and waiting just a little longer won't hurt anyone. --Michael Snow 20:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

He'll be back. Wish we could get the guy to talk, and to work out his frustrations some way other than, e.g., writing a vandalbot - David Gerard 09:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

He may reactivate "ex-wikipedian" User: Starky whom I'm 99% sure is another sock of Wik. Intriguingly in my last interaction with Starky in May he made it clear that he wasn't NoPuzzleStranger because NoPuzzleStranger was really Wik. Keep your eyes peeled... Grutness...wha? 09:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm less sure about Starky, as his focus seems to have been exclusively on Czech articles, and the Czech Republic vs. Czechia issue in particular. While this is similar to the things Wik has fought over, Wik has actually spent more time on German/Polish naming disputes than Czech-related ones, although of course the postwar fallout affects all three languages. If Starky resurfaces now, though, it's a giveaway. Incidentally, Essjay has now imposed the block of NoPuzzleStranger. --Michael Snow 16:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

:-O You got diffs of that?

Hey, NoPuzzleStranger, if you're reading this: you're dedicated (to the point of obsession) with Wikipedia, you do a ton of good edits, you do a ton of housekeeping; you're undeniably mostly very good value in writing an encyclopedia. Mostly we still wonder about why the vandalbot and want reassurance that you won't do this in future. Also, you keep conflicting with other editors in a way that makes them go "Wik again"; we need to work out how not to have this happen - David Gerard 20:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Diffs of what, do you mean Starky's comment? --Michael Snow 23:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

And yea, he was blocked forthwith, after moving about fifteen articles around. The cleanup went quickly and smoothly, with the exception of four articles which are still broken.

• Daniel Ravicher
• Yea
• Prairie View Agricultural and Mechanical University
• Telecommunications for Disaster Relief

The actual article accidentally got deleted, and the redirect moved in it's place. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 23:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I think I've successfully fixed those. --Michael Snow 23:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

With the redirects rather than the article being left behind, was it my mistake when reverting the vandalism, or WoW's efforts? Single click mass reverting would be nice at times. -- Longhair | Talk 23:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Good catch, too fast. I counted 3 admins block same person! :P --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Trey_Stone_and_Davenbelle#Davenbelle_banned_from_certain_articles
• Edit in article Mustafa Kemal Atatürk: [2]

--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• • I don't believe the Ataturk article falls under politics per se. In a sense it does, obviously, but I think that would be too broad and limiting. Everyking 00:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • There's the thing; most biographical articles are political in one way or another. Ataturk would be more political than most. The thing is, most people would interpret that injunction as applying to, say, Henry Kissinger. I don't suppose we could get arbcom to provide a guideline on the matter? Mackensen (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I propose a simple test: if Davenbelle gets into a political fight on a page, then that page concerns politics and Davenbelle is in violation. Isomorphic 06:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I count over 40 blocked sock puppets. This guy doesnt want to give up. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC) See: [3]

By my count, there currently are 20 "WayneBrady..." accounts. The person(s) behind those obviously cannot take a hint. --MarkSweep 00:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should start reverting all of his edits. If he sees that all of his input is being deleted, maybe he'll give up. Zoe 01:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. He's generally making good edits, as far as I can tell. --MarkSweep 02:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Unless this is a different WayneBrady, read up the page, David Gerard did a sock check and it showed it was Boothy443. If there is a valid block against Boothy443, then edits by a sockpuppet used to evade the block should be reverted on sight. -- Essjay · Talk 02:21, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, the original block of "IsWayneBrady..." was a username block. Obviously, if the original username is not acceptable, then the same name with various numbers appended to it isn't acceptable either. The fact that "IsWayneBrady..." was also a sockpuppet provides (further) justification for the block. However, edits such as this one are useful and need not be reverted. It's just that the guy should take a hint and pick a better name. --MarkSweep 02:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that he will take a hint - apparently this is not a good faith user, but rather Boothy443 attempting to make a point (see above). — Dan | Talk 02:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Then he should read WP:POINT. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

For God's sake, just quit blocking the guy. He's making good edits. We're here first and foremost to make an encyclopedia. If we bring him back into the fold (sockpuppet or not) then we may be able to convince him to choose a less controversial name. Everyking 05:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Would Hctibakcmsotevahannogydarbenyawsi (talk • contribs) be a less controversial name? I saw it on RC several hours ago... and because it looked strange, and because it made an edit to an article similar to the ones made by the user in question, it stuck in my head. Now that I just had a chance to examine it, if you spell the name backwards... (and no, I haven't blocked it quite yet.) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

So far I see:

1. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch
2. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch10
3. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch100
4. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch101
5. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch103
6. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch104
7. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch105
8. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch106
9. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch107
10. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch108
11. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch109
12. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch110
13. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch111
14. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch1111
15. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch112
16. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch113
17. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch114
18. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch115
19. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch116
20. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch117
21. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch118
22. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch119
23. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch120
24. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch122
25. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch123
26. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch124
27. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch125
28. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch126
29. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch128
30. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch129
31. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch130
32. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch2
33. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch200
34. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch210
35. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch220
36. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch3
37. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch4
38. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch405
39. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch5
40. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch6
41. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch7
42. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch77
43. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch777
44. IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackaracistscalledtonysideways

Then there's the backwards versions ...

He's coming in through open proxies now. I think we're well past assuming good faith on this one - David Gerard 07:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Yay, our very own open proxy ferret/dachshund. --MarkSweep 08:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess David is going to play his usual game now, hunting sockpuppets and IPs for sport and so on. I once again reiterate that we have a editor who, while not making the kinds of user decisions that will endear him to this community, is nevertheless doing perfectly good encyclopedia work. This is not only an exercise in futility, even if it worked it would hurt the encyclopedia. Get your priorities straight. There are sensible ways to work these things out, and then there's throwing your weight around without any consideration of circumstances. Everyking 10:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Has there ever been an action by any admin that you have approved of? Isn't enough enough of all of this kvetching? Why not try being postitive once in a while? Sheesh! Zoe 19:48, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

some poor soul has just created 264 abusive sockpuppets out of the agony of his soul, and all you can come up with is throw your weight around and block him, you stupid power-drunk admins, shame on you! dab (ᛏ) 19:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess I approve of about 99.9% (+) of admin actions (you can review mine; see if you can find one you disagree with); only a handful ever make it to this page, and out of that handful I object to only a minority. But I figure if we're going to have a discussion board for this stuff we ought to use it. What's the point of having a discussion board for admin actions if I just keep my mouth shut when I think something's done wrongly? Everyking 05:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

If the editor behind these accounts would get a proper username, and not an offensive one (offensive username is a valid reason to block indefinately), I don't think all that many would care if he is evading a block or not. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Knowing some of thinking at work here, I suspect harassment might still continue unless the person's old identity remained unknown. The view might be that the person has crossed a line, taken steps that can't be reversed. But anyway, while it would be nice for this user to adopt an uncontroversial name, that doesn't seem to be happening, so we have to deal with the current situation, which is what sort of approach we should be taking. And I maintain blocking dozens of sockpuppets is not only futile but counterproductive, both in terms of engagement with the user and in terms of improving the encyclopedia. Everyking 10:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• The user has an account with an uncontroversial name - see David Gerard's comment a few sections up. Radiant_>|< 12:19, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, but I suppose he wants to use a different account for these edits. In principle he's allowed to use a sock. Everyking 12:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • To avoid a block? --Kbdank71 19:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Look, we can't have a proper deletion discussion unless we let our fellow editors see the article, right? What is so toxic about this thing that it must not be seen? I suggest that the sensible thing to do is for the people who replaced the current edit of the article with a "deleted article" template edit it back so that the content can be seen and we can have a proper deletion discussion.

I don't know what's up here. This is clearly not a speedy candidate, nor was it ever one. The original version provided quite enough context to enable the article to be expanded to its current form. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

From the Block Log: (content was: 'Notable American porn-star who entered the business in 1993. She has over 65,000 Google hits.') There, that wasn't so difficult, was it? --Calton | Talk 01:38, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

OK, so... lots of porn stars have pages here... In fact I heard a rumor that porn stars had a lot to do with the original entries on this encyclopedia, so I'm not following the logic of this at all. What possible speedy deletion criteria would this fall under? Worse than that, by erasing the VfD notice I can't even find the page to go vote on it (tried searching through random days on the VfD list but I won't poke around forever for it). If the original wasn;t up to snuff the standard procedure is to go to VfD and maybe let people improve it, or, at the very least, let it be recreated and let someone improve it. Locking a notice at the name that it is deleted seems to mee to be a very substantial violation of how things are done here, and I see no justification for it whatsoever. DreamGuy 03:03, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

The VFD is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Monique deMoan (it will always be under Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ARTICLE TITLE). At the risk of going over old ground, the original, being a stub that made no attempt to prove notability, was quite under the speedy criteria. Cf. "Johnny Bloggs is a British rock musician". That article would be speedied without a second thought. Whether or not the re-creation of the article was simply a reposting of the original version, and thus still speedyable, is a matter that is being debated, but there is a case to be made that not enough effort was made to make the reposted version notable. If the reposted version was not sufficiently notable (as I and several other users believe that it was), then it was perfectly justifiable to redelete the page and block it from re-creation. If an entry had been put up at the page that proved notability, in that case, it would not have been validly under the speedy criteria. Slac speak up! 03:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, the {{deletedpage}} template does link to the VfD notice. I'll grant you that it's not spelled out in a big red VfD box like usual, but it's there. In fact, it links to all possible avenues of deletion. JRM · Talk 03:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

An outside view: I can't be bothered if this article is here on or one way or another, but this is getting just plain silly, and has degenerated into a wheel war. Points:

1. Article may or may not be notable, hence, decide at VfD.
2. Article cannot be decided at VfD properly if nobody can see how it stood.

Simple solution: restore article until VfD is finished, then delete it with extreme prejudice if such is the consensus. I'm going to restore it on this basis, which I believe is a good' reason. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Again another oar muddying the waters. We have a /Temp version which is a thousand times better than the one you arbitrarly reverted. How about getting input before making these changes? Did you even bother to see read the discussion at VfU? Well, enough, I will have nothing more to do with this, it's degenrated into utter chaos. Your User name is highly appropriate. Zoe 03:20, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

If the Temp version is better, then transfer it over. Nothing says you can't - in fact the VfD notice specifically says you can edit, improve, etc., just don't remove the VfD notice. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:28, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

The rewrite is all my work and is based on content I added to the deleted version, minus the work of others.

I think it's basically the last proper version of Monique deMoan plus some italicisation on the movie titles. So "Slut Whore Gangbang 123" now reads "Slut Whore Gangbang 123". --Tony Sidaway^Talk 04:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

You're doing it on purpose. I like it. :-) JRM · Talk 04:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Since most involved seem to be fairly sympathetic to the rewrite and are disposed to vote to keep, I've suggested that it might be best to perform a history merge, but I also appreciate that it could be better to just leave the original to be deleted.

* Monique deMoan/Temp

--Tony Sidaway^Talk 04:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• I might mention that the "recreation" clause of CSD does not apply when the original deletion was a speedy deletion. That rule was added after the last poll, and the intention was precisely to avoid arguments like this one, we don't use an invalid speedy deletion as a reason to speedy delete again. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Only YOU can prevent forest fires. I've removed all deletion-discussions related to DeMoan and reinstated the rewritten article, and unprotected it to allow it regular improvement. Have a nice day. Radiant_>|< 09:53, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

  No, I don't feel much like that, sorry. I'll have to look at the deleted VfD nomination and copy it somewhere, because, you know, I was genuinely interested in discussing the notability of the topic. You can claim the VfUs just repeated the issues raised on WP:AN/I, but the VfD stopped doing that when Tony rewrote the article. Needless to say, I'm not going to haul that off to VfD again just so everyone can repeat what they said.
  Consider just closing such pages next time. Putting out a forest fire generally does not involve removing the forest with it. JRM · Talk 12:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've no idea what that business about forest fires is. I've restored the VfD and merged the Temp article into the main so we all know what we're voting on. There are some good faith votes to delete on the VfD and it probably isn't a good idea to just casually delete perfectly well formed VfDs. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  Radiant restored the page but closed the vote, which I think is prudent. The discussion is now so completely muddled with the previous issues that I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the admin who has to close that vote, anyway. A new VfD some time from now would make more sense. JRM · Talk 14:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed the tag since the VfD was closed. There is also a note on the talk page. Because someone mentioned it during the aborted VfD discussion, I've moved the article to the correct spelling, Monique DeMoan, and fixed some links there from articles. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, Erwin Walsh has listed it again after I moved it, at:

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Monique DeMoan

I've added a timestamp to his nomination but I'm bowing out of this for now; the situation is too volatile and I don't want to risk enabling further conflict. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius (talk · contribs) is going around continuously starting revert wars on articles that he objects to particularly related to Islam. I suspect that he is sockpuppet of banned user Yuber (talk · contribs). He makes no effort to discuss anything on talk pages, but is mainly playing the role of trying to cut down anythin article critical of Islam.--CltFn 04:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the category Category:Books_critical_of_Islam was made especially for your list of 17 non-notable books. You keep removing this category and claim it's "vandalism". The category is already a relevant subcat of "Religious studies books" and "Political books".Heraclius 04:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

You can add them to the category of Category:Books_critical_of_Islam but you should leave them individually listed also in the Category:Religious studies books. Otherwise someone might "accidentaly" wipe out of the whole list by simply removing the Category:Books_critical_of_Islam from under the Category:Religious studies books. Not that you would do that, of course.--CltFn 04:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The whole point of making the new category was to reduce the clutter from the old ones. The new category is listed under the subcats of Religious studies books, Political books, and Islam and controversy. If you really feel that paranoid about me destroying your category then put it on your watch list. But don't worry, your precious list won't be wiped by me.Heraclius 04:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Well the best solution would be to have them listed in both lists, that will suit whatever organization you are trying to achieve as well as keep the book listed in the broader category of religious studies books. So please do so, thanks.--CltFn 04:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Erm, no, that "solution" would just clutter up both categories again. What is your problem with this category that was especially made for all your book-stubs?Heraclius 05:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The categories section are designed to be able to grow to fairly large sizes , eventually the listings get listed by alphabetical pages if needed, so the clutter issue has no merit. So please put the earler category tags the way they were before ie in both religious books and books critical of Islam and in some cases political books.--CltFn 12:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

this is a pure content dispute. the sockpuppet allegation afaics is unfounded. dab (ᛏ) 11:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I only just created my user page user:DotSix and started editing and Blowbite blocked me. There was no warning and no explanation given. --207.200.116.5 06:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The above comment is from a vandal who likes to blank RFAR [4] and delete large sections from articles with no explanation. He'll just be blocked from now on. He's had plenty of warnings. No more from me. Rhobite 06:12, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

DotSix (talk · contribs · block log), isn't it? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:16, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Unblocked. Well, not DotSix, the IPs he came from. AOL proxies. WBardwin was blocked, again, and had to ask me to unblock him, again. I'm beginning to despise the autoblocker thoroughly. JRM · Talk 17:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Zivinbudas (talk · contribs) (link to ban) is back, in the guises of Benjamin07 (talk · contribs) and Hooker72 (talk · contribs), Woody08 (talk · contribs) and he's annoyed. He'll probably keep going again until we've blocked half of Lithuania :\ dab (ᛏ) 16:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Woody09 (talk · contribs) now. I could really use some help here. dab (ᛏ) 17:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels has returned; see [5]. He's moved about 70 pages this time. I've blocked this incarnation, but this is really getting on my nerves. Meelar (talk) 19:05, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

The attacks are becoming more frequent. See my comments at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Page_move_vandalism_is_still_a_problem for a software modification that would be a big help. -- Curps 19:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm in the process of moving them back but could do with some help. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

He's hit again, as User:Sleehw no ylliw. This is turning into an emergency... he can easily move pages faster than we can fix them. Developers should consider blocking all page moves temporarily. -- Curps 19:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Can that really be done? He must be stopped. On wheels. ~~ N (t/c) 19:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I think most of the damage is fixed (thanks to everyone who helped on this round!)

We really need a couple things: a one-click reversion that eliminates the need to go back and kill the redirect; and a way to see a list of newly-created users before they have a chance to edit.

If I remember correctly, an account has to age a week or so before it can be used for page moves (yes?) Any of us could spot one of these "Willy who can't get a life" accounts during that aging period and shut it down, at least until he gets smart and stops using recognizable names. Antandrus (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Gee, and I would have read that user name as being Gaelic. ;) Instead of barring users not in the n percent of newest users from making page moves, perhaps we should go to barring users with fewer than n edits. (Let n be 200, say.) This would presumably require developer assistance to implement. It would have the advantage of forcing WoW and any other page move vandals to make a couple of hundred nondestructive edits with an account before it could be used for doing damage. I don't know what people here think about the 'collateral damage' associated with such a move—it would prevent new but well-meaning users from carrying out proper page moves, and might lead to an increase in cut & paste moves. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Please, please do this. I don't see the harm - most users who care about the project and want to stick around will make 200 edits fairly quickly. ~~ N (t/c) 21:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The 1% was implemented following the last major discussion because it was technically possible without any coding. The page move rollback function originated from thsi discussion as well iirc. Put in a feature request to bugzilla: with the top urgency, link to it here and I (and hopefully others also) will vote for it. Also making some noise about it on the wikitech mailing list might help (I dont' subscribe to the lists as I get too much email as it is (generally about 100 non-spam emails a day)). Thryduulf 22:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Although I can't remember where I saw it, I thought that the move feature restriction was switched off (deliberately) some time around the upgrade to MW1.5, so that new users can presently move as soon as they register. -Splash 22:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this has been discussed, but why not just limit the number of pages that a user can move within a given timeframe? Say, restrict them to five moves every ten minutes. Additionally, have some sort of 'alarm' that automatically adds someone to a list if they do more than one move in a 24 hour period, so someone can investigate and (if they're a vandal) deal with them before the time limit on moves expires; the one-move-in-24-hour-period tripwire for the alarm would prevent people from gaming the system to avoid detection. It could also be set up so it doesn't apply to users with a lot of edits, so there will be people who can do mass-movements when necessary. Alternatively, what about an 'auto-revert-all-moves-done-by-a-user' admin command, which automatically reverts every recent move a given user performed? That would allow people to handle vandals like this very quickly, with only one swift glance to ensure that the auto-reversion wouldn't cause any problems. Aquillion 22:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

This was discussed, but I can't remember where. The consensus iirc was that there was basically no reason for non-administrators to move more than 3 pages in 24 hours. Thryduulf 07:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• The current restriction is, I believe, requiring 15 or 25 edits before the 'move' button appears. That, of course, is trivially easy to accomplish. Setting the bar to 100 would be better. Limiting users to 3 moves per day would also work, except that it's easy to create a new account and use that. Radiant_>|< 09:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you sure? When I look at the latest incarnation's contributions,the first edit, as well as the rest are page moves. I guess it's possible that the first edits were to now-deleted pages, butI would have thought at least one edit would survive. Dmcdevit·t 09:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • If they just created nonsense articles that were speedied it would be their first edit. 100 or 200 would give a much greater chance of spotting a pattern of nonsense articles than just 25. A requirement for 100 or 200 non-deleted edits would be even better. They could use multiple users, but they would take time to register and log in to - particularly if it was impossible to be logged into more than one account on a computer at once. I don't know if this is the case at the moment, but if it isn't I think it would be triviially easy to implement with cookies. Perhaps also we could impose a limit that meant that you could only create one account per computer per hour - again maybe implementable with cookies. Combined these would mean that to move 15 pages would a require a minium of five hours of preparation just to create the accounts, then a significant amount of time to accumulate the 100 or 200 articles per article, especially if they had to be edits that were not deleted. Remember that if they are persistently making bad edits or creating nonsense articles then they would be blocked, likely for 24 hours at a time. Add all this up and just to go on a 15 article moving spree would take probably a week of preparation. A 100-article spree would require 34 accounts, taking a minimum of 34 hours to create, assuming a dedicated vandal working constantly for 8 hours a day this would take 4¼ days. Assuming that 100 non-deleted edits are required for each account would take an average of 5 minutes each to avoid being blocked and to allow for ones that are deleted, this is would take 17,000 mintues which, working constantly 8 hours a day every day, would take about 36 days. Assuming 200 non-deleted edits and a vandal working on average 4 hours per day it would take over 4½ months of preparation. With a mass-rollback option this 4.5 months of effort by the vandal could be reverted in less than 2 minutes; using normal move rollback it would be fixable by the community in less than 30 minutes I suspect. 4½ months work for less than an hour's glory would not be worth it for any human, and bots would be spotted long before they became an issue. Thryduulf 11:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

... if anyone cares. Some of his recent sockpuppets, doing the usual of promoting his card game and punishing those who oppose him, usually with hilariously misleading edit summaries, are:

• Poofczar (talk • contribs • block)
• Parallelity (talk • contribs • block)
• Doophism (talk • contribs • block)
• Spoon345 (talk • contribs • block)
• Freedom and Truth (talk • contribs • block)
• 97 (talk • contribs • block)
• 94 (talk • contribs • block)
• Paul Caldwell (talk • contribs • block)

This vandalism is special, and in classic form: [6].

Anyway, just a heads-up. Damage from his visits is limited, since it only occurs around the remnants of the "Ambition (card game)" controversy. Antandrus (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Today's sockpuppet is Lots of issues (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- I just blocked it for impersonation. Antandrus (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

62.252.96.12 (talk · contribs), 62.253.0.9 (talk · contribs), 62.253.128.12 (talk · contribs), 62.253.128.14 (talk · contribs), 62.253.128.11 (talk · contribs) (among others) have been posting and re-posting the same personal attack on Linuxbeak over and again despite repeated warnings not to.

At User:62.252.96.12 just now they posted MARMOT PWNZ U.. I have range-blocked them twice but they appear to have access to a large number of proxy IPs. -- Francs2000 | Talk 23:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately for MARMOT, he needs to restrict himself to certain pages to get to his audience, and most of these are on someone's watchlist. He's giving us the opportunity for a fine demonstration of Wikipedia's capacity for self-healing, blocks or no. JRM · Talk 00:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, this kind of feeble persecution does so much honor to Linuxbeak's vandalfighting that I was tempted to leave it on my page, with a note to passers-by. I would have done, too, if there hadn't already been enough space-consuming nonsense on that page. Bishonen | talk 09:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Those are the NTL proxy ranges and should never be blocked for more than a very short time - Special:Blockip even lists them. (Any given IP has tens or hundreds of thousands of users, and they're the biggest cable provider in the UK.) The problem is that although a user is told to use the proxy in their town, they can actually use any NTL proxy in the whole country. The proxies do indicate what the user's real IP is, but it's a complicated and tedious case by case thing (each proxy does it a different way) and would need someone to bother writing it for MediaWiki. I think we might need it sooner rather than later. The only hope with NTL is that they're completely shit and people would rather have 1Mbit of reliable DSL than 4Mbit of dodgy cable internet - David Gerard 00:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

To clarify: the range blocks Francs is talking about were one of 15 minutes long, the other of 1 hour (both were /24 blocks). Even so they're still only good if you absolutely need the breathing room to revert all the crap. JRM · Talk 00:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

To clarify further: the blocks were just to get some breathing space in order to sort the stuff out, as JRM said. An hour was perhaps a bit long for an NTL proxy but it's all sorted itself out in the end. -- Francs2000 | Talk 09:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Digg has gone through a VfD and three VfUs, with each vote to delete it or keep it deleted, and yet various anonymous users keep recreating it. It has now been recreated as empty and protected, so the anonymous user is going on to vandalize other pages in retaliation. See the history of Slashdot. I have protected that article now, so I'm sure the anon will go on to other pages. Unfortunately, they're on AOL, so they can't be permanently blocked. Zoe 05:08, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

If so many people would like Wikipedia to have an article on this subject, perhaps we should have one. For those unfamiliar with this debate, see WP:VFU#Digg for background. Rhobite 06:57, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

• If a single user (or a few users) repeatedly nominate an article for anything because the nomination keeps failing (four times within a month or two), then they are in violation of WP:POINT and they should stop wasting our time with more nominations. Radiant_>|< 08:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• You can place {{deletedpage}} there and protect against recreation. [[smoddy]] 12:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Fenice (talk · contribs) doesn't like the proposed Infobox Standardisation. That's fine, however his way of going about it is bordering on the disruptive. He created a counterproposal No infobox standardization and has been arguing vehemently on both Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Infobox standardisation and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/No infobox standardization, to the point where WP:INS is now mostly on the legitimacy of said VFDs rather than the issue at hand. His most recent suggestion seems to be to implement standard infoboxen anyway using brute force, and RFAr any who object. To me he seems to be having a case of WP:POINT. Any advice in handling this, or should we simply let him shout himself hoarse, ignore it and do something useful in the meantime? Radiant_>|< 13:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I say ignore it. "Do not feed the trolls." -- Essjay · Talk 13:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Fenice is trolling particularly, but I do think we should just ignore. He can shout all he likes through the 5 days of the VfD at which point, on the current voting, the thing will be deleted. That gives license to speedy any reincarnations (under the usual restrictions), so hopefully discussion might be directed to the more appropriate places. -Splash 16:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't really mean to suggest Fenice was a troll, it was just a convenient expression. -- Essjay · Talk 04:18, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Eequor is the sockpuppeteer of banned user Rienzo (and several other sockpuppets)

• Even though Eequor claims to be strongly anti-Christian, this is in fact a lie. Eequor has repeatedly attacked, within the rules, several editors who make negative comments against Christianity, to the extent that her status as an evangelical christian, and her editing behaviour associated with it, was a heavy part of her RFA

• Piglet and Lady Tara both claimed to be female, as does Eequor
• Shortly after crossing Eequor's path negatively, editors find their pages vandalised by one of a number of sockpuppets, as well as false accusations against them by editors they have never previously met (e.g. Rienzo's accusation against CheeseDreams after Eequor raised an extensive RFC against CheeseDreams on a topic Eequor supposedly didn't give a damn about and claims to be on CheeseDream's (anti-Christian) side over)
• You will note that Eequor and CheeseDreams had a huge fallout. But Eequor had supposedly not edited a single article CheeseDreams was interested in, and Eequor seemed to completely disappear from the scene after filing the RFC, although numerous Rienzo sockpuppets mysteriously appeared at the same time.

I dream of cheese 16:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

lol what --Golbez 16:36, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

User:I drеаm оf сhееsе (note that almost every character is a Unicode spoof of the Latin equivalent) has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of User:CheeseDreams. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2. JRM · Talk 16:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

And now User:I dream of cheese, the non-spoof version, as well. JRM · Talk 16:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

And User:Inmac.

Third parties who shall remain nameless have told me the account User:CheeseDreams has been compromised; its password is known. I have therefore blocked the account indefinitely. Since CheeseDreams is banned at present, this is not a problem, but the password must be reset before it is unblocked. JRM · Talk 17:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

And User:Kotex Ultra. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

If you are wondering what the password to CheeseDreams' account was, check out I dream of cheese.

Some people just dont pay attention 17:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Some people just don't pay attention. David Gerard already blocked CheeseDream's account indefinitely. The autoblocker bit me when I got near it, of course. I changed the account's password to something quite unhackable so this cannot happen to any other well-meaning but foolish administrator again. JRM · Talk 17:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

How did you get into the CheeseDreams account? I thought only I (and possibly bishonen) knew what the password was? jguk 18:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Loose lips sink ships. JRM · Talk 18:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand - I only told bish, no-one else. Did she spill the beans? jguk 18:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I told JRM, yes. Bishonen | talk 19:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

why does the password even matter? the account is blocked indefinitely, right? dab (ᛏ) 19:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Which I didn't find out until afterwards. That blocked accounts list isn't so small I'll load it up every time to double-check. Correction: loaded it up. I'm not making that mistake again. Thankfully nobody else will be able to, either. JRM · Talk 19:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: I have blocked Bishonen for 1 month for spilling the beans, as per WP:BEANS. Func( t, c, e,  ) 20:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Man, I KNEW you were trouble. I'm glad I voted against you. --Golbez 20:42, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Anyone know anything about this page? To me it looks like a violation of our userspace policy (using the page to communicate with non-Wikipedia users). It's being edited a lot so I'm thinking of protecting it but was wondering whether anyone knew any context around it. Comments? JYolkowski // talk 22:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Check the history; Jimbo himself endorsed it. What he says goes. --Golbez 22:12, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that edit, buried 1500 edits down in the history, that's probably how I missed it. JYolkowski // talk 22:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Really, I don't understand the problem. ;) (I meant to come back and say it was the third edit, heh) --Golbez 22:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

There's also a comment from him in the very top section of the talk page, which is the first place I looked when I was wondering about its legitimacy. — Dan | Talk 22:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales has approved it, so it should be left alone. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The biography on Biff Rose, a minor singer-songwriter from the late 1960s, has been subject to a concerted attack from a series of sock puppets. The article first came to my attention when an editor added Rose's name to a list of convicted NAMBLA members. [7][8]. Others who have edited Rose with the identical POV and fruadulent tactics have been:

• 216.175.116.151 (talk · contribs)
• 216.175.121.239 (talk · contribs)
• 216.175.116.198 (talk · contribs)
• Dearth vader (talk · contribs)
• Biffrose (talk · contribs)
• Jonah Ayers (talk · contribs)
• Varg Virkennes (talk · contribs)
• Bad apple (talk · contribs)
• Mmmmmmbo (talk · contribs)
• Efrim walzer (talk · contribs)
• Steve espinola (talk · contribs)
• Peace through superior edits (talk · contribs)
• Peter Pie (talk · contribs)
• Sojambi Pinela (talk · contribs)

This string of sock puppets made it impossible to edit Biff Rose into an NPOV article, and required page protection, which is still in place. I have blocked all of the username accounts except for Jonah Ayers, because it is not deceptive. Steve espinola appears to have been a more active account, but I blocked it because it is the name of a slightly famous person and appears intended to mislead. "Steve Espinola" is a professional musician and a friend of Rose's who edits here as Sojambi Pinola (talk · contribs). The usernames Steve espinola, Sojambi Pinela, and Biffrose all appear to have been designed to mislead other editors. The user was recently busy re-writing, yet again, most of the entries on Steve espinola 's talk page.[9] Prior to that this username was engaged in making junk edits in an apparent attempt to build up an edit history. -Willmcw 22:15, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I received the following email from User:McKhan:

Hi,

I am the author and sole copyright owner of "Kakay Zai / Kakazai / Kakezai :: Pathans :: (Published at: http://www.kakazai.com/aboutus/ ) as well as the article posted on WikiePedia.

I did NOT give permission to any of the editor of WikiPedia under any license or cirumstances to edit that article NOR I realeased that article under ANY Free License, knowingly, to WikiPedia.org or its affiliates.

Therefore, my article must be removed from WikiePedia.org and its affiliates in next 24 hours unless you add the copyright statement and link back to my official web-site: http://www.AliKhan.org

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Ali Khan - http://www.AliKhan.org - http://www.MediaMonitors.net

I have tried to explain to him that once he clicked save page he no longer owned the copyright, but he is demanding that the page either be removed, or the copyright be attached. How do we deal with this? Zoe 22:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's tough luck, since he's the owner of the copyright in both cases. If it were someone else using his copyrighted material, that would be different. I could be wrong though, perhaps the restrictive copyright elsewhere means we can't use it here. He could have a word with Jimbo/Angela/Foundation. -Splash 22:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, he DOES still own the copyright - as per the GFDL. Wikipedia doesn't own the copyright, nor is it public domain. He put it there, his fault for not knowing what he was getting in to. I don't really understand his complaint; is he mad other people edited his work? --Golbez 22:50, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Nobody even edited him, all that was done was cleanup headers were put up and he accused us of attacking him. I told him these were not attacks, and we hadn't even edited his comment, we were just trying to make it look standard, and I didn't edit personally because I don't know the topic. He refused to listen, he wans only his words in the article. He blanked it twice last night, I warned him after the first time, and then I blocked him for 24 hours. I'd just as soon delete it an avoid the hassle, except for setting a bad precedent. But putting a copyright notice on the article isn't the way to go either. I have no problem with a link to his page. Zoe 22:54, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, it should be deleted. While we could make this into a test case for the legal legitimacy of click-through licensing (something that has never been established), I don't think it is worth it. He didn't understand what his actions implied and didn't intend to license his work under the GFDL, and I think we should respect his intentions and delete the page. Dragons flight 23:08, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. Let's not try to force the issue here when it's unclear there would be any benefit to anyone. Had this page been massively edited already it would be another matter, but this isn't worth it. I also note that we explicitly allow the speedy deletion of pages explained to have been created by mistake. I think this qualifies. JRM · Talk 23:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Withdrawn in light of the other issues raised. Weird story, this. If mr. Khan is just annoyed at having his brilliant prose integrated with the existing article, it's indeed tough noogies for him. But I do note Tearlach apparently didn't create the article from scratch. Where is it from? If he copied this from [10] it's a simple copyvio, regardless of what Khan may have done to the article afterwards. JRM · Talk 00:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The claimed source actually cites a few Wikipedia articles, so this is a strange request. It seems Tearlach, who started the article, has now rewritten the content. Incidentally, some of these Pashtun-related pages have been the focus of disputes over ethnic issues, which makes me think what's on the surface here may not be the full story. Language comprehension issues have made the problem rather confusing at times, though. --Michael Snow 23:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• If other editors have contributed to it (and the editor in question didn't even create it), then it should not be deleted. And since the article has been edited since McKhan's work, it should be allowed to stand, or taken to VfD. We can always put a link on the talk page if really necessary. -Splash 23:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay... I think we have misunderstood the situation. I believe based on the history, that Tearlach created the page (original version from history) as a copyvio of Ali Khan's material at: [11]. Then Ali Khan registered an account McKhan and tried to delete the content which had been stolen from him: i.e. this diff. If we assume that Tearlach is not Ali Khan, which makes sense since they were edit warring at one point, then it would seem that this page started as a pure copyvio, which would be grounds for it's immediate removal. Just to complicate things, Tearlach seems to have rewritten the page from its initial copyvio state into something substantially different: diff. So maybe we should just delete Ali Khan's material from the history and the images taken from his site and keep the present text. I'll let other people look at it to judge if it is still a copyvio. Dragons flight 00:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Wait, wait, it gets better. Apparently this is originally a cut-and-paste move of Kakazai/Kakay Zai: history. I'm not sure, but Ali Khan (a.k.a. McKhan and various IPs) may actually have written and submitted this originally. At which point we are back to it being some kind of a mistake. Dragons flight 00:14, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, McKhan, as an anon, created the article several times with the exact same content and various titles. I asked on the Talk page of one of them which spelling we should use, as he was using several different spellings throught the article. I thought Tearlach had done a move, I'm not sure, you'll have to ask him/her, but I redirected all of the duplicate articles to one location, and put the cleanup header on it. Zoe 00:23, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

To confirm that: yes, the article - a copy of Ali Khan's blog page - was created by 141.242.24.105 (talk · contribs) at various duplicate pages. Zoe rationalised the mess to a single article at Kakazai/Kakay Zai. I ran into it via Wikipedia:Cleanup and shifted it to the primary spelling of Kakazai, and later cleaned it up.

The confusion over the history is my fault: I copied-and-pasted the text rather than using the correct Move procedure. Sorry.

See User talk:Tearlach#Kakazai and User Talk:McKhan: McKhan initially didn't mind the page on Wikipedia, being (discussion revealed) the original poster. But he took the cleanup tags as a personal affront, and finally decided to take his bat home. Tearlach 16:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

...is obviously a nonsense cat. Every addition to it is vandalism. I've emptied it out several times but, lo-and-behold it comes back again. Could use some more eyes on it. -Splash 01:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

and note that, even with the cat page protected as it now is, that doens't stop the addition of articles to it. A current favourite is adding it to other AOL IP talk pages. -Splash 01:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

How odd. Keeping an eye, though as vandalism goes it's rather harmless and easy to clean up. --fvw* 01:56, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I protected the pages that were being used in the vandalism from recreation. We cannot delete the category, since the category does not have to have a page in order for it to exist. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• You know, this is a strange situation. A category page consists of the text on top and a list of contained pages at the bottom. Thus it's not really possible to block out a category using the tl:deletedpage - that way, the cat will appear valid on any article. Not that I mind or have a better solution, but still. Radiant_>|< 08:50, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I just blocked this user for a 3RRR violation, apparently there is some speculation that this user is User:Wik. I'm not familiar with the wik case; could somone that is confirm this by looking at the editing habits of this user and extend the block as necessary. Thanks.--nixie 02:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• THANK YOU. see also: User:Sanctu, it's a sock, I don't know of who. SchmuckyTheCat 02:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, I'm happy to confirm this. Both appear to be Wik, and are trying to extend an old revert war on Schnorrer. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've blocked both indefinately.--nixie 03:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It may not be coincidental that Wik's latest primary account, NoPuzzleStranger, was recently blocked. --Michael Snow 04:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• He's back [12] [13] and apparently has a bot to ring an alarm clock because within seconds of that article changing it gets reverted. 15:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It's 220KB. I know I'm not helping by not archiving it myself, but if someone could find the time and patience to do so, it would be most appreciated! - David Gerard 14:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

See User talk:David Gerard#Proxy_Users and Special:Ipblocklist. I just went through that list of proxify.com addresses and blocked each IP or (in some cases) subnets.

Are there any other commercial services that aren't in the block list as yet? Also, someone still needs to hit those Tor servers.

(Anyone taking this as a cue for a debate on whether we should allow open proxy editing hasn't seen what most of them are used for. I have. Hoo boy. Open proxies are unwelcome on Wikipedia, as decreed by Jimbo, for excellent reasons.) - David Gerard 14:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The last time fvw tried to mass-block as many open proxies as he could find, he had to undo the blocks because it caused performance problems. I trust the most recent version of the software can handle the load? Also, AOL is very much like an open proxy... what's the solution for that? -- Curps 03:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. I asked on wikitech-l, but no-one's answered yet. CesarB has sent me a huge list of open proxies, with the scripts he used to generate the list ... but there's no way I'm attempting to autoblock all of them. So what I'll be doing is looking at each, seeing if it's actually being abused and block more or less only as each is actually a problem.

Oh, and we have no answer to AOL as yet - David Gerard 08:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)