Current issues

• I have a question about users who insult bots. For example this edit summary. Is this considered a personal attack ? If it were "Fuck [username]" it would definitely be a personal attack this much we know for sure. Is a bot a contributor, as designated in WP:NPA in the phrase Comment on content, not on the contributor.? I think that if the bot has a "contributions" page, then it must be a contributor. However a bot is also a form of contribution by the owner and contributions are inherent to content, so it's hard for me to tell. I believe it may be a case that the bot is at the same time a contribution and a contributor.
• Is "fuck" considered rude, because in WP:CIVIL it says not to be rude, yet the other day I saw BetacommandBot had left a valid but perhaps misplaced (admin was not the original uploader) message on an admin's talk page about a missing rationale, which was removed with the comment "fuck off, silly trout".
• I'm saying this because many bots accomplish ungrateful tasks and insults directed at them may be perceived as being directed at the owner. I don't agree with the mass deletion tagging of images by bots for deletion, but maybe the solution is not to attempt to antagonise the owner but rather change the deletion criteria, if one is so inclined. I think most bots are made in good faith, take time and effort to develop and keep running. Be it allowed or not, someone who knows should mention the status of bots on WP:ATTACK. Jackaranga 18:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the policies you cite can't apply to bots; their intent is to govern discussion between contributors. But the first example you gave is a clear example of disruption to the project. — madman bum and angel 21:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most bots have pretty thick skin and won't mind. It's all a matter of context as to the verbiage. In this case it's pretty clear that this user is being disruptive. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking bots is probably less problematic than attacking human users, but I'd prefer if it were still frowned upon. Take context into account. Bots (generally!) have a pretty thick skin, but the humans who operate them might not. Particularly in the case of a mass-messaging bot, it seems unlikely that the operator will notice somebody reverting one of several hundred automated messages, however snarky the edit summary may be. Marauding over to the bot or owner's talk page with lengthy streams of obscenity, now, that's probably going to be noticed, and should be avoided. In general, we're all people, so play nice and be considerate. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the user was blocked, and not just for that. Users who insult bots typically are trolling for one reason or another and are blocked for likewise annoying actions. — madman bum and angel 02:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the specific user in this thread was pretty unambiguously up to nothing fantastic. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

/me is tempted to creat User:Insultbot :o) Guy (Help!) 23:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy making the bots cry by insulting their mothers, than realizing that they have none, and rubbing it their proverbial faces. I'm a cruel, heartless bastard like that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have called bot "stupid/disruptive bot" a number of times in my edit summary. Does the bot feel painful about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by @pple (talk • contribs) 16:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every bot is controlled or managed by a user. If I were a bot controller and someone insulted my bot, I would indeed feel offended myself. Furthermore, you could argue that a bot controller is the bot's parent, so "I enjoy making the bots cry by insulting their mothers, than realizing that they have none" isn't quite true! Waggers 10:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries such as 'fuck off' or 'leave me the fuck alone' are never acceptable. An occasional outburst is usually overlooked, since responding causes more trouble than it's worth. But an editor who makes it a habit to swear in edit summaries should be advised to change their behavior. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been blocked no fewer than nine times, always for the same things- edit-warring on Killian documents and its related pages, and incivility. He is now blocked, for a week for-- wait for it-- edit-warring on Killian documents authenticity issues, and he's spending his block spewing personal attacks and accusations of incompetence and conspiracy against... well, pretty much everyone who crosses his path, as far as I can see. He doesn't seem to have made any real changes in his editing patterns despite the many blocks and the assorted people who have tried to gently guide him into the right way. Do you think it's time for an indefinite block? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I extended his block to a month as a result of his mocking remarks, and protected the talk page for the duration of this block to prevent any more of them. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, and would endorse a theoretical indef if xe misbehaves again. The community's patience can, in fact, be exhausted. - Philippe | Talk 04:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also endorse, I got bad vibes after I didn't block him and another person for 3RR. Caribbean H.Q., is there any reason you blocked with autoblock disabled? east.718 at 04:17, 11/9/2007

I was under the impression that the box was checkmarked, not sure it should be established anyways since autoblocks are temporary and one will expire shortly probably affecting hundreds of users if his address is dynamic. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, autoblocks only last 24 hours and generally it is a feature that only helps in stopping a user with a history of socking. Keegan^talk 05:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occasional good edits but he seems unable or unwilling to understand the concept of original research. From his calls to battle, wild accusations, and incivility, I'm not sure he cares. This current block should be his last chance if it isn't extended to indef (which I'd have no objection to). - Merzbow 05:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't a topic ban be put into effect? SashaCall 05:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally that would take a community decision from dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration. The community noticeboard used to try to tackle these things, but reaching consensus in a noticeboard format proved to be a problem since discussion wasn't organized to define an outcome. Keegan^talk 05:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we couldn't hold a consensus discussion regarding a topic ban here. To demonstrate, I'll propose it: let's topic ban Callmebc from Killian documents and related pages. Durova^Charge! 08:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think User: UBeR is considering an RfC. This might be a better forum, as the aim there should be to demonstrate to the user which parts of his behaviour (as opposed to his opinions) are unacceptable. My experience with User:Callmebc suggests that a topic ban will be waste of time, as it will be hard to make him understand that the reason is not political prejudice. --Stephan Schulz 12:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we at least remove the full-protection from Callmebc's talk page so s/he can respond to some of these accusations and potential bans? I realize the page was being used for less than productive purposes, and have blocked Callmebc myself, but s/he should be able to respond to a potential ban. - auburnpilot talk 13:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, protection reduced to semi. Regarding how this editor perceives it, I'd rather try topic banning as a lesser solution to sitebanning, which can and does get applied when editors act as if all of Wikipedia were with 'em or against 'em. Some people used to use a template for transclusion back when WP:CSN was operational, so editors who were blocked could convey their point of view to a sanctions discussion without impediment. Would someone go through the archives and install that for this discussion, please? Durova^Charge! 18:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't indicated that all of Wikipedia is against him, but that someone more powerful than admins is against him and altered edits. Actually, his memory of the edits is as faulty as his reading of my cited source. (SEWilco 22:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Can someone put a linked mention of this discussion on User talk:Callmebc and change its protection to semiprotection? As Durova mentioned above, he changed to semi, but he didn't mention this discussion so we don't know if Callmebc's resulting ranting (and reprotection) were in response to this discussion. (SEWilco 23:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I've left a message and asked the protecting administrator to change the protection level. It's already been flip flopped once. I am not going to add to that confusion. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would fully support any extension to this user's block, including indefinitely. If that must be achieved through some other venue as Keegan suggested, then I feel that would be appropriate. As Dr. Schulz noted, I was hoping to at least achieve a RfC regarding Callmebc's behavior and conduct. I was holding that off because we was blocked for a week for violating 3RR on at least 3 different articles over the course of 24 hours. His block was also extended to a month due to inappropriate comments left on his talk page after being blocked. Most recently, his talk page was unblocked per suggestions above, but had to be re-fully-protected because of soapboxing. However, if he was blocked for a month simply because of his inappropriate conduct while being blocked, I suggest a review of the myriad incivility and personal attacks that spans over several articles and involves several editors, to discuss the possibility of an extension on that block. This user has been warned by several administrators through several venues over the course of his time here, and has been blocked a number of times due to his continued incivility, disruption, and personal attacks among other improper conduct. If this is simply his latest stint, I ask, how much longer are the administrators going to tolerate continued harassment and disruption? ~ UBeR 21:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is a topic ban, not a block extension. Durova^Charge! 00:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know he's been a big pain at the Killian related articles. My only problem with banning him from Killian articles is that he'll have more time to focus on other articles that I'm involved with--namely global warming--and this is where I experience most of Callmebc's rudeness. Don't forget, this user has acted inappropriately across an array of articles--not just the Killian ones. It is his behavior displayed other users that I am most concerned about, and I don't think a topic ban will address that (though it may reduce disruptiveness at the Killian articles). This is why I favor an extension on the block. ~ UBeR 01:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point. ~ UBeR 21:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An indef topic ban on related articles is a most appropriate action. Support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He considers Global Warming and Killian documents as being related and refers to them as fronts in a war. (diff) (SEWilco 22:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm the admin who reprotected the user's talk page. I did so because within an hour after it was reduced to semi to allow him to comment on this thread, he went back to the admin corruption / incompetence tirade rather than addressing the topic. I am fine with going back to semi as long as it is understood that this is to enable productive comments only and not trolling. Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks  18:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, a topic-specific block will not address this user's longstanding and flagrant violating of WP:CIVIL. Even after one of several recent blocks for Civility (User:Callmebc#Civility) he continues to make disparaging comments about other editors, has accused totally uninvolved administrators of being part of a massive conspiracy to silence him, and frequently includes insulting or offensive edit summaries as part of his contribution to Talk pages and articles. How much more clear can it be that he should desist from personal attacks? As for me, I have ideological differences with this editor and am myself a longstanding editor of Killian documents, but it is his basic inability to avoid continued sarcasm and personal attacks that is most tiring, and which really violates the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Please consider this. I would be happy to discuss further with diffs as required. IMO it isn't his viewpoint that makes working with him "challenging," but his Manichean view of these articles - him against an evil cabal of "right wing idiots." A topic ban would likely make it easier on me, since I don't share that much edit space with this user, but I think it misses the truly dispiriting part of his presence on WP. WP:NPA should be easy to understand and non-negotiable.Kaisershatner 19:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC) If Rfc is a better forum for this, I am for that as well. Maybe even a better place than this, given this user's special concerns that there is a witch hunt of admins out to get him. Kaisershatner 19:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume he will be allowed to serve his block (I'd highly oppose an early unblock, he still needs time to cool off), and then the topic ban will take effect. If he starts up again with the bad behavior on other articles, I'm sure admins will take quick action if it's reported here, since this is clearly his last chance. (Global Warming is a highly-trafficked articled, it's unlikely disruption there will go unnoticed or unremedied for long). - Merzbow 00:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone be willing to mentor Callmebc? Durova^Charge! 01:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has replied on his talk page (User talk:Callmebc#My Reply). He copied this discussion so he could reply to it, then ignored this discussion and repeated his erroneous complaints about the Killian "Mother's Day" issue (it's a short section which is based entirely upon the Campenni source; Callmebc's flailing is illustrated in the article Talk page by his taking a month to recognize that Campenni mentioned supporting official records[1], and we haven't even been able to deal with the main flaws of his item 1 statement). Callmebc's second to last paragraph applies quite well to him, particularly as the rest of User talk:Callmebc shows there is reason to not AGF. The last paragraph of his reply seems to refer to the first paragraph of User talk:Callmebc#Yet more Wiki Wackiness; when reading it remember that he promised to cause more 3RRs (and that carries more implication than meaning). (SEWilco 05:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

His main point seems to be that he was justified in reverting because his version was correct, and the other one was obviously false. If so, that evidences a fundamental misunderstanding of 3RR and the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, which suggests a high risk that there will be future problems. His statement that "a topic ban would a total ban for practical purposes" shows a lack of interest in editing on other topics where he might be able to edit more constructively. So it looks like a topic ban wouldn't solve anything. -- But|seriously|folks  18:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SPA. Durova^Charge! 19:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early in the Mother's Day talk, he found an excerpt of Campenni's text which was five sentences long and based several arguments upon that being the entire text, despite being told he was mistaken. You can see at that point in the discussion that he spins quite a web from that text fragment, with his edits correspondingly certain of falsehood. If you look at his user talk page for that period, you find that while he was blocked he said he'd make many changes and proceeded to spew across the article without being able to discuss individual changes. (SEWilco 23:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Callmebc's talk page was unprotected for the limited purpose of discussing the proposed topic ban, rather than an all-out block. The discussion there has recently turned to the content dispute that caused him to be blocked in the first place. I have asked him not to continue that discussion, because it is beyond the scope of the unprotection. I have also asked the others engaged there not to continue, because it wouldn't be fair for them to persist with the argument on his talk page when he is not supposed to respond. -- But|seriously|folks  03:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I and others have already stated: A topic ban will be an ineffective remedy for Callmebc's behavior. ~ UBeR 19:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Callmebc#Specific replies to comments made has replies to many of the above comments. (SEWilco 01:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have reprotected User talk:Callmebc because she appears to be unable to confine herself to the terms of the unprotection, which were to address the topic ban. Callmebc has had much more input into this process that most blocked users would have enjoyed. (I have also blocked SEWilco for 24 hours for egging her on with knowledge of the established limits.)

That being said, Callmebc is obviously not interested in a topic ban as an alternative to the block. Accordingly, I would support keeping the block in place. I would also support an indefinite topic ban because this editor is unwilling to leave the articles in question to consensus and will doubtless continue edit warring. Since she is currently blocked, the topic ban is a moot point. Once the one month block expires, Callmebc will be able to participate in further discussion of the topic ban. -- But|seriously|folks  18:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a side note: I think it's a he. ~ UBeR 22:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure if he objects to being called a she, s/he will correct me. In the meantime, SEWilco has persuaded me that he was not trolling, so I have unblocked him. I did ask him to stay off of Callmebc's talk page (in the event it is unprotected). -- But|seriously|folks  03:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Once in a while I find a page in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and it proves to contain a {{hangon}} tag but no {{db.....}} tag. Likely while its author was developing the page he put the hangon tag as a precaution to say "hold your horses" to anyone who got overhasty wanting to delete it early. Should the hangon template put pages in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion? Anthony Appleyard 11:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite often, authors of pages tagged for speedy deletion will replace the speedy tag with their {{hangon}}. That would seem to be why it keeps the page in the category. The main problem it causes is where the authors misunderstand the notification on their user talk page and put the hangon template there instead of on the article. Sam Blacketer 11:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also sometimes article gets speedy-deleted, and the original author recreates the article immediately with {{hangon}} on it. Check the article's deleted revisions and/or the author's deleted contributions and you'll probably figure out what they're trying to do. Speedy deletion process confuses the heck out of people - expect every form of weirdness. Luckily, there's a logical explanation for almost everything. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that happens where the user has gone to edit the article, and in between clicking on 'edit this page' and on 'save page', an administrator has deleted it. Sam Blacketer 14:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't really see what the problem is with hangon-ed articles being put in Cat:CSD, since these articles should be deleted more times than not. This particular categorization has also alerted me to people improperly tagging their usertalk page, or accidently adding hangon to the article talk page instead of the article - somehow they always miss that huge red message. But the hangon template does also place articles in Category: Contested candidates for speedy deletion, a sub-category for Cat:CSD, so if this is a real problem perhaps the tag could just add the contested category. Natalie 14:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other situation I see this happening is when a new editor confuses their user talk space for the article talk space and puts the {{hangon}} there instead. If you see a lonely {{hangon}} on a user talk page, that's probably what happened. Caknuck 15:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything really ambiguous about the user talk page notice that one of their articles is going to be speedied. Usually, they replace the speedy tag with a hangon tag thinking that {{hangon}} is an ironclad defense against erasure. Sometimes, that kind of thing is missed; so I think the template should keep that category. JuJube 23:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Bot-related suggestion Is this not simply a case of a particular type of either typographical error or action not in keeping with present procedure? If yes, then perhaps articles that have a 'hangon' and lack a 'CSD template' could be addressed by bot to add the 'CSD template' ... if examination by the bot of the edit history reveals that a CSD template had been affixed and removed ... or to remove the 'hangon' ... if examination by the bot of the edit history revealed the absence of a previously placed CSD template. Not having authored bots, I'm not sure if this kind of discrimination is within the capabilities of standard bot scripts or not. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly could be done, but I'm not sure there's much need for it. Sure, clicking on a link in CAT:CSD and getting a page with just a {{hangon}} tag may be confusing the first time it happens, but it's not actually hard to check the history yourself (which you should do before speedy deletion anyway). This isn't anywhere near the oddest thing you'll encounter if you spend enough time going through CAT:CSD. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the newer users put the {{hangon}} tag in place of the {{db}}. I find this in a lot of article edits by newer users. Like, if adding to a list, they simply write a new person over another person's name on a list, for no apparent reason. If anyone finds out why, you've solved one of the greatest mysteries of my Wikipedia life. нмŵוτнτ 01:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hello. I am Bugman94. When I was editing Wikipedia under that account all I wanted to do was vandalize. That is also what I intended to do with a couple sockpuppets. As I got older, and used the wiki more I began to love it and the people on it and I noticed the impact it had on many many people. So I ask you. Please PLEASE, will you allow me to create a new account and start new please. All my recent socks have no intentional vandal contributions. Please. Have faith in me. My vandal days are over. Thank you. KingPuppy 20:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least you'r being honest. The decision is not up to me though. Qst (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SOCK ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have many times. I just want a chance please. KingPuppy 21:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you use a single account and on your userpage write a brief history of your involvement identifying past accounts and explain that you've changed. You could put the full details on a subpage in your userspace. If you reveal the history, that may protect you from any claims. What you don't want is for somebody to discover the socks later on and file a complaint. If you declare, explain, and behave properly with the new account, Wikipedians are likely to forgive past mistakes. If you old account is banned on indefinitely blocked, you should first petition to have editing privileges restored. Do that by email, not by creating more socks. I hope this helps. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're using the KingPuppy account, which is new...what's really going on here? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you use the account your editing from now? Oysterguitarist 21:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to start new w/ a new account. Please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingPuppy (talk • contribs) 21:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming the system won't let you for some reason, follow Jehochman's advice, use the talk page of KingPuppy. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have written an apoligy on my userpage. Also would it be smart to apologize to those I have been in conflict with for example EMC or PGK? KingPuppy 23:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. But you were actually BANNED, not merely blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is a sock of a banned user who has created loads of multiple accounts. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bugman94, whether he's sorry or not, he's once again evaded the ban. If he wants to appeal his ban, he should take it to ArbCom. I've blocked this account indef. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, where was the ban discussion? Or is this one of those old indef block / no one willing to unblock bans? (I ask because there is not an entry at Wikipedia:List of banned users.) --Iamunknown 00:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He admitted that, do you have any reason to assume his apology is insincere? I don't see any reason why the arbcom has to be involved with this otherwise. —Ruud 00:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He caused a hell of a lot of disruption with his socks, there's no reason to believe that he's not editing with other socks now. I suggested ArbCom to appeal the original ban, because I'm no way comfortable with this guy editing given his history. Interesting point about the ban, I always thought he was community banned, but it could be one of those "no-one willing to unblock" bans. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no reason except WP:AGF. How long has it been since his last sock got blocked? Or did you not know that either before capriciously blocking his new account? -- Kendrick7^talk 00:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, this is stupid. I told him to just get another account and not be honest this time. Terrible advice to give to a 13 y.o. but honesty clearly isn't always the best policy around here. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know to the hour, but I remember blocking one about a month or two ago per check user evidence. That's my problem here, and we don't assume good faith when there is clear evidence to the contrary. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if he was vandalizing with that last account I'd be less inclined to assume good faith. If it was a CU for the sake of CU based on topic area or something, I'd be more inclined to believe in his reformation. The original ban was way back in May of 2006. If he was really 12 back then, then he could have changed a lot by now. Were any of Puppy's edits problematic? -- Kendrick7^talk 01:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The past history shows he has the potential to disrupt and he's been banned for a good reason - Since 2006, he's created multiple socks, up to at least last month, so there's no reason to believe he's going to edit constructively. Editors that are banned are not welcome here under any account. Admission of him having this account is admission of ban evasion. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's just that confession is bad for the soul is completely counter-intuitive to my religious tradition. Sneaking back into the community with a wig and a pair of Groucho Marx glasses is a strange option to even have which only works in cyberspace. Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive! -- Kendrick7^talk 01:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When a user is banned the only way to lift the ban is trough ArbCom, thats the main diference between a indef block and a ban. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if he quietly creates a new account, does not vandalize or disrupt, does not reference his past misdeeds, and does not display suspicious editing patterns, he effectively doesn't need to ask ArbCom. I really think these "please, I promise" postings from banned serial vandals are just poor trolls, and we shouldn't bite. We should have an essay or something explaining it, and when the requests show up, we just link to the essay and tag "resolved". <eleland/talkedits> 00:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've been thinking a series of parables might do the trick. They are stories which repeat themselves over and over around here. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he would create an account and just keep quiet he would be able to edit. Oysterguitarist 01:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not what he wants to do. Keeping quiet isn't on his agenda. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But maybe a request for checkuser is? Oysterguitarist 01:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume his last account was User:SLSB. That account had over 1,000 edits and seemed like a productive editor before being suddenly blocked in September as a sock of the May 2007 vandal account. No explanatory link was given in the block log. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned users can't edit, period, even if their contributions are viewed as constructive. The ban must be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. If you don't like this, feel free to initiate discussion on WT:BAN, but given this procedure has been pretty much stable for as long as I can remember on WIkipedia, it is unlikely that consensus will change. Daniel 02:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand that. I'm just perplexed his last account, after months of being a productive wikipedian, ever got found out. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On that point, I have no idea :) Daniel 03:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When is the last time that this user, under any account, was actually vandalizing rather than seeking to contribute constructively? If it was several months ago, a request for lifting the ban might be in order. If not, not, but a response of "if you refrain from socking or block evasion for [N] months we will lift the ban" might be in order. Newyorkbrad 03:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering... was the ArbCom involved here or not? Was there a discussion about banning him? If this is a community ban, it will last as long as no administrator is willing to unblock him. -- ReyBrujo 03:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the difference between a ban and a block, was this user banned? Not that I'm in a hurry to see an unblock but I'm wondering why Arbcom action would be needed here? RxS 03:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't know of any ArbCom case on this user, and I'm familiar with most of the cases from the past year and a half or so. (For that matter, I don't see Bugman94 on the list of banned users at all, but that's not dispositive as often enough no one remembers to add a community-banned user to the list.) I think the meaning of "community ban" has evolved to the point that if there has been a lengthy community discussion resulting in a ban, no single admin should unblock without consensus. However, my question as to whether the user's non-constructive edits are recent or date from many months ago stands. Newyorkbrad 03:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, of course. I am just trying to understand the situation. The original user was blocked last year for page move vandalism, his log block does not indicate he was banned, just blocked until PilotGuy changed the template at his user page, and the only discussion I find about him is this one. -- ReyBrujo 03:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking into this. I of course can't see any potentially oversighted edits, nor do I have any evidence that there are any. This user created an account on May 31 2007, User:Jlsatty, and requested via his other account User:JohnnyB123 (created on 30 May by other sockpuppet User:SuperBall53) to create the account Mr Bubbles on May 30th 2007 (note that he already had used the account User:Bubbles2430 the previous year). The user User:Hahaimbored, from May 22 2007, was clearly a disruptive sockpuppet. The User:JellyBelly372 was not really disruptive, but was yet another user created in the same week (28 may 2007). The user SparkleMan, created a few weeks later, could not recall his previous ID's when asked sepcifically for it[2]. Then again, SuperBall53 also had no idea why anyone would think he was User:WikiMan53[3], already created in December 2006.

But perhaps this is the most damning? [4] Half of these have since been blocked as sockpuppets of this user. At the end of August, he didn't feel the need to reveal his previous accounts and troubles, but was preparing to become an admin...[5] (and in case you wonder, this user was perfectly aware of how to use alternate accounts in a correct way[6]).

In short, this is a user who has created tons of sockpuppets between May and September 2007, has already twice attempted to become an admin while having undeclared other accounts, and denies having other accounts even when sepcifically asked. Why should we now, only three months later, suddenly trust him? Support ban, definitely. Fram 13:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sure, I know. He disrupts, he must be blocked, indefinitely if necessary, etc. What I still don't see is where he was officially banned, by either the ArbCom, Jimbo or the community. The difference is minimal since he apparently continues to disrupt, but I don't like the idea of people getting banned by just changing a template at the user page. -- ReyBrujo 15:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the discussion you linked to did conclude that "One blatant vandalism and this user is banned". I can't find a more formal ban, but this seems to me a case of "a ban is an indef block where no one is willing to unblock / the consensus if to keep indef blocked" If needed, I belatedly support banning this user. Fram 16:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That list of account creation doesn't make any sense. If you were going to do this maliciously, wouldn't you log out first? and wouldn't you actually use the accounts you've created? Maybe he just edits from a school computer or something and doesn't log out; or eagerly shows others the joys of wikipedia (only to see all his friends banned as his sockpuppets) It's really screwy. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. First, not every vandal is smart enough to figure out what can be easily found, what needs a bit more work, and what is near impossible to check. Furthermore, it looks like he mixed his own sockpuppet accounts with real, separate, requested accounts, making it harder to block (or just be certain) by looking at the creation log alone. But the interaction between different accounts is suspicious, and the fact that some of them have been found through checkuser seals it for me. That the same kind of behaviour is repeated (the May creations, and then the August creations) is even worse, and doesn't give me the confidence that the current apology is genuine, or that enough time has passed to consider this editor for a second chance. Fram 19:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have created those accounts by request at WP:ACC; see Wikipedia:Request_an_account/August_2007. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it is now impossible (as far as I can see) to tell which IP's actually requested these accounts. He had a history of creation one account with another account[7],[8], some perhaps legitimate, some not. I would like to point out this checkuser page Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bugman94, where it is clearly stated that one of the characteristics of these socks is going to account requests. This is from before the august creations, so it is not a justification after the fact. Fram 09:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was caught creating sockpuppets back in June 2006. But the accounts his later reincarnations created thru WP:ACC that were used were never blocked as his socks, only those that weren't ever used, where knowing whether or not they are socks is impossible. Seems like a real failure of WP:AGF to make this out as some sort of ongoing history. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They can be known as his socks if the IP's that requested the creation match. In some cases, the names of the new accounts are rather suspicious as well. Anyway, on May 30 2007, user SuperBall53 created user JohnnyB123[9], who requested to create the account MR_BUBBLES[10]. He had already used user Bubbles2430 the year before. So he creates an account that asks to create an account via account creation request page, with a name that resembles an older sockpuppet. You would have to ask the blocking admin if he has more info than this, but for me, this is enough to be very suspicious of all users created by this sockpuppeteer. And anyway, these accounts were only blocked fourteen days after creation, without any contribs yet, and without any complaints, so it doesn't look like many productive editors were scared away. Fram 21:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, like the fancy title things says, I'd like to request that you happy admin folks ban a user. No, not me. Bluemaven. I, as an Uncyclopedia admin, have had to deal, recently, with a user by the username Zana Dark. Yes, the Zana Dark who was indefinitely banned from Wikipedia on November 4th. She is now banned for the same amount of time on Uncyclopedia (as of last night), due to her behaviour. The same fate has met Bluemaven, who, while a CheckUser does not show it, is very very likely to be a sockpuppet of Zana Dark, based on her edits. Now, Bluemaven has come to my Wikipedia talkpage, and I'd like to request that you fine and lovely chaps ban her. -- Zombiebaron (shout) 21:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is I think specifically noteworthy that Bluemaven self-identifies as "Zana" as per here. John Carter 21:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should leave a note asking him/her to stop first, then, if that doesn't work, then we could ban him/her. Prodego ^talk 21:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, I'm fairly certain that this would be an unacceptable use of sockpuppets, eh? Isn't that an acceptable reason for a ban? -- Zombiebaron (shout) 21:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, perhaps. Can never hurt to leave a warning though. Prodego ^talk 21:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, wouldn't that violate WP:DENY, to my understanding of WP:DENY? In anycase, she's been banned, so there's no need to warn anyone. -- Zombiebaron (shout) 21:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zombiebaron. Zombieninja101 21:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. GlassCobra 21:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you GlassCobra. -- Zombiebaron (shout) 21:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I agree with blocking Bluemaven on this evidence. Now, about Zombieninja101 who just popped back for the first time in over a month, and hasn't made more than 4 total edits since April. Is there any reason not to block this account as a sockpuppet? GRBerry 21:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is a fellow Uncyclopedian with whom I was disscussing this matter. I doubt that that qualifies as a sockpuppet. -- Zombiebaron (shout) 21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got a girlfriend in April, which meant little time for wikipedia, and never bothered to return as an active editer to this or any of my old wiki's after we broke up in August. Oh yeah and I lost my computer for the entire summer. You should note that I've been here over a year, and have fought over things that I doubt ZB's ever heard of, such as Madness Combat. Which I still wish would get an article, although that doesn't seem likely. Zombieninja101 22:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a sock of a blocked or banned user does not need a warning. Once ID'd as a sock, they can be immediately blocked for block-evasion. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But again, warnings are never wrong. Prodego ^talk 23:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we block them for sock/vandalism/whatever then slap their wrist when they don't comply? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That depends. Understand I have no problem with the block. However, the question is how reliably can you prove (remembering WP:AGF) that a user is sockpuppet. In this case I didn't see the link as strong enough to block without warning, and would personally give at least one (probably one in this case) before blocking. That said, I repeat: I have no problem with the block. Prodego ^talk 23:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I said "Once ID'd as a sock,", I didn't say it was always easy, but sometimes it's ridiculously obvious. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; sometimes, they simply say "I'm a sock of so-and-so". Painfully easy to identify then. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But only if they are telling the truth, & not lying in order to get an otherwise innocent editor in trouble. -- llywrch 20:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors, User:Lonewolf BC and User:TharkunColl, are engaging in mild edit warring by removing cited material through reverts with either irrational summary, or no summary, and no discussion; this is after lengthy debate at Talk:Royal Burial Ground resulted in a narrow, but observable, consensus to insert that which the above two editors continually remove. This behaviour appears to be in bad faith, and is certainly disruptive. The page has now been protected twice, at my request. The actions of these tenditious editors needs some attention, please. --G2bambino 03:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I'd say that the situation needs additional comment rather than just these two editors - it looks like everyone (G2bambino included) should step back and consider whether they're being a bit too overzealous about this issue. Surely it could be resolved with less sturm und drang than this. Isn't there a compromise position that could be reached -- something that accurately describes the royal family but doesn't distract from the point of the article? --TheOtherBob 03:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, British Royal Family. Although I'm keeping out of Royalty-related articles now, due to the many arguments, I really think G2bambino has a strong POV, the current wording on the above article is ludicrous! As I have said a thousand million times, common usage demands they should be known as the British Royal Family (which "doesn't distract from the article" like Commonwealth realms does). --UpDown 14:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you demand, and in the face of verifiable evidence that your POV is narrow-minded, no less. This is why you resort to debasing your opponent's argument by misrepresenting it, as opposed to actually dealing with it.

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty, the founder of the WikiProject put forward the following as a proposed guideline for the WikiProject:

"Where appropriate – i.e. in any case where the monarchy, or an aspect thereof, is/was shared between Britain and any other state independent therefrom – it will be necessary to make specific mention of the Commonwealth realms, at first specifically, but more generally thereafter. The main state on which the article concentrates (Britain unless stated elsewhere) will be used most often throughout the text, but only as primus inter pares, and never to the exclusion of all others in the article."

This satisfied my concerns. The others continue to be obstinate. --G2bambino 16:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First I'd advise against commenting on the person rather than the issues -- stay cool. In terms of the WikiProject, I'm not sure that I'm as certain as you are that this is the final word on the subject -- consider whether that is the absolute authority here, or whether this might be the type of situation where an exception or less rigid approach would make sense. I'm not saying that this is the case -- but I am entirely certain that calling fellow editors "obstinate" is unlikely to get them to agree with you about it, but that being open to their views might. --TheOtherBob 16:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly love to comment on the issue instead of the person, however, in this case, the persons seem to be a large part of the problem; without cooperation, we can't move anywhere, and without communication there can't be any cooperation. Communication is more than simply restating the same personal opinion over and over again, and demanding the other party simply accept it as fact, without any provided evidence or even logic as to why they should do so; and this is precisely what has been going on at Talk:Royal Burial Ground, and, indeed, anywhere that this shared aspect of the royal family (and monarchy) comes to light. This becomes especially frustrating when cited and verifiable sources that contradict their POV are presented and consistently ignored. Willful ignorance and/or a constant unwillingness to explain why one's opinion is to be taken as absolute truth is what makes one appear obstinate. Using this as reason to continually revert any attempts to resolve is what makes a disruptive editor.

I have tried being cordial and collegiate with these people in the past; I have listened to their demands, understand their concerns, and have tried to create compromises that satisfy both parties; but still, their behaviour, and their stance, never changes. This same fight has been going on for months, and across dozens of articles. --G2bambino 17:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and you always start the "fight"! All you say above aplies equally to you, your POV, you not listening and so on. The way I read the guidelines at the WikiProject was that on Royal Burial Ground British Royal Family is sufficient. Seems the guidelines need rewriting. Anyway, as I've said I am not editing Royal articles anymore (hence having not reverted myself on the article). These sort of frustrating discussion are time-wasting, especially when certain editors refuse to budge and then accuse others of bad faith when they are merely trying to be logically and reflect common useage. Please don't accuse others of bad faith when they clearly are not.--UpDown 18:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A perfect example of what I speak of: the opinions of others are frustrating and a waste of time; evidence that supports their view is irrelevant; I say this is sufficient and therefore it is. And one is to assume good faith from that?

As I said, I've listened, I've understood, and I've tried to cooperate: "royal family of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" a) acknowledges the primary association of the royal family to the UK, b) acknowledges readers are most familiar with the British aspect of the royal family, and c) acknowledges that the royal family is shared and not purely British. That's called a compromise. --G2bambino 19:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that G2bambino has developed a POV, based on a selective reading of the sources, which leads him into quite ridiculous assertions such as the idea that the British Monarch does not reign over Canada, etc. For a very long time he has been inserting this POV into articles on the British Royal Family. TharkunColl 00:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a perfect example; you people are providing more proof of your attitude than I could've hoped for. Only someone who wishes to willfully dismiss those facts that contradict their POV would call this a selective reading of sources. A brutal unwillingness to even cooperate. --G2bambino 01:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who doesn't often get involved with these articles, though I read the debates, the view of G2B is 'unique' and I rarely see other editors sharing his POV. However, I believe he may be technically correct, but his edits tend to make the wording of articles convoluted and bizarre, and not reflecting the world as most people know it. Which is not to say he isn't 'technically' right. Just most people from the UK would go 'eh??' to look at it. Anyway I just mean to say that it's not Thark or Lonewolf's fault, a lot of people from Great Britain have the same reaction reading G2B's edits. Allowances should be made somewhat for this- maybe we're brainwashed.:)Merkinsmum 23:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, my view probably is "unique" from the viewpoint of some others, I can understand that; it hasn't eluded me that 95% of those who oppose me are from the United Kingdom, and I can imagine they're used to looking at things from their perspective. But, verifiable facts are verifiable facts, and Wikipedia isn't read by only UK citizens; it thus needs to take a more global stance where appropriate. The real mess emerges when a user or two simply can't accept that the way they've understood things might not be wholly accurate, and worse still when nationalism comes into play; i.e. those who think acknowledging the sharing of the monarchy - sharing! - diminishes the United Kingdom.

I've tried to be sensitive to this, and though I tend to take a more egalitarian stance, I've come to accept that the UK should, in certain circumstances, and for various reasons, be... highlighted, shall we say. My wording probably isn't perfect; it isn't easy to sum up a complex reality in a few measly words. But, my aim isn't to impose my specific composition anywhere, but to work towards one that is accurate, succinct, and acceptable by most users. I cannot, I repeat, cannot, do that without cooperation, which Thark, in particular, but some others such as Lonewolf (though for different reasons) and UpDown, refuse to do. It's like trying to show evidence to a brick wall. --G2bambino 03:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article really needs some more admin watchers to curb the POV war that is reoccuring there since the protection was rescinded. Kyaa the Catlord 03:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching... -- tariqabjotu 20:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a BLP deletion, and I would like some others to take a look at the article in question. Here's the undelete link: Special:Undelete/Norman_Dodd. I know we need an article on this guy probably, but in its current state, it could not continue to exist. Thanks. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should replace with a safe little stub. In fact, it may be better to stub than to delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the subject is notable, and there is some verifiability with third-party cites, a new BLP ought to be stubified, not deleted. Bearian 14:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"[..]in its current state, it could not continue to exist" is a ridiculous reason to delete. @pple complain 15:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It is really a stretch to apply the policy for biographies of living persons to somebody that has been dead for 20 years. (I assume the death date is accurate since it was added by NawlinWiki from SSDI, a realiable source.) I'd think you could safely restore all the revisions from January 2007 and earlier. The article certainly went downhill in the July 2007 and more recent revisions. However, I'm not as convinced we need this article at all; the biography of the Congressman that led the committee doesn't mention the committee, nor do we have an article on the committee. So it probably should be sent to AFD for notability, as I can't see what this is a sub-article of. GRBerry 15:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've selective restored. AfD or not is up to someone else, I was dealing with the immediate biographical issues and unsourced statements. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like selective restoring would be a GFDL issue. WP:BLP says to revert to a neutral version, not delete. (I can see both sides of that issue - just pointing out what the policy says). —Wknight94 (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any GFDL concerns if a date is chosen and all versions before are restored, with none after. (This appears to be what was done here; all versions up to January 2007 were restored, and no versions from after that date.) The authorship information is completely preserved. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, this is a content dispute only. The only named people in the latest deleted version I can see (20 Oct), Dodd himself and Carroll Reece, are both long dead. My feeling is that handling this sort of dispute by calling it a BLP violation and summarily deleting the article is an abuse of admin tools, though it is a strong sign of good faith that demon brought the issue here for us to review. —David Eppstein 18:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All together now: the L stands for living. Natalie 00:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - why on earth was this deleted citing WP:BLP? Neil ☎ 13:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the Bot Approvals Group, — madman bum and angel 19:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have had a tough time in dealing with this fellow. Look at the history of Delhi and New Delhi. He is very keen on adding his images to the concerned articles irrespective of whether they are of good quality or not. He is more concerned about boasting about the number of images he has added to articles in his userpage rather than making a sincere effort to improve articles. To divert from the topic, he accuses me of using User:74.140.120.11 as a sockpuppet. I just forget to log-in at times, thats it. He then reverts an edit made by me on Gurgaon article as an act of revenge. It is becoming increasingly difficult to deal with this fellow. Need your advise. --Lokantha 21:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you both are being uncivil to each other; reverting each others changes instead of disscussing them, labeling a user as a sockpupet and insulting. I think you should disscus with each other rather that continuing the way you are now, and for the sockpuppery, there is no case. Oysterguitarist 05:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to edit as an anonymous IP. Due to my ISP my address is dynamic. This has made it difficult to provide verifiable documentation of my credibility with wikipedia. Is there a way that my reputation can be assertained while maintaining my anonimity with a dynamic IP? for now:68.244.131.116 03:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you are asking for is the very reason accounts exist. You can create an account that has no relation to your real person though, you don't need to provide an e-mail. A user name is more anonymous than an IP by the way. For example if we take a random user: User:Agyle we know absolutely nothing of his real life other than that he speaks English. If we take you now, we can't know for sure but it would seem the IP address you are connecting from is in New Jersey, USA, probably from North Arlington, and your ISP is SPRINT PCS. Jackaranga 03:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're active in particular wikiprojects, people editing in those areas are probably going to get used to seeing IPs from your ISP. But what if you eventually move, or otherwise switch ISPs? It'd be difficult to prove you're the same person, and you might have to start from scratch. Getting an account just strikes me as being more practical, on all counts. Ultimately, though, I just don't know how realistic it is to try and build a reputation when your username is (effectively) changing so often. Might be easier on a static IP, but again, getting an account sounds more practical to me. Is there a particular reason you don't want to register? Mainly asking in the hopes I can offer some more specific feedback or suggestions. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(e.c.) I noted that Sprint Wireless is your ISP. Are you editing from a smartphone, by any chance, or are you using a cellular wireless card from a laptop? Either way, there's no real way to build up social capital here without creating a stable and recognizable identity, as my old sociology prof would have put it. If you would like to symbolically maintain your status as an "anonymous" IP editor, but still have an account to sign into no matter where you are, you could create a username like 68dot244dot131dot116, which I think would be allowable under WP:U as it i not entirely random. Alternatively, you could get a static IP and create a Wikipedia "identity" around that address, like 68.39.174.238 and others in Category:Anonymous Wikipedians have. The best route to take, though, is just to get an account and then put nothing about yourself on your userpage. That will make you as anonymous as yu can possibly be here, and will give you the ability to receive messages, create pages, and build yourself a history. Best of luck. --Dynaflow babble 04:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you pick a name like User:Respectable? Bearian 14:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Dreadstar beat me to the block. — madman bum and angel 01:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks, Rambutan, as discussed above, has asked for his alternative account to be unblocked. I've declined this as I believe it's being used for purposes other than those permitted by the SOCK policy. The user has now threatened to create another account in order to continue editing, despite his main account being unblocked. I'm wondering if he is genuinely here to constructively contribute to the project and I'd like to see some discussion on how we should proceed from here. His comments above seem to reveal perhaps a little interest in some form of community block or ban. Anybody have any further comments or suggestions on this issue ? Nick 10:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how I'm being against WP:SOCK - segregationa and security. I've taken all reasonable means to ensure links between Porc. and CJ; including a note in the blocklog.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 10:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading #SELFBLOCK request, above, I confess I found myself confused as to your intentions with multiple accounts, but nevertheless fairly sure they weren't productive. What possible reason is there to request a block on your "main account" if you simply create another account to edit? – Luna Santin (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circuit Judge was claim to be for "segregation and security" I cant see why another account would offer any further security. Gnangarra 12:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, WP:SOCK makes a specific exception - and I quote - for "segregation and security". As to why I have multiple accounts, I only created the other one to participate in the ArbCom elections. I intended to use it for no other purpose, and have used it for no other purpose. I still wish to continue my very-enforced Wikibreak, which I was enjoying very much. I am more than happy to write a full summary of the situation if you want.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I see no reason to block your account. If you want a break, take one. We already blocked your account once and you came back and created a new one so you could continue editing. I see no reason to believe that things will be different this time. Please stop asking this board as peoples opinions will not change. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Porcupine Circuit Judge cant participate in the Arbcom elections due to this requirement You must have registered account with at least 150 mainspace edits before 1 November 2007 to vote. You may only vote once per candidate, and you may not vote for yourself. Votes from ineligible voters may be indented by anyone, but please don't bite, and do explain why their vote has been indented. Gnangarra 13:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that since CJ is the same user as Porcupine - who does meet the requirements - then it's OK. I don't see why it wouldn't be: it would be rather stupid if that was a bar, after all!--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, folks, here's my summary. Correct me where I've gone wrong, if you please.

Basically, for [very good] reasons I don't want to go into in public, but that Martinp23 knows in full, I requested that my main account be blocked until January 20th 2008 (WP:SELFBLOCK doesn't prohibit this, it just says that it is unusual). Subsequently, I realised that this block would prevent me from participating in the ArbCom elections . For this purpose, I began my participation using the alternate account Circuit Judge, created with the authority of this policy.

Phil Sandifer, to whom I had asked questions about his ArbCom statement, then unblocked the account. I put it to him that this was simply malicious and done to spite me, since we'd had arguments in the past. His reason for the unblock was that I was "clearly not taking a Wikibreak"; not only is this inaccurate, it's also not an actual reason to unblock.

I then posted on WP:AN requesting that Porcupine be re-blocked, and I was called a troll and the Circuit Judge account was blocked. I requested an unblock on the CJ account, and was told that it was a deliberate attempt on my part to lose all links between my former usernames (Rambutan and Porcupine), and to continue harassing certain users. This was in Nick's unblock denial. I asked him for diffs of this harassment, and pointed out that I had taken all reasonable measures to ensure Porcupine-CJ links, including a note in the block-log.

He ignored both of those issues, and came here. I never thought it would be so hard to be blocked on Wikipedia... Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec):::Then he should stop changing his name to hide his block logs and keep his word. User has a long history of issues, see [20], [21], [22], including recent ones and shows no sign of changing. I'd limit him to one account and not tolerate further disruption. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, here's my suggestion. Porcupine is limited to one account. Should he continue attempts to get his main accounts blocked, he shall be blocked for disruption. Likewise, if he creates any more socks - he will be blocked for an appropriate period. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree — Rlevse • Talk • 13:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec)How is it disruptive to try to get blocked? If you just do it - which in no way harms the project, then I'll be out of your hair.
• When did WP:SOCK get amended to exclude me? I've taken many measures to ensure links between my accounts, and I think that "not using the main account on public computers" is a perfectly good idea.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, an apology from Ryan for mistakenly and accusatorily closing the thread would be nice.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • You tend to get excluded from being allowed to do these things when you have a clear history of disruption. Seriously, you need to stop this now, the account is not going to get blocked, and if it does, it will be for disruption. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Appology? Certainly not to you. I closed it to stop your disruption, but I see Nick instigated it to discuss community sanctions which are growing increasingly more likely. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You didn't close it to stop my disruption, you closed it because you thought I started it, a mistake, and then falsely accused me of trolling by it.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're still trolling over it now, as you have been for days so no appology - I stand by my word. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your word was that I started the thread, mate.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We block CJ and Ram, leaving porcupine unblocked and you can discuss with Martinp23 how the other pages link. Gnangarra 13:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ram was just a username change, and no longer exists. I've discussed with Martin, who says he'll do community consensus. So it's up to you folks.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the consensus is that Procupine is the account you can use, and this is the account that you must stick to. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Ryan, we tend to stop allowing new and multiple accounts for an editor what that editor has a history of engaging in disruptive conflicts under his previous accounts. Creating a new account solely to make comments in the ArbCom elections – particularly comments directed at users with whom you have a history of conflict – doesn't seem to fit well with the 'segregation and security' doctrine. Try keeping your nose clean for (say) a year, and then maybe we can revisit this question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ryan, limit to one account, no blocking of main account, and any further socks or trolling leads to blocks. Makes sense to me. Dreadstar † 18:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I just ask once more - and I promise that this is the last you'll hear here of the issue - with the point of view of one genuinely wanting to learn, precisely how is trying to get blocked for a Wikibreak trolling?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is our definition of what a troll's behaviour is: "posting controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum or group with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response." you are asking for a block that its contrary to what the blocking policy states, and you are posting threads here to bait administrators into a argumentative response. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there's an element of intentional disruption involved? My block isn't contrary, and my intention is was not to get into an argument, it's simply to get blocked.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean to tell that you didn't knew that this is against policy? if you did then you knew that the request was going to be rejected, pursuing it further after it was is trolling behaviour. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First check out Blocking policy self-requested blocks. Then add the above information to that. No block for your Wikibreak, sorry. Dreadstar † 19:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I read WP:SELFBLOCK, it says, and I quote, "Sometimes people request that their account be blocked, for example to enforce a wikibreak. Typically such requests are refused." Personally, I don't interpret this as meaning "No Wikibreaks." I interpret it as meaning "Generally requests for Wikibreak-enforcing blocks aren't accepted, but sometimes they are." This can be further simplified as "Sometimes people request that their account be blocked, for example to enforce a wikibreak. Typically such requests are refused." --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As yours is being refused. Now this is starting to look like trolling to me. I suggest you accept this and move on. Dreadstar † 19:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you knew beforehand that it was going to be refused as the request itself is contrary to what the blocking policy states (though its not prohibited) and yet even after it was refused you are still insisting on it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the combined block histories of this users three accounts, I find it really hard to believe that Rambutan/Porcupine/Circuit Judge doesn't understand our blocking, disruption and trolling policies. If what he's doing here is not trolling, I don't know what is. I also don't believe his promise to behave, he's promised that before and broken it, so I'm not inclined to believe him; he's had his assumption at AGF and lost it. We now have at least four admins and two other users supporting this community sanction. The onlyl dissenter is the subject of the matter. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't believe me? Fine. That's not something that concerns me greatly. However, what community sanctions are you talking about, and who exactly has agreed with their application? All I see is agreement to except me from WP:SOCK and to ban me from having my account blocked for a Wikibreak.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's talking about the community sanction being talked about in this section, and the agreement of all the editors responding to you here. You're about to get blocked on all your accounts for trolling - not just for a wikibreak. Dreadstar † 20:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The agreement is, as I said, to except me from WP:SOCK and to ban me from having my account blocked for a Wikibreak. With all due respect, you guys [the community] are the reason I'm still here: if you'd just have blocked me then I'd be gone. So, how do I avoid the [absurd] block for trolling? What action do I take now?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Porcupine, when we initially talked on IRC, I was slightly more open because it seemed to be a harmless request. However, as you keep insisting over the very solid reasoning of the editors responding to you that your [very good] extenuating circumstances somehow make you an exception to an established rule, I become less and less convinced. As many others have said above, I recommend you stop trying to change peoples' minds, and move on. GlassCobra 20:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Porcupine are you just trolling us to get your block back? If so, it's probably going to work. Stop posting here and go back on your break before you end up getting blocked for trolling. -- John Reaves 20:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty clear consensus. I'm blocking the Rambutan and Circuit Judge accounts indef. I will also post a notice on Porcupine's talk page that states those two accounts are blocked indef and he is limited to the Porcupine account, his one and only account. The Porcupine account is subject to standard wiki rules, including all the trolling here today. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does that last bit mean, "including the trolling here today"? It's happened, and it's not a rule - ?? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 21:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that User:Rambutan as a name was shed by means of a username change - it's not an alternate account.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 21:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Porcupine for a week for continued trolling and sock abuse per warnings above. Dreadstar † 21:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess. Why do people just want to cause drama. There is no reason whatsoever to give an exception to Porcupine and block him just because he wants a wikibreak. He should just take it. However, I see he has got himself blocked for a week anyway. I support the block on his sock account. --Bduke 23:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I would suggest that someone give all of them (in a sequential order) a little 1 second block with things like (formerly User:Rambutan, formerly ...) so that other admins can quickly pick up the entire block history if necessary. Haha. I see User:Secretlondon is a far wiser admin than me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone block the bot until it is repaired? See history on San Diego County, California to see problem; bot changing information in infobox rather than just changing labels and style, etc. as designed.--Markisgreen 16:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no recent edits by Detroiterbot to Walla Walla, Washington. Did you perhaps mean some other article? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i corrected the article name above.--Markisgreen 17:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Detroiterbot malfunctioning for duplicate post. Woodym555 17:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

This blatant vandal Inspiron1m (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized the featured article. [23] Then he went along and created 4 new accounts. [24]. The main account and the others need blocking, post-haste. Nobody of consequence 16:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like User:Scientizzle got them. Natalie 16:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While doing some work for veropedia, I made some analysis of all the articles on wikipedia as of oct 17 or so. This report at User:Eagle 101/potential crap 2 contains all articles that have 0 wikilinks and at least 1 external link. Qutie a few of these are showing up as spam for companies and other poor quality articles. There are about 5,000 articles that fit those criteria. Enjoy! Discussion and questions can go below as usual :). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 19:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tagged them as meeting the {{CA}} criteria? Guy (Help!) 20:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cute... I'm wondering how many of these become red-links ;) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, first one I clicked was Rambo apple. Seems to be a type of apple. Are you asking for help cleaning up this list? -- Kendrick7^talk 21:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied the list of ones starting with M to a page in my userspace to look at. The first few that haven't already become redlinks (or AfD'd) are OK or just need cleanup, but I'm sure lots won't be. Pinball22 21:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic, monitoring potential spam and at the same time including an external link to a site we have an article about, so an internal link would have more than sufficed :-) Fram 21:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a veropedia article? I thought that got deleted... —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, was pretty strongly kept last week. Pinball22 21:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. Personally I don't think its quite ready for a wikipedia page, but thats just me :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick cleaning them up is always an option! If its a legit article, wikilink it and perhaps find a few references! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For those looking to cherry pick the list for the crapola of crapola, I posted a sort here with those at the top of the list being the most likely in need of deletion. -- Jreferee t/c 22:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you : ) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be a problem if non-administrators (like myself) tried to clean up, reference, and de-linkfarm some of the articles on that list which might be salvageable? -- ArglebargleIV 01:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Never mind, I just now noticed Eagle 101's invitation above to go forth and clean up. -- ArglebargleIV 02:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through five of these and from the looks of it I guess more than half are delete-worthy. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 02:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User account Sock puppets ARE GOOD is an old, unused account. The user page redirects to the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy. Any suggestions on what, if anything, to do regarding this account? -- Jreferee t/c 22:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I re-redirected the userpage to his talk page so it doesn't redirect to the policy page anymore, but doing anything to this account would be rather punitive considering it's last edit was in 2005. — Save_Us_229 23:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyking has asked the arbitration committee to look into his two remaining paroles. The one pertaining to commenting on other admins' actions is still in effect. However, we have decided to suspend for three months the parole pertaining to music article. (Note: Unless we say otherwise, in 3 months it resumes) He may edit on music articles just as anyone else. Raul654 23:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that I already have been editing just as anyone else on music articles through this parole, and nobody has ever accused me of violating it or doing anything amiss at all as long as it has been in place. I have no idea why the ArbCom ever deemed it necessary, why it was in place for so long, or why it will be put in place again in three months. Since the parole has no practical effect on my editing, I only wanted it lifted for formal reasons, and I don't think that is accomplished by a mere suspension. Everyking 23:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not a party to the original ArbCom action in this case. I just wanted to say that my own experiences with Everyking have been overwhelmingly positive. There's no doubt that he has kept much vandalism away from the musical articles that I monitor. I hope and expect that when ArbCom reviews this case in another three months, they will find Everyking's edits have continued to be of high standing. --Yamla 23:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the case. Actually, it appears that remedies 3, 5, X, and Amended remedy 4 are still in effect. Thatcher131 00:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that nothing remains in effect except for amended remedy 4. Everyking 00:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You understand incorrectly. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is only based on what the ruling says. Amended remedy 2 provides for everything to expire in November 2007, excluding the two subsequent amended remedies. If that's not correct, it will take far more than three words to explain the reasoning. Even Raul's announcement above clearly implies the only remaining portions of the ruling were the two paroles, one of which is now suspended. Everyking 00:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are correct. Roll the dice, take your chances. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an unhelpful sentiment, especially coming from an arbitrator. I'm not going to "roll the dice" because I have no intention of doing any of the things these restrictions prohibit me from doing anyway. I have explained many times that I want the restrictions removed because they are a scarlet letter of sorts, not because I want to do any of the things they prohibit (far from it). I just want the ArbCom to allow me to be a normal member of the community again, and your comments have me feeling like new hurdles are being thrown up to impede this already agonizingly extended process. Everyking 01:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy 5 (Everyking is obligated to familiarize himself before commenting) is most certainly still in effect. We just assume most people do it, but in EK's case, it merits explicitly requiring it. Remedies 3 (Everyking prohibited from commenting on administrators' actions) and X (Everyking will not interact with or comment about Snowspinner) are also still in effect Raul654 01:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is incredible to me. The amended ruling says this: "Everyking's current prohibitions (his ban from editing the ANI, and from commenting on other admin's actions except for their talk pages, RFC, and RFA) - set to expire in November - are extended for one year, until November 2007." It does not mention any exceptions; it says the old prohibitions expire in Nov. 2007. These remedies are prohibitions (except arguably 5, I suppose). Remedy 3 is explicitly subject to expiration ("from commenting on other admin's actions except for their talk pages, RFC, and RFA"). How can the ArbCom dispute this? Can I not rely on what its rulings say? Everyking 01:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just double checked - you're right about the prohibition on commenting on other admin's actions. It would appear that has expired. So, as I read it, the ones still in effect are Should EK harass other admins over their non-editorial actions, any admin may block him for up to two weeks per incident, escalating to one year per incident after the fifth one. and Everyking is obligated to familiarize himself before commenting. The one about Snowspinner was not explicitly mentioned as expiring, therefore I conclude it is still in effect. Raul654 01:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read it as saying the current prohibitions expired on that date, and I did not think what was in parenthesis was intended as a listing of what was counted as a "current prohibition"; I assumed that was simply a reminder of the main points of the ruling. If it had been meant the way you're describing it, wouldn't it have made more sense to list the exceptions? I think the intuitive reading of the mention of "current prohibitions" means all current prohibitions, unless some are explicitly excluded. Everyking 02:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Everyking is free to edit Ashlee Simpson again with no restrictions? Corvus cornix 19:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in receipt of an email from a non-user complaining about allegedly libellous posts by an editor persistently over an extended period of time. The email identifies the non-user and editor by their real names and requests that steps be taken to stop the editor from libelling the non-user. Obviously, this is beyond my jurisdiction. Where should I forward this email for action (or refer the non-user to). Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  23:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say either to OTRS or OVersight. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 00:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin, non-lawyer, non-everything, why-is-he-even-giving-his-opinion opinion: This is Wikipedia, not the legal system of whatever country they live in. If they know the real life identity of their libeler (libeller?), they can talk to a lawyer. The libeller's real world identity does not affect us. The only thing we can (and should) do is look at the article in question, decide if it's a BLP violation or not, and revert/block/protect/request oversight as necessary. The email should normally have gone to OTRS, and since they're skilled at handling such things, I'd forward it to OTRS (or direct the "non-user" to do so). --barneca (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, if Wikipedia is aware of one of its user who is a libeler, they should be punish that user under relevant Wikipedia policies, which exist. Wikipedia should also remove any potentially libelous material, which is also mandated by various Wikipedia policies. It's not as if Wikipedia has no responsibility here. ~ UBeR 01:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's not a clearcut case. There's no way to tell whether the statements are true, so I'll just forward the email. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  04:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia, has been opened. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 01:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An essay newly written by me, about a topic of frequent confusion. Edit away, please; delete if necessary, but I'm pretty certain that my interpretation of the GFDL there is right (though it may need some tweaking). Chick Bowen 01:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the title, it looks like you might get to use a cool redirect: WP:MAD. :) shoy (^words _words) 03:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Awyong Jeffrey etc. I hadn't thought of that, but it's funny. Chick Bowen 03:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to the disambig entries. (SEWilco 05:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Resolved

There is vulgar text below the image, and I'm not sure how to edit it. Thanks, — Yavoh 05:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was on the page at Commons, but I deleted it. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  05:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best place I could find to post about this, so sorry if it's the wrong place. I just created the page Ragtag Cinema, but only the first and part of the second sentence is showing up. I'm not sure what I did wrong when I created the page, is this something an admin can fix? Me5000 17:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is the only content you added when you created the page (do you expect more?). In future, the Help desk would probably be the more appropriate venue. GDonato (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I can see this (1064 second db lag???) , the ref tag was malformed which caused the page to stop rendering at that point. Cheers! spryde | talk 17:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My watchlist is giving me "Due to high database server lag, changes newer than 1418 seconds might not be shown in this list." for the last 1418 seconds :) Nothing else seems to be affected. spryde | talk 18:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea me too :-s {i'm 2537 secs behind now :-( } lol PhilB ~ ^T/_C 18:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the same thing, but it seems to have cleared up (I think?), so I'm marking this resolved for now. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still going on... we're almost up to an hour. There's a discussion at the VP, but nobody knows what's causing it. Pinball22 18:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My watchlist is at 3456 seconds, so it isn't resolved yet. Me5000 18:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as soon as I posted that, I went from no-problems-for-twenty-minutes to "changes newer than 4081 seconds may not be shown". That'll teach me to say things. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recreated article The noob is a GFDL violation from the last version deleted (and subsequently endorsed twice at deletion review. If we're to go through a charade of an AfD for an article with no new information that's already been deleted by consensus and endorsed twice, would someone mind sorting out the history please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin from Commons. This picture was first uploaded here, then transfered on Commons and deleted here. The Commons description does not mention the name of the author, only the file history. Can one of you please check whether a source or author was mentioned here? Thanks in advance. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing more substantial in the history than a {{GFDL}}. —Cryptic 19:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've already got the upload history. Morwen was last active on this project in July. Aris Katsaris hasn't been active here since Nov. 2006. , or for a while before that due to loss of interest. GRBerry 20:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad luck. This picture was uploaded in 2004, when our copyright-related demands (and awareness) were much lighter. I'll try another map before deleting this one. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angli Cado Primoris keeps copying the biography from Lunatica's website. See history. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 20:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody please remind this user of WP:AGF i would but he will just remove my posts. see [25] DPCU 20:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is related to the server database lag issue, but I have been trying without success for the past two hours to revert vandalism on the Wonders of the World article. Every time I try to save my revert, the page times out. I have tried using both the undo link and editing old versions from the article history, but either way it just time out. Oddly enough I am able to edit other pages just fine. Here is the last pre-vandalism version. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]