Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive153

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


I just discovered some long-standing vandalism[edit]

Frankly, I don't like it. A completly nonsensical article, Lonny Fame and the Belltones, just came to my attention due to a change I caught on RC patrol. This band only garners 89 Google hits, is filled with pure nonsense straight out of Uncyclopedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica and this idiocy has been up since January. Subtle vandalism to Shawnee Mission School District relating to this group was added as well; I've since removed it. User:Rsherm was the editor responsible for adding more nonsense atop the nonsense a few moments ago. The account was just created and has no positive contributions whatsoever. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Nocturnal emissions control device". Love it! --Jenny 07:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Seems highly likely to be a hoax, but since an admin has just removed the speedy tag I guess it should go to AfD. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's very clever and that's what worries me. The admin who reverted the speedy didn't read down the page. It starts out relatively plausible, but degrades into a refugee from Uncyclopedia about halfway down. It's a speedy under several different criteria from band vanity to pure nonsense. I hope it doesn't clog AfD since these bozos have had enough fun for the last six months. WP:SNOW really would apply here. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Without checking, I believe hoaxes aren't normally speedies except where they are so blatant they qualify as a G3 i.e. pure vandalism. I reckon that's the case here. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I have to agree with Jenny that the article is funny and I wish to heck that BJAODN was still around. Another cultural phenomenon lost to the ravages of time, I fear. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
And doggoned if it isn't on AfD. At least it's a good-faith nomination and I've voted accordingly. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Speedied. Enigma message 07:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Bless you. That red link was a relief. I can now head off to beautiful downtown Dreamland secure in the knowledge. Nice working with you all today. :)) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Noted at User talk:Shii/Hoaxes --Iamunknown 07:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Pity it's gone, really. It was a gem among hoaxes. "For fans and critics alike, the Belltones' musicianship was only half of what their fans tried desperately to avoid. The other half was the paranormal-like connection the members of the group had with each other. (...) But yet, like the partnership between heat and humidity, it was like the Belltones, from day one, breathed the same air, had eaten the same food, and worn the same type of underwear". A classic ;-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
There actually is (or was) a "Lonny Fame and the Belltones" - they were a fifties-nostalgia act at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. I like the sound of our version better though. DuncanHill (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects templates[edit]

Needs immediate tlc
(That I can't give today)
my original post began

I've recently found several redirects (the {R from... }) tags which have been indelicately altered, shall I say so they won't work properly in pages where they are directly included. (Wikipedia:Templates/Redirect templates for one, there's at least a second, and perhaps more [Added some linked below].) While this isn't overt vandalism, people are apparently breaking things through ignorance (see R from other template] for another)

  1. Wikipedia:Redirect#Spellings.2C_misspellings.2C_tenses_and_capitalizations -- Looks okay, but extra eyes might pick up something I missed.
  2. Wikipedia:Template_messages/Redirect_pages my quick peek, suggests okay, but ditto on extra eyes checking.
  3. Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages -- ditto again.
    1. Wouldn't hurt to have someone look into why some of these table cells show a <hr> and others don't. Looks like there was a now obsolete reason for some of these having a <hr> and I suspect most can be eliminated, while opining the tables would look better without.

Gang up on these guys, a nickle for every incompatibility found! <g> Don't want essential "How-to" to look crappy. // FrankB 17:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize and take full responsibility for any problems caused here. I've been going through templates one-by-one and each time, I thought of a new way to do what I had in mind, so the whole effect is perhaps a gradually increasing mess. (I had no idea it would cause any problems, though). Just so I'm up-to-date, is "When should we delete a redirect" looking the way it should now? Lenoxus " * " 21:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks (publically) for the private apology. ON "When should we delete a redirect", I'm unclear on your meaning. If you want to change the messaging, just make sure it makes sense and interfaces nice with the help pages linked above. Whatlinkshere will show all occurrences and text searching "Wikipedia:" should find all the pages that is directly including them. If you're truly interested in deleting one, that goes via {{rfd}} and WP:RFD. If you're thinking a major change in categorizing stuff, that should be discussed at the village pump and/or Category talk:Categories or sometimes Wikipedia talk:templates. You were interested in altering redirects categories, from what I saw in passing, so that discussion belongs in Wikipedia talk:Redirects, first and foremost, with a side-note annotation in the other places if its a big change. Hope that helps. // FrankB 22:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Autoblock assistance please[edit]

Resolved: released by Maxim

I'm not in a position to take care of this myself right now, so could someone please release the autoblock on Giano II? It's a complex block history so it may take a few minutes to figure out which block/unblock is causing the problem. Thanks. Risker (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Maxim(talk) 19:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Maxim. We're having serial power failures here and I've already had four crashes today. Risker (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

'Login successful' page corrupted[edit]

Hey. There's a problem on the UserLogin&wpCookieCheck=login page. The link to the WP:HELP page isn't displaying properly. The page is also not W3 compliant, 7 errors.

If you're using the W3 validator, make sure you're sending the page itself, not the URL to the page; is not logged-in to Wikipedia ;).

Have a nice day/evening. --Sébastien Leblanc (Talk|Mail) 02:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be fine, when you actually log in. I don't know what's going on with index.php but the problem is only when you call it from the link above. --Selket Talk 03:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Also validation passes XHTML Transitional on copy-paste from view source. --Selket Talk 03:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'll be damned. [1] [2] --Sébastien Leblanc (Talk|Mail)

Reported at bugzilla:14709. --- RockMFR 01:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Request Page Move Help[edit]

Resolved: Page moved; next time, post request on WP:RFPP.

Please move the page at Violetta Blue to Noname Jane as this is her correct stage name and she is barred from using Violetta Blue anyway. I would do the move myself, but there is a conflicting redirect that I cannot remove. Thanks so much! --BenBurch (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Would a move to Ada Mae Johnson not be more appropriate in this case? Anyway, for future reference, thre is Wikipedia:Requested moves. EdokterTalk 00:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what is appropriate for an actor/actress? Is John Wayne's article under Marion Robert Morrison? Whatever the standard is. Thanks! --BenBurch (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 Done, with all double redirects fixed. Btw, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) stipulates that using either legal name or stage name is correct. —Kurykh 00:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! If you are an American, have a great Independence Day Holiday, and if not, well, have a great weekend! --BenBurch (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

New category:administrators willing to make difficult unblocks[edit]

Resolved: User is free to create category. --slakrtalk / 22:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There is already a category of administrators willing to make difficult blocks. In fairness, there should be a category of administrators willing to make difficult unblocks.

It is well known that administrators are unwilling to unblock. People have called it the cabal, gang mentality, lynching, etc. This category will blunt such criticism.

It is also well known that administrators who don't like certain ideas but who can't think of a logical way to explain their feelings resort to calling things trolling or make accusations of sockpuppetry. This is not trolling. If you are an administrator and are not willing to make difficult unblocks, you simply don't list your name. It's that simple!

Once again, this category blunts any criticism from Wikipedia critics who call us cabalism. Voxtel (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! That's quite a second edit you got there Voxtel. Have you been an IP for awhile to get to know the place, or a lurker? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I have not edited for months but I have edited. I lost my password and user name. I have some idea but does it really matter? Voxtel (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
De facto proof that the cabal sucks at being a cabal: they can't keep people from unblocking people everyone wants blocked. --slakrtalk / 22:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I can only read "difficult unblock" as "unblock against consensus". Not sure we should encourage that. We get quite enough of it already. Friday (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
No fair. Friday stole my comment and then edit-conflicted me. :) OK, try this: We don't really need categories that describe an admin's willingness to perform basic administrative functions. How about Category:Admins willing to protect pages in an edit war? Or Category:Admins willing to adjudicate complex 3RR reports? Or Category:Admins willing to block Giano? MastCell Talk 22:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Then should we eliminate the category "admins willing to make difficult blocks"? Voxtel (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Short answer (from me anyway) Yes. It presumes there are easy blocks. No block I've ever done has been "easy". Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, well said, Keeper76. Blocks are by policy; difficulty would reflect situations where it's not clear how policy applies. In that case, seeking consensus in advance would be best. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
To reply to MastCell, I think we need to worry about a parent category first. Let's create Category:Admins willing to create difficult categories :) I's say my sense of humor's workin today. Wizardman 22:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the smart thing for admins oppose to this idea would be to simply say nothing, hope that nobody signs up, then delete the category after it remains empty for a few days. That's fair! Attacking me, trying speedy delete, and other tactics are unfair and devious. So oppose it, there's an easy fair way!Voxtel (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not very happy with that "difficult blocks" category. The description of Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult blocks, however, does make me stop short of recommendng its deletion. We have had cases of administrators being targetted by vengeful stalkers and the like, so this category (if it serves the purpose described) is likely to be useful in cases of harassment. --Jenny 22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Didn't see this discussion until afterwards, but I've CfD'dCategory:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult unblocks. I'd suggest that if this conversation is going to continue, it continue there. – iridescent 22:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec: cat was redlinked as of this writing)I'm afraid that it's not going to happen. It's not an issue of ideology or opinion— it's part of the blocking policy, in big bold letters. Admins usually don't undo blocks without consensus to do so or in obvious situations. This mainly is done to avoid wheel-warring between admin actions— something that is highly discouraged and frequently can result in desysopping. Therefore, the only possible definition of "difficult unblocks" is one that is done where there isn't consensus to do so, otherwise it wouldn't be difficult. That said, you're totally free to create the category, but it probably won't exist for long as we usually remove underpopulated categories within a few days of it being empty. --slakrtalk / 22:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
fine with me. a few days and it remains empty then it's ripe for delete. Voxtel (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like it might be time to work on some articles in the meantime, eh? MastCell Talk 22:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It might be more useful to create the category Category:Admins willing to make the tea. It would help in dispute resolution, at least. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Subject of an article requesting deletion of references to himself[edit]

Currently, there is an AFD about a book by an author, which seems likely to be deleted. However, the author of the book, Ed Williams, who does not appear to have an article going on this disambiguation page, is claiming he wants references to himself in articles such as Kay Parker and Bachman-Turner Overdrive deleted, although I cannot find any references to him in these articles, so I'm not sure what should be done (if anything). Just letting the admins know.--Les boys (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ed Williams (novelist) - strangely it had been turned into a redirect to an article about an actor. DuncanHill (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, right, that explains things. Thanks. Well, it seems like he wants that article deleted, and any references to it (or himself) in other articles. I thought it'd be a good idea to raise this here, anyway, going on the BLP policy.--Les boys (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I found a mentions in two of the articles he mentioned and have corrected the links to point to the now-restored article about him. I think he wasn't so much requesting removal of mention of him, as saying that without the article on him we may as well remove them. DuncanHill (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Note DektopBSD logos (and images with this logos) should be deleted immediately[edit]

I used {{db-i3}} on Image:Desktop bsd logo.png and Image:Desktop bsd screenshot.png, because DesktopBSD logos and artwork collection are licensed Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 License. Austria. Ref: According to policy for non-free content and CSD I3, all images, including DesktopBSD screenshots with DesktopBSD logos or/and artwork will be deleted immediately Shooke (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This was cross-posted (and is being discussed) at MCQ. Dragons flight (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Terminate on Sight: youngbird[edit]

Resolved: Edit war terminated on sight; complainant and subject are both edit-warring and thus the article's been protected. -Jéské (v^_^v Trump XXI) 18:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Youngbird is a supporter of a competeing artist and has been vandalising the T.O.S. page repeatdly despite warnings! PLease take note! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbhasin (talkcontribs) 18:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Not happening. Page fully protected to stop you two from edit-warring. Talk it out on the article's talk page. -Jéské (v^_^v Trump XXI) 18:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


User:Xasha, already blocked twice under the Digwuren restriction, persists in making egregious insults and contributing little of constructive value. In this edit, he writes: "Moldovans consider themselves "not Romanians". ethnicity is a matter of personal choice everywhere (OK, it wasn't in Nazi dominated countries)". Given his introduction of a source stating that the Romanian government does not recognize a separate Moldovan ethnicity, this comes quite close to implying that Romania itself is Nazi-dominated, a clear violation of the Digwuren warning: "All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee."

To accuse a country's population to be "Nazi" is actually rude insult against this population.

Moreover, Xasha, in response to a post by User:Vecrumba defending the notion that Moldovans and Romanians form part of the same people, repeated the Nazi accusation: "Please don't revive the Nazi tradition of arbitrarily assignign ethnicity based on God knows what invented criteria."

I hope administrators duly note these two inflammatory messages in blatant violation of Digwuren, and also take into consideration the user's block record and general pattern of tendentious, unproductive editing. --Olahus (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I consider the first use quoted to be only an allusion, and not a accusation. I'm a little unsure about the second. DGG (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems to be a badly-worded comment, not an "issue of concern". Civility warning. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Please avoid Reductio ad Hitlerum. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and read this, too. Kelly hi! 18:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

And, might I point out, Xasha again invokes the Nazi spectre here: "The similarity with lebensraum discourses is not just a coincidence". In response to the warning he received due to his conduct, he combatively pledged to continue employing this sort of language. Biruitorul Talk 21:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also reminded Xasha of both the conditions of the restriction, and what happened when they were previously violated. If it happens again in short order a block will be required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, enough is enough. Anyone in that dispute that can't avoid all that fighting is due for a long block. Last chance here. RlevseTalk 01:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
He is now continuing to conduct a long revert war against several other users, running up to 3R within the last 24 hours at this point, but with numerous previous reverts in the past few days. It's at Latin European peoples (an abomination of an article, but that's a different matter), and it's all about whether Moldovans should be categorised under Romanians or on the same hierarchical level with them, in a tree list of "Latin" peoples. Fut.Perf. 11:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm reverting an user who is always restoring edits by banned sockpuppets of Bonaparte and now is removing reliable sources to prove it's point. I'm not ashamed at all.Xasha (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Unfortunately, however, you don't get to revert ad nauseam, so I'm blocking you for 96 hours: 72 for the lame revert-warring and 24 for the incivility. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Xasha is modifying the article Latin European peoples and he ignores the discussion on the talk page. Somebody stop him please! --Olahus (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there is someone here to explain Xasha (talk) that talk pages shouldn't be emptied without archiving a discussion. Maybe he's doing it to cover up former conflicts with other users caused by his permanent zestfulness for edit warring, harassing other users or using the encyclopedia as a battleground. He was several times requested by other users not to empty his talk page. However, this is the list of all the discussions deleted by him: User talk:Xasha/Deleted (not archived!) discussions from emptied pages. Cheers! --Olahus (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Users can do anything they want with the contents of their Talk pages -- delete, archive, whatever (except change other people's words). Corvus cornixtalk
Of course they can do anything with their talk page. I know that very well. But: concerning the user Xasa, there is a small additional problem: he likes to modify the wikipedia articles without giving any explanation and when asked about the changes, he just empties his talk page instead of talking about the disupted issue. After the talk page is emptied, he reverts the edits of the disputed article again and he behaves further as if nobody would have ask him anything about the disputed article. --Olahus (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, repeated insertion of loaded comments like this one can be considered harassment ("why are you beating you wife?"), provoking Xasha to remove all comments by that particular user. As for modifying wikipedia articles without giving any explanation - heh, it took you two blocks to notice the existence of talk pages yourself, Olahus. Although your behavior doesn't excuse Xasha's, perhaps laying off those accusations of "Stalinism" as well as not rushing to revert back once you get reverted yourself, but using the talk page first might have a better impact on the general editing atmosphere in relevant articles? --Illythr (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
A short view in the revision history of some articles disputed between Xasha and me is anough to demonstrate that you actually fully support Xasha's Stalinist POV (yes, this POV is indeed Stalinist and I can proove it to you if you want to) . So, I don't wonder youre attitude regarding me in this discussion and you're role as Xasha's advocate. Besides, in his talk page Xasha didn't by far remove just my comments. A short viev in the revision hístory of his talk page is the best proof that it is actually a common attitude of his regarding users that contest his POV.--Olahus (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Why, but of course! Otherwise my boss at Lubyanka might cut my wages and I really don't want that, seeing as how most of the money goes to bribing the admins here into not blocking me for my blatant Stalinist POV-pushing. Crap, I let it slip! Ok, please, look at the tip i. You saw nothing unusual today. Please, move along.<
Xasha's free to do with his talk page what he wants (except changing other users' words). The history page is there for all to see, after all. What I disapprove, is that by deleting stuff like that he loses any challenges automatically, thus weakening his point.
If you want to prove something to me, better do it on my talk page. I might want to hide the Truth as well, you know. --Illythr (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I recently reverted an edit by User:Xasha in the article Groschen which altered Romanian Principalities to read Danubian Principalities, because the edit was marked as minor and was not explained in the edit comment or on the Talk page. Xasha reverted my edit - this looks like part of a campaign to remove mention of Romania from articles involving Moldavia, doesn't it? However, after further research I think that it was a good edit. I think that, in this case at least, the only problem is a lack of adequate discussion and explanation (multiplied by the usual $ETHNIC problems, of course). SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A typical edit without principles of the user Xasha can be seen here when he reverted this edit made by me. He "excused" his removal stating that OSCE would have accuse Vladimir Socor for fallacies and "outrageous fabrications". And even if he was accused there is unclear if it can be regarded as a reason to neglect the estimations regarding the Moldovans from Romania, because Vladimir Socor is a venerated analyst of East European affairs and the accusals of William Hill (indeed, William Hill accused Vladimir Socor, not the organization OSCE) have nothing to do with the number of Moldovans from Romania (see here).--Olahus (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Pirat Clone of Wikipedia: (?)[edit]

Resolved: Banned by the devs. MER-C 02:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to inform administrators and Wikipedians about the not complete copy/clone of Wikipedia [3] but it exactly looks as the real Wikipedia - I think - something is not correct with it (?)--Cerber (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a live mirror site, with no advertising added (makes a change) but it's pulling all the images from Wikipedia directly. What's the policy on these? Based on WP:MIRROR, I've added it to m:Live mirrors - do we need to do anything else? Neıl 11:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. This site been noted since October 2007— Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/ --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 11:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
It appears to be a remote loader website, see [4]. Do the devs know about it? MER-C 11:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Wait, it does have something. Click view source on any page, and go right to the bottom (or search for - it's doing something with an advertising sitetracker. And it's definitely remote loading, right click on any image and see "properties" - they're coming from I've added it to m:Live mirrors, so the devs should know about it fairly soon. They were pretty quick about a few weeks back. Whois data for [5]. Neıl 11:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
That was probably because it was on Slashdot. You might get a faster response on IRC: irc:// (see this comment). MER-C 14:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't use IRC, but if someone wants to drop a note there, feel free. They still haven't fixed the one before on m:Live mirrors, which is full of adverts, either. Neıl 14:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 Bugged the devs on IRC. J.delanoygabsadds 14:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
This anonymous site ( is very misleading especially for "Google search" using visitors, on the other hand, is it really an exact copy of the authorized official Wikipedia and not a modified/manipulated mirror? I also would like to know - What's the policy on these?--Cerber (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
They are using the WMF logo and Wikipedia globe, which is not released on a fee use licence so wouldn't be in breach of copyright on that account. --Nate1481(t/c) 12:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I think what you meant is: that it is a copyvio! Bearian (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The site now redirects to Leech (computing) and displays an "access denied" message. We're done here, at least for now. MER-C 02:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Notification of injunction relating to Giano II[edit]

The Arbitration Committee, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley, has voted to implement a temporary injunction. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The injunction is as follows:

For the duration of this proceeding, Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is not to be blocked, or unblocked, by any administrator, other than by consent of a member of the Arbitration Committee.

As noted in the text of the injunction, this restriction is in effect until the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley case is officially closed by a clerk, following a successful motion to close by the arbitrators.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Latest MascotGuy idiocy[edit]

Nearly five years by my reckoning is too much to bear and something needs to be done and soon. His latest incarnation, User:Chopsticks Guy created a whole slew of nonsensical redirects, far too many for me to want to tag for speedy deletion on an individual basis. I found a slew of unreverted edits and new redirects by blocked sock User:Animal Guy, among others. Would someone be so kind as to check the edit history of those two socks and blow off his original contributions? I mean, we know where this guy edits from, we know his name and we know who his IP is. How can this be stopped once and for all? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: The Animal Guy sock has left a whole bunch of similar new postings and redirects in its wake. I've rolled back as many as I could, but I have to sign off. Please, could someone just delete his entries and send the checkuser to his IP for (hopefully) a major TOS violation? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to create user page...[edit]

Resolved: User and talk page created for user. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Im trying to create a User Page for, "Tiny giant what???" When I try to make the page it say "The page title that you have attempted to create has been included on the local title blacklist, which prevents it from being used due to abuse." Am I included on the Blacklist because of the "???" on my name? What do I need to do to create a user page? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiny giant what??? (talkcontribs) 03:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a user and talk page for you (the system allows admins to create restricted titles). You can go ahead and modify them as you see fit. I'm guessing the "???" was probably the cause. Keep in mind that you'll have this problem again if you ever need to create subpages in your userspace, so you might want to consider being renamed at some point, but for now all is good. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC) contribution[edit]

Resolved: Handled on user's talk page. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I had created the page for and it has been deleted. What steps can I take to create the page properly? This creation was the first attempt of creation on Wikipedia and I would love feedback on how to correctly post.

Please contact me and we can discuss. Also, how can I go to the real time help chat? I know that used to be a feature but am unable to find it currently.

Thank you for your assistance.

Best, Blain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blainhowardjs2comm (talkcontribs) 15:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll discuss with this user on his talk page. No admin action necessary at this time. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Changing cursor codes in signatures.[edit]

Resolved: No action necessary. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Does wikipedia policies allows cursor changing HTML codes in signatures such as this: --Raunak' ' ( .:: Raunak Roy ::.. ) 11:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC). Does the wikipedia policy of images in signatures applies to that too? --Creamy!Talk 19:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I expect there's nothing written about it, common sense would suggest that such a thing is a Bad Idea. Seriously, how does stuff like that help build the encyclopedia? Happymelon 20:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think indulging some self-expression helps build the community. The flip side to your question is: How does this hurt the community? Dragons flight (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Some very established editors use a cursor like the one above in their signature. I am unaware of any controversy over this. Cenarium Talk 20:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
God forbid anyone simply click the damn button (or type ~~~~) and just get on with it.... --MZMcBride (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, User:Alison was the one who started that and no it is not against policy. Since she is an Administrator, a CU, and an Oversighter, I don't think there is any harm being done here. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Resolved for the simple reason admin action is not needed. Next? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeesh! I don't think I was the one to start it, to be honest. And please - no "zOMG-checkuzar-oversight-adnimz" - I have the same standing in the community as anyone else, so best off not using me as some sort of gold standard :) - Alison 09:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Heads up re Huggle[edit]

Gurch seems to have vanished, shutting down Huggle as his final act ([6], [7]). User:Atyndall has since reactivated Huggle, but without Gurch to keep an eye on it, users are already starting to make their own tweaks to the configuration. Be aware that unless/until Gurch comes back or someone else takes over the maintenance, it may get buggier & buggier. As a last resort, Huggle can be shut down by restoring this version and protecting the config page; unless we start getting problems, I don't propose doing this at this stage given the disruption it will cause to those who use it. – iridescent 18:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Erratic behavior. Enigma message 18:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, well per WP:BOLD, and to prevent possible disruptive Huggle changes, I went ahead and fully protected the config page. No prejudice against reverting if this level of protection is deemed unnecessary. —Travistalk 18:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I think restricted established editors from editing the config page is a bit extreme, why not semi protect it instead? There's more chance of a new user or an IP from vandalising than an auto-confirmed member. We've never had problems before with the page being vandalised. ——Ryan | tc 18:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Ryan. Semi would be good, not full. Enigma message 18:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think gurch is gone for good, but he may not be able to edit much or at all for the next few months :( delldot talk 18:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Because Gurch isn't an admin, full protection will restrict him from editing it if/when he returns. I'd oppose full-protection for that reason, as long as someone's watching the page closely. – iridescent 18:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so maybe I overreacted. Back to semi, then. —Travistalk 18:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
As a general note to everyone who's followed the link here from WP:Huggle/Feedback, if I see any signs that Huggle's playing up I won't hesitate to shut it down despite the annoyance this will cause to its users, and would urge anyone else to do the same; as with bots, it works at such high speed (20+ edits per user per minute sometimes) that "shoot first and ask questions later" is IMO the appropriate action if it seems to be faulty. – iridescent 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I came here form the feed back page. The whole point of the config is so that the huggle users can edit it. Anything that they are not meant o be able to change is configured into the actual program. I will watch the config page until gurch gets back (if he comes back) and I will also log all things to be fixed onto a page so the feedback page doesn't become too backlogged. The config page is already semi protected and that should be enough. If anything is playing up with huggle then please add it to the feedback page. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 19:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Though WP:OWN applies to many pages it is ridiculous to start messing around with the page just because of Gurch's temporary leave of absence. Its a great tool that Gurch has provided and there's no need to fool around it. I do think the semi-protection is a bit unnecessary but hopefully it will help people understand that the config page shouldn't be tampered with.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Not commenting on the deeper issue, but semi-protection makes perfect sense; huggle users are approved for rollback (and therefore no doubt autoconfirmed) and able to edit semi-protected pages. –xenocidic (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Semi protection isn't really over the top. Following WP:BEANS (not saying what) but you can change one line and mess up one line in that config and suddenly everything goes wrong. People wouldn't notice straight away and then there would have to be one major cleanup from damage. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 19:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that someone (preferably an admin) should add a notedire warning on the page about exactly what will happen to you if you edit the page and accidentally cause other people to make errors in their reverting. J.delanoygabsadds 19:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Believe me, if I see anyone deliberately disrupting it (as opposed to a well-intentioned but wrong "improvement"), they'll be explaining their actions via {{unblock}}. AGF is a core policy, but not when it means potentially disrupting thousands of mainspace pages. – iridescent 19:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI: The page was originally semi’d back in January. —Travistalk 19:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we're all overreacting. The page has never been vandalised in the history of it's existence. The only questionable edition was by User:Xp54321 and his edits were in good faith. ——Ryan | tc 19:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding what I was saying above about adding a dire warning to the top of WP:Huggle/config, even if an edit was a good-faith attempt to try something, there is still an insane potential to mess up hundreds or even thousands of pages within a very short time. And it would be nearly impossible to fix all of the mistakes because they would be made by like 30 or 40 different establishd users and admins, so you couldn't just go through and rollback like you can with a spambot or a vandalbot.

Basically, what I'm saying is, we need to make sure that people know what the potential consequences of their actions could be, not only in the form of blocks/nudges/permanent blots on reputation, but also the tremendous and almost irrevocable damage that could be done to the entire project in a very short period of time. It's like allowing random people to mess around with the firing mechanism of a Teller-Ulam device sitting inside a tank of liquid deuterium and lithium 6. J.delanoygabsadds 19:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest 20 edit per minute is pretty rare unless you are only taking a glance at each page and it is during a peak time. There are currently over 15 user huggleing on the english wikipedia and together they only made a total of 19 edits per miniute. Over time that is still quite big but if something went wrong with that it shouldn't take long to fix. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 19:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe add something saying "If you want to propose a change do so at on the feedback page" or something similar. Otherwise looks good. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 20:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I must be blind (maybe make that line a bit bigger? :D) ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 20:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Change the line that reads "Vandalising or making test edits to this page could result in an immediate block." to "Vandalising or making test edits to this page WILL result in an immediate block."
I cannot imagine the amount of damage that could be done if someone made a very small change that went unnoticed for a while.
Also, shouldn't all the subpages of Template:Huggle be full-protected? None of them should ever need to be changed, and (WP:BEANS, so commented out) J.delanoygabsadds 20:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
You forgot the part about dogs and cats living together, and mass hysteria. Perhaps a little atom bomb symbol, instead of the red stop sign? Font needs to be bigger, in red, and more panicy (How do you spell panicy, anyway?). And more exclamation points, please (where, exactly, to put them can be at your discretion). And finally, of course, a note somewhere (Wikipedia:Village Pump/Vandal noticeboard perhaps?) to further advertize to vandals where they can cause the most damage. --barneca (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Comment was based on a template that has since been removed, and comment was snotty anyway, so stiking out. --barneca (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, you're right. Dammit, just make Gurch an admin and full-protect the config page ;) J.delanoygabsadds 20:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Now that I could get behind 100%. But it's been tried. :( --barneca (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, what Gurch should do is move Wikipedia:Huggle/Config to User:Gurch/huggle_master.css and make Huggle look there for instructions. I've suggested that to him, but he either didn't read or didn't want to do that, for whatever reason. J.delanoygabsadds 20:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The whole point of the config being open to edit is so that people can edit it :D. Putting it on his user page .css would kind of stop that from happening. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 20:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
No, the point now is, Huggle is an incredibly fast and widespread tool. Vandalism to the config page has enormous potential to almost irreparably damage Wikipedia. I do not think that just anyone should be allowed to play around with it like that. Allowing only Gurch and admins to change the configuration page is a the only viable solution, IMO. J.delanoygabsadds 20:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that not just anyone should be allowed to edit it but restricting it so only gurch and adims can edit it is, in my opinion, a bit too protective. Also to change the location of the page at this stage would mean a re release of the current version of huggle and also making all previous versions useless. Also this would be a global change for all for the wikis that huggle is used on (commons,meta,bg e.t.c) meaning the inactive gurch would have to create an account on each of these wikis for the .css user page to be viable. I think thats about all I wanted to say. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 20:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Er... we all have an account on each of thise wikis. – iridescent 21:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppsy, didn't notice he had a SUL. Well this would make things a bit easier if that is the way that we want to go. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 21:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, though, that the config page is good just semi'd. If there are changes that shouldn't be made by people other than gurch, he can hard code them in. If it ever becomes a problem, we can deal with it, but I don't think it is now. delldot talk 21:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I could probably throw together a bot that would revert edits to the page by non-rollbackers (or non-admins other than Gurch, or whatever) Standard procedure is it'd need Bot group approval though. Pseudomonas(talk) 21:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
That in my opinion would probably be a good idea if not the best idea. (I was acctually thinking of proposing this a bit earlier) ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 21:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Per conversation with gurch he will not be coming back to wikipedia. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 21:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Well that's unfortunate, did he tell you why? Or is it personal? ——Ryan | tc 22:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope he didn't tell me why but knowing him I respect his decision. I will try to keep ontop of keeping huggle up to date. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 22:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
With Gurch gone apparently forever, we should have another .NET programmer take over maintenance, the source code is up for grabs, there's a link at WP:HUGGLE (for convenience, it's [8]). Someone has to take over maintenance and construction, a quick look at the WP:Huggle/Feedback page shows quite a few outstanding program bugs and requested features. Anyone volunteer? Calvin 1998 (t-c) 23:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Bot policy is to unflag a bot if its operator/owner leaves the project (even temporarily). Considering the power of huggle, it should be disabled until Gurch returns, or someone agrees to take his place. giggy (:O) 23:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I think it should be shut down until either Gurch returns or someone volunteers to continue the project. One of Gurch's last edits was to deactive Huggle so I think we should keep it that way. I'm going to be bold and at the same time, peeve off many members. ——Ryan | tc 23:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Much as it will annoy everyone, I agree with Ryan. – iridescent 23:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Temporarily disabled[edit]

In light of the above, I've temporarily protected the config page in the "disabled" state. Once this is resolved, anyone feel free to unprotect if that's the consensus. – iridescent 23:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I will develop huggle further. I am in the process of learning .net and have already had the huggle source for quite some time. I have already fixed a few of the bugs in the current version and hope to release a newer version soon. Gurchs version "0.7.11" had many bugs and he didnt give it to me so "0.7.10" is acctually the most up to date version currently. Anyway I cant say I will be as good as gurch was but I am willing to try to fill his pace. (dam edit conflicts)·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 23:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I personally would feel more comfortable with someone already proficient in .NET taking it up. giggy (:O) 23:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Same with everyone else, quite obviously, hence my comment above. There's a more or less list here (all the people with the ".NET programmer userbox"). Crude and incomplete, but if someone can find a trusted user in there... I personally didn't find one within the first 150 transclusions. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 23:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Here's the disabling. I don't think it should be reversed until someone is willing to do everything Gurch did - bug fixing, dealing with user problems, development, etc. etc. giggy (:O) 23:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Well if anyone else does come out for this then please ask me for the latest source (I see where you are comming from giggy) I would be willing to "try" to develop and fix bugs(I have done 3 already) and have always dealt with user problems on the feedback page but really there is probably someone better suited to it than me ^^. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 23:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Also just a small point but on the config page "enable-all:false" should work :> ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 23:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Giggy. Check my talk archives; during May-June I was reporting bugs to Gurch virtually every day. Remember, unblocked & malfunctioning Huggle will leave a string of blocked users, users stripped of rollback rights etc; when you do reactivate it, make sure you get it right! – iridescent 23:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think disabling it entirely is too extreme at this point, especially given how useful the software is. If there are concerns about how to proceed, why not just acivate the "admin-only" option ("require-admin")? That way, we don't lose a powerful tool in vandal-fighting. --Ckatzchatspy 23:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree thinking about it as having it enabled without gurch here isn't acctually going to make much of a difference compared with if he was here. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 23:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Huggle should remain deactivated entirely until someone experienced enough can maintain it. Even if you limit it to just sysops, if it were to malfunction, who would be skilled enough to rectify it? With the power of huggle and it's already dented reputation here on the project, we'd be crazy to continue using is unmanned ——Ryan | tc 23:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
This isn't meant to sound flippant, but are there actually any admins who use Huggle? Aside from (occasionally) Persian Poet Gal, and a few edits from myself when I was testing the software, I don't think I've ever noticed a huggle-edit in Recent Changes from any admin. – iridescent 23:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Epbr123 does (did?). giggy (:O) 00:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course you haven't. Huggle gains you adminship. You don't use it after adminship. Okay, that's all from me. Going away now...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with disabling of huggle at least till we get word from Gurch or we find someone who can maintain huggle. I'd wait a few weeks to a couple of months.--Xp54321 (Hello!Contribs) 00:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
With regard to the use by admins, I've certainly found it very useful for late-night vandalism cleanup. --Ckatzchatspy 00:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
We could always protect Wikipedia:Huggle/Users and use it as an approval list for now. This way all users already on the list or who have already used huggle can use huggle and continue fighting vandalism but no new users (maybe users that will make mistakes) can use the program? What do you guys think? ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 00:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Good idea but still there's the chance of a bug.(Like the one I encountered that got me a 15-min block) and without Gurch we'd be in much trouble.--Xp54321 (Hello!Contribs) 00:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Ye, Xp is correct. No re-enabling. Use Twinkle. giggy (:O) 00:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
If there is a bug then report it, To be honest I don't think there can be any more bugs in this version that have not been found as it has been out for months with no new versions released. Just wondering Xp54321 which bug is this? If there is a bug that got you blocked for this long and it was a serious bug with huggle then please post it at Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback and then yes if it is serious I see a reason for huggle to be disabled for now. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 00:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Why would we disable it? It is a stable tool, working properly, not causing any problems. Seems silly to turn it off, all the edits made by it are the responsibility of the editors, not gurch's, so it is nothing like a bot owner being away situation. I recommend it be re-enabled immediately. So, I am going to reenable it, WP:IAR (this will unarguably improve the wiki) until some sort of consensus is formed here. Prodego talk 00:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)It was a bug in a previous version. He had his Huggle rights revoked yet was somehow still able to access the program. If a verified user list were to be agreed via consensus then I think the current user list should be scrapped at least down to the core users and then only accept trusted, well established users until we can 'acquire' a maintainer. I do agree, most bugs are ironed out now but would we be willing to take that risk? I think Wikipedia will suffer without huggle, it filters vandalism a lot more efficiently than Lupin's anti vandal tool ——Ryan | tc 00:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with user list option.--Xp54321 (Hello!Contribs) 00:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I also agree but stripping down off the huggle user list? Maybe just taking off the last weeks additions to the list? ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 00:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, It's not like I have a huge problem with it even if there are errors, except for the times that is freezes when I close it out, other than that it is a perfectly fine tool and like they said, the page has never been vandalised in it's entire existance, why move to protect it now that Gurch is gone? It's not like he spent 24/7 on Wikipedia when it was running in the first place, just my opinion but I really do think you should turn in on temporarily so we can continuing reverts on vandal edits and see how it goes from there becuase now I have to use VandalProof, a program I am not use to AT ALL, to start my reverts. Notify us if anything changes in the situtation please! --♣ẼгíćЏ89♣ (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I'm just wary about continuing the use of a very powerful program without it's maintainer around. Therefore to limit potential abusers, if we were to activate it again, the user list should be limited. There are so many users listed here ——Ryan | tc 00:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
There's got to be someone out of the millions of editors on Wikipedia that can run it. If nothing else, why not just e-mail Gurch and see if he'll fix any problems that come up? I strongly suggest Huggle be reactivated, as Huggle was the most efficient and accurite tool for vandal fighting. IMO, Wikipedia relied on Huggle, and will never be the same without it. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
You only have to have used huggle once to have your name there thats why there are so many. I dont see how allowing all in that list to have access would be a problem.. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 00:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we keep it enabled unless there's a problem that Addshore can't handle? No reason to assume there's going to be a problem until there is one. If a user on that list creates a problem, we can deal with them individually. Nothing about gurch's presence made people not abuse huggle. delldot talk 00:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
(5xEC) The list needs cleaning out anyway, why not now? Calvin 1998 (t-c) 00:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec x a million) Addshore, for the exact reason outlined above. No offence Xp54321 but I'm using you as an example. He had his rights revoked, he was still able to edit. I bet there would be many other users who'd be willing to exploit a bug to harm the project and like I said, if there's no maintainer to fix these bugs then Huggle's reputation goes downhill even more. ——Ryan | tc 00:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Xp54321's bug was in a version of huggle that was allot older. This version should be virtually stable other than the few bugs which have been pointed out on the feed back page (none of which can get your rights removed) the majority of bugs are just huggle crashing freezing with unhandeled exceptions. Yes there could be users willing to exploit bugs but they would need to have rollback :S. And iff rollback got given to someone that would exploit bugs (i know it has bene but hey) i would start to wonder why. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 00:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Why not just let whitelisted Huggle users just use it? I mean whitelisted users are really the ones who are trusted in the first place, right? I don't see the big deal if everyone is worried about people who will abuse the program. --♣ẼгíćЏ89♣ (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Uh, no, any user with 500+ edits is auto-whitelisted. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 00:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you mean the userlist not the whitelist. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 00:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
But the userlist also contains users who don't have rollback. Remember, the program automatically adds you to the user list and the rollback requirement was a recent addition. So think of how many NEW members are on that list. Another reason to strip it down ——Ryan | tc 00:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes but the program currently is only enabled for those with rollback per a config setting. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 00:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
We're not referring to that - we mean that the list has far too many people that either can't or don't use huggle. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 00:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I see that huggle has been enabled again regardless of all the security concerns and whatever else we've been discussing the past few this is all irrelevant ——Ryan | tc 00:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Enabled until consensus is reached here, which it hasn't. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 00:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
While I am glad that it has been enabled, the past discussion is not irrelevent, as it has been enabled until consensus to disable it. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Was consensus ever reached for the disabling of huggle in the first place? I can now just see us tied in knots :D ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 00:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Why not put someone in charge until (if ever) Gurch returns, Addshore isn't a bad idea, and chop the approval list smaller to make this transitional phase simpler? Useight (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Fritzpoll has expressed interest in maintaining Huggle (along with AddShore?). This solves the no maintainer problem. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 00:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I support re-enabling the tool. Huggle already carries a responsibility waiver, and for people like me whose connections crash and burn on Twinkle... Sceptre (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of all the people who abuse/misuse Huggle, there are plenty of people who are capable of controlling and properly using Huggle's power, in spite of all its problems/bugs. Is it right to take away this tool from people who have done nothing wrong simply because some people are not capable of controlling Huggle?
Also, with regards to Giggy's comment above about bots, Huggle is decidedly not a bot. The problem lies not in the tool but in the users who do not know how to control it. I have used Huggle since version 0.6.1 (in February) and I can attest that if a user really knows what they are doing, there is nothing (within reason, deliberate errors in programming don't count) that software can do to to make them make mistakes. Unfortunately, the converse is also true.
What Huggle needs is an approval list similar to VandalProof's. Since Fritzpoll is an admin, he should blank WP:HUGGLE/users, full-protect it, and force Huggle to ensure that a user is on the list before they can use the tool. That would keep out all the riffraff. J.delanoygabsadds 01:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
You could always use the built in config settings. User must:
  • Have an account X days old
  • Have a rollback account
  • Have over 1000 edits
meaning as soon as a user is over these he can run huggle be automaticly added to the list and not have to waste admins time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Addshore (talkcontribs)
Nope, the features don't work, unless you fixed them? Calvin 1998 (t-c) 01:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Nobody knew that they didnt work to know to try to fix them :> I will add this to the list of TO FIX :D ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 01:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I would support a manually-managed fully-protected whitelist for the moment (pending consensus on other eligibility criteria), assuming we have an admin prepared to do the additions, and someone who wants to take responsibility for making the decisions. Pseudomonas(talk) 09:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I too would support an approval list per what Pseudomonas said ——Ryan | tc 09:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, there's enough vandalism these days to justify keeping things going. Pseudomonas(talk) 09:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and while I'm opining, if the config page can be fully-protected that'd make me feel more comfortable. Pseudomonas(talk) 09:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Well, if that works, cool. Would be much easier that an approval list. Or, if you want, I could be an "approval" person, if you went the route I suggested. I have been using Huggle since vs. 0.6.1, nearly four months. In the last 10000 reverts made, I have less than five nudges, as far as I can remember. (that last part was my resumé, hope you enjoyed it :P ) J.delanoygabsadds 01:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling we won't be needing that, since we have found a suitable replacement for Gurch (Fritzpoll, see below), which should nullify all arguments (unless I missed something?). Calvin 1998 (t-c) 01:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the random babbling... it's 21:34 where I live, and I got less than 3 hours of sleep last night, (A/C on the blink....) and my BCL (blood caffeine level) is dropping... See you guys tomorrow! J.delanoygabsadds 01:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Didn't know where to mention this, but I could probably get Mellie to talk to Gurch. she can be very persuasive. Steve Crossin (contact) 11:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Discussion continued two sections below. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 19:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...I may regret this[edit]

If you still need/want someone, I happen to be a "proficient .NET programmer", who has a passing interest in programming for Wikipedia. I'll offer my services if people want a maintenance man like me. Just let me know Fritzpoll (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fritzpoll yay! Well I think this is good. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 00:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
You're just the person we were looking for... Calvin 1998 (t-c) 00:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
If you're sure you want to put up with all the hassle... J.delanoygabsadds 00:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
*huggles Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
If fritz can fix the bugs and acctually do the code i'm sure I can cope with sorting out the feedback page, changelog e.t.c to take some of the work away from you :>·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 00:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
It can't be worse than navigating the minefield that was getting FritzpollBot approved, can it? Off to bed - I'll wait until I get online tomorrow for anyone to object, then I'll check over the source code and get familiar with it. As GEOBOT is still warming up, this will not be a distraction (before Blofeld gets worried) Fritzpoll (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Well given what this discussion has already gone through I don't know why anyone would want to say no to you :D. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 01:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I for one have no objections to Fritz taking over huggle, though I am sorry to learn that gurch has left wikipedia. (I've been working on a program to help the simple english wikipedia, so I've been away for a while...) Thingg 01:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
YAY!!!Huggle will be okay!!!Thank you Fritz!!!--Xp54321 (Hello!Contribs) 01:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Fritz, I chatted with Gurch before about possibly hosting Huggle on SourceForge. He never objected to doing so, and showed some interest in it, but the idea just fell through the cracks after no more action was taken on it. Perhaps now would be a good idea to do that? Gary King (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Huggle is on SourceForge already :) (and the source, too) Calvin 1998 (t-c) 03:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The URL being for the current Huggle version - by the way, Fritz should know that and keep it that way (and making sure to update the current source code, etc.), and it's hosted by Atyndall. But all that will come after he accepts the position. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 03:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but it's not a public project there; you don't see it when you do a search. Gary King (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

← True. Perhaps talk to Atyndall? Calvin 1998 (t-c) 03:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just hosting huggle on another project's webspace but I have now applied for an actual project for huggle (It's under the unix name gurch because 1. It honors is original creator, how may have now moved on from the project and 2. For some reason the unix name huggle doesn't work). The site says it could take 1-3 days, once that is done I'll upload the source code and files. Anyone who wants to have developer status to the project should sign up for a sourceforge account then email me and I will add the permissions required. I'll also put the Huggle source code into SVN.  Atyndall93 | talk  08:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Atyndall93 i am currently the only person with the most up to date source so send me an email or something hen you need it. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 22:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Just regarding the svn I can really see huggle getting in a big mess if we try to put it on the svn. there are many files (about 440) and frm's e.t.c. I think it might just be better if we stick to one main dev and if that dev cant fix something then they pass it onto the next person. Fritzpoll has now been given the most recent version of the code and has started trying to fix more bugs. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 19:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I suppose it doesn't need to be in SVN, but I have had an idea that maybe you (Addshore) could be a Wikipedia-side liason who feeds all bugs posted on the WP:Huggle/Feedback into the sourceforge bug tracker system and then I could work out their seriousness and feed them into the task system (kind of like a priority and version to-do list) where Fitzpoll can just fix whener. Although we do need to decide when a new release should be posted etc and what OSS licence to put our contributions under (Gurch put them into the public domain with attribution preferred but thats not compatible with Sourceforge as far as I know).  Atyndall93 | talk  05:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes this sounds good and im happy to do that, Also im happy to fix a few of the smaller bugs or the ones that I know how to fix :> How is the sourceforge project coming along? ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 07:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've added you name to the list of developers and the project is awaiting approval ETA about two days, after that we can commence its use.  Atyndall93 | talk  11:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


  • Didn't know where to mention this, but I could probably get Mellie to talk to Gurch. she can be very persuasive. Steve Crossin (contact) 11:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I noticed Steve's comment above. This may prove useful. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, here's the thing. I know her better than anyone, and I know that Mel and Matt are good friends. Mel's a very persuasive girl, and I'm sure she could convince him to come back. I'll ask her to make a cmt here though. Anyway, what do people think of this? Steve Crossin (contact) 13:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Let him be - he's obviously extremely stressed out and doesn't want to be part of the project at the minute. We should respect this and he'll come back in his own time. It looks like we've found someone to help out with Huggle, and he can obviously resume that himself when he's back. Let the guy sort his issues out himself. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Well said Ryan, I agree. I'm pretty sure gurch is going to come back when he's ready. delldot talk 13:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There's a difference between persuasive and forceful/coercive, but, we will let this one rest. Let him come back when, and if, he's ready. Steve Crossin (contact) 13:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I think he should be left. I only managed to talk to him for around 30 mins and his last message to me went along the lines of leave me alone. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 14:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, leave Gurch alone... (and as a matter of fact, huggle is doing quite well w/out him...) Calvin 1998 (t-c) 19:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Well he did make the latest version all I did was compile it, sort out the pages, downloads e.t.c but I agree gurch should be left alone, if he wants to come back he will. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 22:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


Now that it's been re-enabled, can it be semi-protected instead of full? Enigma message 17:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It was only full-protected to prevent anyone re-enabling it, and keeping it full to prevent vandalism violates the protection policy... Calvin 1998 (t-c) 19:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
It was declined hours ago ——Ryan(talk) 19:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
After some discussion, as I said at RFUP, some people may disagree with the full protection. I've found out that some people do agree with it though. Thoughts are welcome here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I commented there - my message was: Fritzpoll is an admin, if/when he takes over AddShore as the main developer, he'll be able to edit the config. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 20:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The page should stay protected - Fritzpoll is an admin. If it's over his head he can disable huggle; the wiki won't end. giggy (:O) 23:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't get it. No one saw fit to protect it ever (since one time in January) until iridescent wanted to disable it. Now it needs full protection forever and ever? What happened to protection not being preemptive? The page has never been vandalized. Plus, if you're protecting the page, why not protect the whitelist, too? That even more than the config page shouldn't be edited. Finally, iridescent even said it was temporary. " * 19:38, June 23, 2008 Iridescent (Talk | contribs) changed protection level for "Wikipedia:Huggle/Config" ‎ (Temporarily protected pending resolution of this discussion [edit=sysop:move=sysop])" I don't see how this indefinite full protection makes sense at all. Enigma message 00:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify since I see this generating more flames on my talkpage; at no point have I ever disabled Huggle. I protected the config page (which was initially protected by TravisTX), for a very short time until it was decided whether to leave it running. At no point have I ever changed the configuration in any way. – iridescent 01:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
(To Enigma) The configuration page has had a lot more attention as a result of being linked off AN and it will undoubtedly have caught the attention of vandals, seen as some people went into a lot of detail above about how destructive a tool like that could be if the configuration was messed with. It's now become a higher risk page where it wasn't before. Seraphim♥Whipp 08:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Just like to throw this into the discussion. At this point in time admins should / would not make any helpful contributions to that page because they don't know what to do e.t.c. The only things admins would do is to disable it. The users that want / need to change the page are generally non admins and now have to work through admins wasting admins time and it just a bit peculiar. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 06:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, if it were to have it's semi restored then that would stamp out the possibility of anonymous and new users from vandalising. These two groups of people are more likely to vandalise the page than established auto-confirmed users. ——Ryan(talk) 11:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The page is now semi protected again. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 15:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Consider me in[edit]

Fine - no objections in the past 48 - I'll start looking at this tonight and tomorrow and along with AddShore, I will start looking at bugfixes. If I can get stuff uploaded to the SF page, I will, but I've never done that before! Cheers, Fritzpoll (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Good i agree we defiantly need you :> I have already used the extent of my knowledge fixing one bug :D ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 17:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I just want to make one think clear from the outset about my volunteering here for this: I see this as purely the role of a "caretaker". Huggle is considered to be very useful by the community, and clearly needs maintaining/updating and I am willing to do this. If and when Gurch returns, I will not hesitate in returning this job to him upon request. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about sourceforge, I can show you how to use it (it can be a bit feature-intensive at times) but I have had several projects and its a very good website. I am thinking of turning on the task list (once the project is approved) where you can just find out what needs fixing, do it and mark them as done. Although a system of workuing out when a new version should be released needs to be decided on.  Atyndall93 | talk  05:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
New version or subversions should be released whenever all MAJOR bugs have been fixed. There can still be minor ones left :>. Also for full new versions try to get everything you can get done. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 07:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding the Drama[edit]

Seriously, how many vandal tools do we have? We have Lupin's anti-vandal, VandalProof, Vandal Fighter, rollback, Vandal Sniper, Twinkle, etc. There are even a couple more that are not worth mentioning. How many more do we honestly need? Sure huggle is a powerful anti-vandal tool, but we got like 10 more of those tools. I'm sure we can handle ourselves with one less tool.

About gurch's departure, we have to face the fact that some good editors leave because of anger, fustration, wikibrunout, etc. and learn from it. That way we can prevent it from happening it again. PrestonH (t c) 05:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, we couldn't live without it, its that and more. :-P  Atyndall93 | talk  05:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
How many tools do we need? I daresay Huggle rendered VandalProof and Vandal Sniper obsolete months ago. There are things we can afford to lose, and Huggle most certainly is not one of them, as anyone who has used it can attest. Enigma message 05:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Enigmaman, can you show me how huggle has improved over VandalProof and Vandal Smiper? PrestonH (t c) 05:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a much more powerful tool and much less buggy. Can I show you? No. I'd to make a presentation in person to demonstrate what's better about it. If you've used it, you know that it's much better, much more useful, and indispensable. Enigma message 06:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
PrestonH, it is far far better than VP. It is probably more useful than all the other tools combined. Prodego talk 06:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Also if you ever go into the irc feed and set your client to beep every time the huggle advert summary comes up you will be amazed. Firstly during peak times there can be over 18 people huggeling at once and they can be making well over 100 edits per miniute. Take this away and well thats about 50 cases more vandalism not dealt with and I also agree that this tool is far better than many others. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 07:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of its dented reputation here, we cannot afford to lose Huggle. I've tried using most of the anti-vandal tools you mentioned...well OK I couldn't get VP to work but that's besides the point. Huggle is capable of far more than all those tools combined. Addshore, you'll have to teach me how to make my IRC client 'beep' me. ——RyanLupin(talk) 11:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Huggle is way better and faster than the rest of the ones you mentioned (well, was, now it's been rendered almost completely useless by the sheer number of bugs). I've personally never been beaten to a revert by a VandalProof user, VandalSniper isn't maintained any longer, Lupin's Tool and Twinkle are monobook scripts that use JavaScript to modify or improve Special:Recentchanges, which is not anywhere near as effective or fast as Huggle, VandalProof, or VandalSniper. Anyhow, this is a wiki, there's no problem with having so many. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 02:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm beginning to see everyone's point. Anyways, has huggle even been fixed yet? --PrestonH (t c) 05:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
No. I'm estimating 5 more weeks before Wikipedia:Huggle/Bugs is cleared out. It's a slow process. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 05:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
So are we going to use the old tools and rollback during those five weeks until everything is sorted out? PrestonH (t c) 05:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not so buggy you can't edit through it, but just look at all the security/privacy concern bugs on Wikipedia:Huggle/Bugs. Too many for me, but it's still usable. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 05:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Huggle has always been buggy. There hasn't been a single release with some big bugs and the bugs list at the moment is about normal size. Huggle has always been "usable" even though it has these bugs. Yes that whole bugs list could take a few weeks to get through also. Might even now release 0.7.12 first before 0.8.0 ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 06:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I still think Huggle has been handed out to far too many extremely unexperienced users. That can be quite risky, if they have no idea what they are doing. There was previously a large scale discussion, which resulted in it being made clear that applications for Huggle would be taken under greater consideration, but I can't see evidence of it yet. As for the other tools, well, I use rollback, and I have coped perfectly well still, even with other users patrolling with Huggle, so it's not that great. I've argued this case before, it doesn't help RfA participation one bit, if those taking candidates under consideration have to sift through a million Huggle edits to find some non-automated ones. Lradrama 08:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Why does it matter whether it was automated or not? The point is that they're reverting vandalism and contributing to deletion. If I use my raw rollback priveleges to revert vandalism on an article versus using a utility, why should the first reversion be somehow more valuable? Celarnor Talk to me 03:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Please don't upset Vandal Proof or it will team up with Vandal Sniper to take out the Huggle Bear. Seriously though, while some may find the older tools obsolete, I find Vandal Proof works just fine for my needs. Also, I agree with the above that Huggle is handed out waaay too freely. I more often now have to clean up Huggle messes while on vandal/speedy/afd patrol due to inexperienced user mistakes.--Finalnight (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I dont think that you can say "Huggle is handed out waaay too freely". It is restriced to rollbackers and to be honest that should be enough for any anti vandalism tool. Vandal proof and sniper are perfectly good tools it is just some users find huggle allot easier to use. Huggle mistakes if repetitive should really be reported to ANI to be dealt with. Most huggelers will undo their mistakes and if they do not then they should not be using huggle. (my opinions anyway) ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 12:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Now that Addshore has brought up the topic, Huggle can only be used by editors with rollback. We initially did this because it would transfer the problem from huggle to WP:RFR. If admins at RfR don't have enough sense to keep rollback from editors who don't deserve it... what fault of ours is that? Calvin 1998 (t-c) 23:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Other restrictions could be imposed but there is no need to as it is already limmited to only rollbackers meaning all users would / should have a good reputation, some knowledge, edits and time on wiki. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 06:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Gurch is BACK!!!! See the config talk page!!!!--Xp54321 (Hello!Contribs) 20:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes gurch is now lightly deving huggle again. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 19:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Need help with interpetation of WP:UP[edit]

I have some questions about interpreting and applying Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page?, specifically point #9. This is in regards to the User page of GHcool (talk · contribs), which has been the subject of controversy in the past, including a no-consensus MfD (though I think the page has been substantially expanded since then) as well as an ANI thread from about a year ago that I cannot seem to locate (and in fact, the user who raised it appears to have had their identity erased entirely from Wikipedia... user page deleted on user's request, no contribs, nada). I was hoping to look to the past discussions for precedent, but unfortunately the past discussions are either missing or else have an ambiguous conclusion.

There is currently on ongoing Wikiquette Alert from Imad marie (talk · contribs), where he/she contends that using a quote from him/her on the user page, along with the text "even after this claim had been exposed as a falsehood", constitutes the naming of a "perceived flaw," as prohibited by point #9 in the User Page guidelines I linked to above.

I do not feel great about the user page in question, but I also do not feel comfortable proclaiming that it is in violation of policy. It is treading a very fine line, IMO. Myself and Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs) attempted to mediate -- our compromise suggestion was to remove specific user names from the page to avoid the appearance of personal attacks, but to retain the diffs so that there was still proof these were actual user comments, and interested parties could still verify all of the info -- but GHcool was not amenable to this compromise, and as I said, I do not feel comfortable trying to force the compromise because I am unsure if the page really runs afoul of WP:UP or not.

Imad marie has asked about his/her next step in the dispute resolution process. I suppose I could say "Take it to ANI" or "Try an RfC" or whatever, but I do not think GHcool is likely to change his mind, and I am uncertain about which way enforcement would come down. So I'd like to hear some input from admins and other experienced users on what they think. Is the page User:GHcool a violation of WP:UP? Does it just skirt the edge? Is it reasonable to ask GHcool to make some accommodations to those who might be offended? Should we tell those who feel offended to just piss off? What do people think? --Jaysweet (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and your userpage is not a free speech venue to broadcast reams of polemic and paint your fellow editors as anti-Israeli via carefully selected and edited quotes. I would remove the entire section. Neıl 15:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Although some of the user-written text is ok for what it is, having it on a user page is still soapboxing. The "selected quotes" however, could be taken as attacks on some users and are very disruptive to a collaborative, volunteer encyclopedia-building project. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

While I assume good faith on Jaysweet's part, I believe he/she has misinterpreted my stance on compromise. I promised him that I would take the users' names off my page if I heard a good argument for doing so. The only argument I heard so far was that fairly and accurately quoting other user's distortions of logic and factual information is offensive to those users. I don't believe this is a strong argument, since Wikipedia is an open community where public accountability and debate is a prime value. The argument is logically equivalent to my arguing that bringing up my user page for discussion offends me and insisting that the conversation stop immediately. I would never do that because I believe that such an argument goes against the nature of this site. I will be going out of town tomorrow for 10 days and will not be able to respond during that time. I respectfully ask that this debate be put on hold until I get back, or if that is impossible, I request that no ruling be carried out until I get back and have a chance to catch up on the whatever proceedings have taken place. Thank you in advance. --GHcool (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A simple response may be, if twice as many people consider it non-conducive to the good of the community in having the comments as they are now on a userpage as those who believe it conducive - then it gets removed. It is not your page, it is the communities page on which you are permitted to provide such information as you feel is of benefit in helping create the encyclopedia. In other words, it is for you to prove the grounds of the inclusion of content when two or more contributors raise objections - or get more supporters for your "stance". IM(NVH)O. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
@GHcool -- I believe a good argument has been made (regarding the interpetation of WP:UP, see above, I will not rehash it here). You do not agree with my assessment of the argument, and that is okay. But that doesn't mean I misinterpreted you, it just means we have a different assessment.
Also, FWIW, in my mind compromise sometimes means giving a little to the other side even if you think their arguments are shitty. You'd be surprised how many compromises I help broker on WP:WQA where one party is like, "Well, that's a stupid thing to be worried about... but what the hell, if it means I get what I want too, then I'll agree to it." In this case, you want to host a user page that is very much pushing the boundaries of WP:UP (in terms of length and intent, too, not just in terms of the "perceived flaws" thing), and in order to continue to do that you may have had to give a little... even if it didn't make sense to you. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, so is there any way to persuade GHcool to remove the offensive material from his user page? Imad marie (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping a few more admins/other users will chime in here. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:John celona socking[edit]