Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive27

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

Noticeboard archives


Revealing deleted content to non-administrators[edit]

I'm not quite sure what I should do here. I recently speedily deleted a page for nn-bio; the page was written by someone other than the subject of the article, and the subject of the article wants to see what was there before it was deleted. Quoting from my talk page:

... another reason as to why i would like to see the material is to determine if malice was intended. i have been getting quite a bit of flak from people who have seen the article and seeing the content would hopefully enable me to identify the person who posted the article and hence, pursue the appropriate courses of action.

So far, I've been politely refusing to do dig out the deleted material. However, what's the relevant policy on this? Thanks. enochlau (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

My view is, what would it hurt? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Would it be a mis-use of admin powers though? I mean, we don't have the ability to view deleted content for the pleasure of non-admins. enochlau (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Not according to these admins who have put Template:User recovery on their user page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Back to your question, you might want to read WP:DRV#Content review. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the links! enochlau (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Not every user who can be trusted to view deleted content is an administrator. Whether or not to reveal deleted content is a choice you've gotta make — ably guided by Zzyzx11's links, of course — but I don't think it's a good idea to hide everything from non-admins just because they're not admins. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Unless there is a good reason not to release deleted content (copyvio attack page) I've never seen a reason not to. The content is under the GFDL after all.Geni 12:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course the good reasons would be things like copyright violation and libel, etc. So if the information could be considered as libel, then revealing it after deletion could be contributory in that. - Taxman Talk 15:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
A similar incident occured before. What I did (at someone else's suggestion) was undelete the page, move it to my userpage, delete the redirect, protect the page in my userspace, and give the url to the interested party. This lets them view the whole history and all the information we have, but also prevents it from looking like a real article. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Some, but not all, deleted content is sensitive. For instance, if a copyvio or attack page is deleted, recovering that content for a non-administrator might in effect constitute copyright violation or defamation. However, if a nonsense or fancruft page is deleted, recovering that content wouldn't cause any problems. Use common sense. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 03:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Users can ask for undeletions at WP:DRV, including having the info moved to their User space. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

There is also Category: User undeletion comprising administrators who will undelete stuff of send its contents in email (provided it's not objectionable or illegal). --Tony Sidaway 19:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


I was just looking through the List of User accounts and was wondering if there was a way to de-list indefinantly blocked accounts so we go straight to a list of user accounts without going through the vandals. — Moe ε 01:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

first page isn't vandles. The first page is accounts created to keep page 2 accounts off the first page.Geni 03:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you better clarify your statement above? I didn't understand a word of it. — Moe ε 04:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What he means is that some admin (Curps, IIRC) intentionally created a bunch of nonsensical usernames to fill up the first page of Listusers, to prevent e.g. "!!! (foo) is an idiot" from showing on the first page. Yes, that's a hack, and yes listusers could stand from improvement because at present it's pointless. Radiant_>|< 12:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
No, it wasn't me that created all those "!!!" users. -- Curps 15:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
In any case can I suggest that the Listusers be broken-up into users and indefinantly blocked users. It would help identify users from vandals better. — Moe ε 15:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I use listusers to find if someone is an admin, bureaucrat, etc. If there's some other convenient way of going this, I don't know it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I use the bureaucrat log at Special:Log but either way works. Superm401 - Talk 07:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
log wont cover our older admins.Geni 03:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Congressional Staffer Edits /[edit]

In order to centralize this section has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/United States Congress

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C. (second nomination)[edit]

This deletion nomination was made because a first nomination, which resulted in no consensus, is being appealed on Wikipedia:Deletion review (DRV). Because DRV is not a consensus-based forum, I obviously decided that it would get a fairer discussion with a second run on Articles for deletion. I made the second nomination and so far there are six votes in addition to my nomination, in which I gave a recommendation to keep. I made the nomination in good faith, and all six votes so far favor keeping the article.

However, R. Fiend has delisted this. He states that a second nomination cannot proceed while the first is under review. I find this unconvincing. It would be extraordinary if two discussions on AfD gave strong indications of absence of consensus to delete an article, but the article was deleted by deletion review as a result of refusal to permit the second deletion discussion to proceed and a decision to ignore the non-consensus to delete in the first.

I invite discussion on how to resolve this problem. I'm sure R. Fiend is sincere in his belief that the second AfD would be wrong, but I do not think it can be right to use deletion review to overturn a no consensus keep result while refusing a simple rerun to determine whether a consensus can be raised. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review and AfD measure two very different things. Deletion review is an evaluation of the decision made by the closer, while AfD is an evaluation of the article itself. I see no reason why the two cannot be conducted at once. That the results of the first AfD may have been misinterpreted in no way affects the quality of the article. - SimonP 05:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for restorng it. R. Fiend has removed it again and closed the nomination for a second or third time, I've lost count), claiming that it was a bad faith nomination. Oh well, I'm not going to get into an edit war. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Failing to place a notice on DRV that it's been re-opened, plus the incredible nomination itself, it strains credulity to ask us to consider this nomination as having taken place in good faith. Can a week go by without a tempest in a teacup being raised by Mr. Sidaway? The discussion at DRV had failed to date to get the super-majority required for deletion, and would almost certainly have resulted in relisting regardless. Yet again, the path of maximum disruption has been chosen. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I closed the AFD because it was obviously bad faith, in the same way it would be bad faith for me to nominate George W. Bush for President saying "Here's why you should vote for him: 1. he's a liar, 2. he's an idiot, and 3. he's a war-monger." What's this? No one is supporting him? How odd. DRV is discussing whether the first AFD was closed correctly, Tony trying to undermine this by engineering a keep consensus at an unrelated vote is not good faith. But Simon's right, DRV and AFD measure 2 different things, and there shouldn't be votes going on at the same time in both places. Which takes precedence? If DRV decides that the first closure was incorrect, then I guess it would be deleted, and the AFD would be closed, because the article would already be deleted, and if recreated could be a speedy G4. If having more discussions at more places inevitably gives us better results should I open a concurrent 3rd and 4th AFD for the article? As long as I get one consensus I could then claim a valid delete, right? In any case, I'm curious to see whether AFD is a vote or not. Everyone says it isn't, but I suspect it really is. -R. fiend 05:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm here to tell you that it wasn't in bad faith. I'm not going to re-open it since you've speedy kept. Of course AfD will always take precedence, because it's the consensus-based forum. There is enough rancor on Wikipedia lately without you and Aaron spilling this extraordinary bile aroumd. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

DRV is also a consensus-based forum. And you really shouldn't be accusing other people of spreading rancor. Pot, meet kettle. Radiant_>|< 07:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Remind me again why AFD/DRV as they now operate should be spared from being nuked from orbit? - David Gerard 07:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Likely because of the fallout, earthquakes and tidal waves resulting from such a nuke. However, do note that there will be an alternative available soon, as I've said on your talk page. Radiant_>|< 08:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Who told you that DRV is a consensus-based forum? 50% to endorse, 75% to overturn doesn't sound like consensus to me; it's just vote-counting. No, AfD works by consensus, doesn't have quite so paranoid an atmosphere, and could easily have handled a rerun of this debate, and there was no reason why that debate could not run in tandem with the DRV discussion, over which it would of course (being consensus-based) take precedence. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • What I mean is that DRV was created by, and is supported by, consensus. The individual discussions there are technically vote counting, but people do make more sensible comments than on AFD, and take each other's opinion into account more than they appear to do on AFD. Radiant_>|< 18:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Predicted result of this kerfluffle: creation of a faith-based deletion page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I think you may be trying to have your cake and eat it here. When you want something kept, you (not for the first time) bypass DRV, and appeal to xFD (where it is easier to get a 'keep'). But when it came to userbox templates, you ignored TfD and speedied them, and then listed on DRV (where it is easier to get a deletion endorsement). XfD is derided when you don't like its results, and upheld as essential when you do. I'm not accusing you of bad faith, but this gives the impression of gaming the system. And, yes, the system stinks, but the only other thing on offer seems not to be so much a 'faith-based' deletion system as a 'Tony-based' one--Doc ask? 20:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting a headache here. David Gerard might have a point. I'll see if Burt Rutan has any spaceship kits out yet. Who's bringing the nukes? ;-) Kim Bruning 21:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Doc, you're right that I took a pragmatic approach on userboxes. I would not trust DRV to make a good call on article content, because there is a tendency there to ignore or downplay the importance of content. As userboxes are pure vanity and have no encyclopedic content I will trust the judgement of DRV more than I trust a TfD, because it's in the nature of userboxes to be placed in prominent positions on people's userpages, resulting in an unconscious and unavoidable skewing of TfD votes where userboxes are involved. Those who tend to their userpages spot the tfd notice and click the link--I can't blame them for doing that but it does create an artificial keep vote which is not representative of consensus. According to my survey of--to date--more than 200 userpage contacts from my watchlist, only 10% of active Wikipedia editors have political or religious userboxes (which is not to day that the other 90% are opposed to them, but I expect they might be include a lot of people who are less in favor of them). --Tony Sidaway 19:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The welcome template[edit]

There are some disagreements about what would be appropirate to have on {{welcome}}. I started a poll about this, at template talk:welcome. Opinions would be most welcome. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Singapore proxy vandalism; did I call this one right?[edit]

I just removed the following entry from WP:AIV: (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) Vandalizing after fourth level warning. Has been blocked thrice before. Royboycrashfan 05:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The last vandalism from this IP was over three hours ago, and it has made one minor non-vandal edit since then. The IP resolves to "" and appears to be part of an AOL-like shared proxy setup. The block log shows four blocks and one unblock with the comment "singapore proxy? shorten block".

Since I've been doing this admin thing for less than a day, I'd like to confirm whether my decision not to block was correct. Also, from this edit, it appears that there is indeed a persistent vandal using these IPs. Since individual blocks seem ineffective and a range block would likely cause massive collateral damage, what should be done? Contacting the ISP? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Singapore ISPs are irritating like AOL, so I'd rangeblock 15 minutes increasing double upwards, they do stop when you hit, say, the 1 or 2 hour block. Don't block too long, though, it hampers innocent users like how AOL does. NSLE (T+C) 恭喜发财! 08:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Since, judging from the talk pages, many of the users behind these IPs also seem to be confused by this, I went and forked {{AOL}} to {{Singnet}} and tagged all the existing user talk pages in the range with it. We'll see if that helps at all. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I myself am on Singnet (, so it sucks when I get caught in the autoblocker (has only happen thrice so far, thankfully), what you did may have no effect; I myself honestly don't see what the tag will do :P NSLE (T+C) 恭喜发财! 10:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Continuing the series of efforts that may or may not accomplish anything, I just submitted the following report to Singnet:

The English Wikipedia ( has recently experienced petty but persistent vandalism from someone accessing the site through the Singnet proxiesat The vandal has boasted of their ability to evade Wikipedia's IP address -based blocking system, since their requests come from multiple shared proxies. I have included below a list of recent vandalism events; I hope that this information may allow you to identify this user by your proxy logs. I believe the activities of this user are in violation of your AUP, and would like to ask for your help in ensuring that this vandalism will not continue.
Vandalism via
Vandalism via
Vandalism via
There are more, but these should be ought to do for a start. We have, of course, no way of being sure that these really are all the same user, but there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that at least most of the vandalism is made by a single user. Unfortunately, attempts to stop this user's vandalism by IP-based blocking are not only ineffective, but are harming all Singnet users who contribute to Wikipedia. I therefore sincerely hope that you are able to resolve this issue at your end.
Thank you,
Ilmari Karonen, administrator on the English Wikipedia

(Yes, the e-mail address given above is valid.)

I suppose it's a bit of a long shot, but I felt it was worth a try at least. Who knows, maybe something will come of it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Repair my botched move please (apologies!)[edit]

A botched paste has meant I've just moved Pierre Gaultier de Varennes et de La Vérendrye to Ierre Gaultier de Varennes, sieur de La Vérendrye rather than Pierre Gaultier de Varennes, sieur de La Vérendrye (so that the article's title matches name given in opening sentence). Unfortunately the article's history prevents my correcting it, so I'd be grateful if someone could do it for me. Apologies and thanks in advance, David Kernow 15:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

PS Yes, once renamed I will return to the article to check for and remove double redirects to it. Thanks again, David Kernow 15:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Done though I didn't see any discussion about what the correct way to name the article is. Some justification for the new name would be good. And go ahead and fix all the links to the article to bypass the redirects. - Taxman Talk 16:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Taxman. I've just finished updating the redirects. I didn't propose a Requested Move as I think the name change is uncontroversial, in view of (a) the article's opening sentence; (b) my recalling how this name was expressed in a couple of history sources I've referenced, (c) backed up by (non-Wikipedia-based) results from an internet search. Best wishes and thanks again, David Kernow 16:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Fix of a Botched Page move[edit]

I have just tried to fix a botched page move/archive on Talk:Friends of the Western Buddhist Order. Please see User talk:FWBOarticle#Misplaced archive for an account of what I did. I think there may still be discussion lost. I would appreciate a more expereinced admin looking at this page to dewtermine if there is any way to retrive this missing content. DES (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions[edit]

How does a naming convention get from proposed to accepted? I posted Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ohio school districts) in April 2005. Nobody has objected to it and I've been using it to rename articles covered by it. Though I'd feel more confident it were official policy. So how do I make that happen? PedanticallySpeaking 17:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • It seems that you originally did not follow the steps listed on Wikipedia:How to create policy back in April. Thus nobody was notified, nobody really commented on it, and therefore it was eventually marked as inactive. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yep, just like that. To advertise such, put a link on RFC, the village pump, WT:Naming conventions, and the talk pages of relevant high-activity pages or wikiprojects. Get consensus. I marked this as historical because (1) there was no active debate, and (2) there was no real feedback whatsoever, thus no way to tell if it's consensual. Radiant_>|< 22:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Another set of eyes, please[edit]

There is a bit of a war going on over at Louisiana Baptist University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (when isn't there?), but what I want is a second lok at this:

I am being urged to block, and I am inclined to block all the suspected socks indefinitely. There is an open RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich, pretty solid consensus behind dealing robustly with the guy, but I am new at the mop-and-bucket game so I'd value a second (or more) set of eyes. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi, can the folks here please keep an eye on Blackworm (a computer worm) and the various pages which I've redirected to it [1]. I'm concerned that external links to download a removal tool should only go to extremely reputable sites. Kappa 23:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser lite[edit]

Since it involves admins in gereral, admin opinion on this is more than welcome. :) --Cool CatTalk|@ 12:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


The only edits this account makes is to vandalise the Sam Sloan page and to remove references to Sam Sloan in other articles. Isn't this the kind of impersonating account which gets blocked from Wikipedia? Surely, it's just been made to rhyme with Sam Sloan's name? - Hahnchen 17:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a block is justified yet. I left another warning on his talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 17:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't mean blocking for general vandalism or anything, he isn't that prolific. I thought that this was a candidate for one of those "username blocks", like Jimbo Whales, or when people replace an l for a capital I to impersonate people. - Hahnchen 18:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I just blocked him for twenty-four hours. I'll look into permanently blocking. Tom Harrison Talk 14:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Spamscone (note the additional "p") is the Screen Name for Neil Brennen on the Usenet group . The name "Spamscone" is a spoof on my name and Brennen has attacked me hundreds of times there. I do not know if the Spamscone there is the same person as the Samscone here, but he is probably the same person as he follows the same pattern. Sam Sloan 11:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Mr. Sloan is a paranoid idiot. I am not "samscone". That Wikipedia continues to allow the Sam Sloans of the world to post their drivel is but another reason to ignore this site. Neil Brennen.

Soapboxing and user pages[edit]

User:KJVTRUTH is using his page to soapbox about an issue he hasn't been able to get consensus on. A one of the editors on the consensus side has taken it upon himself to remove this information from his userpage, and another has MfD'd it outright, citing [2]. Is this appropriate use of WP policies? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 18:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that someone has listed this guy's user page for deletion because of a content dispute? Tom Harrison Talk 19:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
No, it's been listed on MfD as a breach of Wikipedia:User page, namely for being used as a soapbox for matters unrelated to an online encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Not exactly -- he put content on that page that in part violates WP:V, since it got reverted every time he tried to put it in List of Freemasons, and WP:NPA, for the same reason. See this diff for the version prior to the MfD.--SarekOfVulcan 19:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a content dispute - listing on MfD looks petty. Secretlondon 23:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I would have said "stupid and obnoxious", myself. Stupid and obnoxious in the best of good faith, of course. And people wonder why *FD gets a bad reputation ... - David Gerard 13:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Closed by Tony already. Not like it would have been deleted anyways. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection of Turkish related pages[edit]

I thought I might want to bring this up. Several articles related to Turkey/Turkish peoples have been vandalized/POV written. Can I suggest the following pages be protected:

Only for a while. There has been a strain of vandals/POV pushers lately that have been in reverting wars with other users. As many as 8-12 IP addresses/User accounts are involoved and a few have been blocked and I think everyone could benefit if they are protected. The article Turkish people already got protected because of this dispute. — Moe ε 22:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

We should semi-protect rather than full-protect. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate image on the Qur'an page[edit]

Greetings. On vacation, I took a lot of pictures of exhibits at the Smithsonian gallery and uploaded them to Wikipedia, releasing them under both the GFDL and a cc-sa license. One picture in particular was Image:Big Quran page.jpg, showing a folio from a very large Qur'an, with my wife in the photo to show scale. I added the photograph to Timur, the commissioner of this historic Qur'an.

Someone added the image to the Qur'an article, and controversy quickly ensued (see Talk:Qur'an/Picture Controversy). The photo shows my wife in clothing that would be considered normal in Washington D.C. in the summer, but which is scandalously immodest in most of the Muslim World. Qur'an desecration is an extremely high offense is Islam, of course, as can be seen in recent history. Now there's nothing wrong with having such a picture on Wikipedia -- we have much more racy pictures -- but to have the picture in the Qur'an article was offensive to many Muslims, and several complained. A vote was held. Many supporters of the image's removal wanted to avoid being offensive unless it was necessary, or simply felt the photograph was not of sufficient quality to warrant its inclusion. Many opponents of removal wanted to take a stand against what they saw as religious censorship, or noted that no similar replacement is available. Feelings were strong, and bad faith was assumed by many on both sides.

When I found out about the incident, quite by accident, my wife and I sat down and talked about it. She is very saddened that her likeness is being used in such an insensetive way, and we both agreed that it was unacceptable for this image to be used. I noted this on the the controversy page, but by then many people's feelings had solidified, and no votes were changed as a result. After two weeks, the vote was closed, but consensus had not been acheived: there were 20 keep votes and 16 remove votes. As could be expected, both sides feel that the lack of consensus validates their own position.

As I stated on that page, "The fact is, I'm just not comfortable having an image of my wife misused in this way. Yes I uploaded the photo, but I never intended for it to be used in an article on the Noble Qur'an, so I'm going to remove it. I know that many of you will disagree with me, and I respect that, but I'd ask that you use a photo of your own wife, and leave mine out of it. It pains me to be so stubborn about this, but I take this very personally."

Now there is something of a mild revert-war going on. This is an extremely important issue to me, since I feel that my family has been brought into a very unfortunate situation here, and my wife is understandably insistent that her image not be used to cause religious offense in this way. I'm not sure how to handle this. I'm obviously far too involved to use any of my admin abilities to deal with the situation. Any advice or assistance by other admins would be appreciated. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone else has it archived, delete the image. I believe WP:CSD G7 criteria applies (author requests deletion). Since images are un-undeletable, the image is "gone" forever. People can rail back and forth about whether you commited some grave injustice, but in the end you hold the original copyright. My $0.02. --Syrthiss 19:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Since I'm so involved, I'd feel better if someone else did this for me. (Deletion is an admin tool.) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Image deletion is governed by Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Images.2FMedia, not WP:CSD. In future, don't GFDL your images unless you're happy with them being used by the Klan, etc. ;) Mark1 19:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
That had been done, but many objected (understandably) that without the person in the image, you don't get a sense of the scale of the folio. So the image was reverted back and forth a bit under several different names. :( – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, took a look at the image history and you are not the only the CSD doesn't apply in this case anyways. :/ --Syrthiss 19:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite tempted to boldly delete. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps list on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion or Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, because the photographer didn't get the subject's permission to release the image? Mark1 19:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, thats kind of the problem. Since others have uploaded their revisions to the photo, and because of the way you licensed it, not only do other copies certainly exist but you aren't the creator of the revised images. If you do delete it, the revisers could re-upload the image still under gfdl and use it in the article. You could of course ask them not to...but they are under no obligation to do so I don't think.
I'm hoping that one of the more senior admins wander by and have a good solution. I'm not going to say that you shouldn't delete the image / ask that it be deleted...because frankly I would consider doing that myself (as I stated above naievely, and now knowing more about the situation) if it were my picture...but know that there could be penalties to pay. :( --Syrthiss 20:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (after edit conflict)
You could possibly try appealing directly to Jimbo. He's a busy man but it's a non-trivial issue and it touches on issues of privacy or personal information, which he has shown sensitivity to in previous cases. -- Curps 20:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I was bold. I hope this ends it. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Quadell, that was really inappropriate. I understand that you and your wife are upset about this, but you have an ethical obligation not to use your administrative powers to decide cases in which you are so personally involved. As far as I can see you have no legal grounds to control the photo and while you might have a reasonable case for convincing others to remove it, you certainly shouldn't just delete it yourself. Dragons flight 22:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more complex than that. Generally, it has been considered kosher for users to remove most kinds of content they added (except en-masse deletions). Note that if it were re-uploaded by someone else, it would be inappropriate for Quadell to remove it again, but this particular case is at least murky ground -- I don't think it's clear cut that he was acting wrongly, and I think it is a far cry from abuse. If you want the content, re-uploading it should be ok and simplify things. --Improv 23:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm do you think we could find a photo of someone reading the bible in a bikini?Geni 23:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me for citing it, but that really would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Apart from that, Christianity actually doesn't necessarily ban such garb, so the point isn't quite the same. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
(Islam doesn't necessarily ban sleeveless tops either). Mark1 23:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you seriously argueing that wikipedia doesn't need more pictures of women in bikinis (the bible/bikini thing was used in the photo debate)?Geni 23:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how this could be considered abuse. Quadell made an unwitting mistake. He publicly requested that the community correct the mistake. There may have been a split consensus, but that means that a substantial portion of the community acknowledged the mistake. The community sat in paralysis for almost three weeks debating the mistake. Quadell finally fixed the mistake himself. Fine. We should help people correct bona fide mistakes. The controversy was turning into a real life version of Bleak House. DrWitty 21:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: the above situation has resulted in an RFC filed against me. Feel free to stop by and leave comments, whether critical or supportive. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: Apparently the RfC has been withdrawn as of earlier on Feb 1, 2006. --Syrthiss 21:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


Please use Star of life2.svg for the image. Thanks. Also consider semi protecting rather than complete protection. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • That image looks awful at the size rendered (terrible scaling artifacts). Maybe I'll try to do a SVG version tonight. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 21:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It is better than the alternative currently --Cool CatTalk|@ 12:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggest informal WikiDefcon 4 for US Congress Articles[edit]

As more news stories are being published about the Congressional IP kerfuffle, I'm seeing occasional messages on various message boards discussing their own new edits of various articles about Congressmen and Senators. Some are legit, some aren't. In any case, I suggest admins pay special attention to any edits to such pages for the next day or two, as vandalism and POV edits are going to be somewhat more likely for a little while. --Aaron 17:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't say "WikiDefcon". It makes my eyeballs itch. Thanks, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


I'm not sure where to report this, so if there is a more appropriate place please let me know. The Green Day article has been vandalized several times, and it has been protected on and off. Earlier today user MonkeyCMonkeyDo (talk) vandalized it again. What troubled me is the message he left on my talk page. He said "you ya know. I have this strange problem where i can't control my urge to vandalize the green day page, as well as its subordinates. so if you dont put the block back on the page i might lose myself and vandalize it a whole bunch." I think this can be solved by having an admin talk to him and decide if the problem is with the page or the user. Jtrost 02:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on this user's contributions over the next couple of days. --Madchester 05:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

systemic attack on castro related pages[edit]

Just bringing attention to User: aka "El Jigüe" aka "at the Bay of Pigs I was jailed by Castro"

Under an anon account El Jigue has been inserting counter-revolutionary propaganda several times a day since 15 September last year. All his edits have been related to Cuba, and most use Miami dissident websites as a source. Unlike most with a pov campaign, he has avoided edit wars, and has gone relatively unoticed. I don't know how you folks deal with this, may I suggest an exploding cigar?--NDPleaf.gifColle 03:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Update: The sooner an admin gets on this the better! Take a look at the recent edits (still not reverted as of now) [3]. Random older example: [4]. Here is a recent example of the systemic bias taken in his edits. [[5]] An elementry knowledge of Cuban history is all that is needed to see how this statement is plain wrong. The editor has made thousands of edits, I have only spent a few minutes scratching the surface. I picked these examples out of the blue in order to show what is going on here, these are not the worst cases. Good luck.--NDPleaf.gifColle 09:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Some weeks and months ago this anon was misbehaving... re-creating AfD'd articles under new names (not just once but multiple times, and with unencyclopedic titles), vandalizing Sweden to make some point about Cuba [6], adding an out-of-place link to espionage in Castro's Cuba to American Civil War spies [7], editing the James Bond and Ian Fleming articles based on some apparent conspiracy theory of his [8] [9] [10]. The latter egregious stuff was a few months ago, I guess he doesn't do that anymore, but apparently the POV editing has continued.

Back in December he took exception when I speedy deleted his fourth or fifth re-creation of an AfD'd article, and some discussions ensued, see Talk:Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity revised. At the time it was clear he didn't believe in WP:NPOV, believed he owned the articles he created, and most significantly, did not believe his contributions were covered under the GFDL. He appeared to be quite suspicious of the motives of others and not easily won over to Wikipedia philosophies and principles.

After that I moved on, it was mostly the stuff I considered egregious that I was concerned with (re-creation of deleted articles and adding Cuba stuff to non-Cuba articles), and I didn't really care to get involved in content disputes over Cuban-related topics. For those who would wish to do so, there's Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Curps 23:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sea of Japan, East Sea, &c.[edit]

Tonight, we got a new user (User:Mjump) who's pushing POV on those pages -- but as I was trying to get him/her to understand more about discussing changes, &c., I effectively entangled myself into a dispute as to whether there is a consensus as to whether East Sea should redirect to East Sea (disambiguation) or Sea of Japan. Since I am stuck in the middle of the dispute, I'd like some people to examine the situation to see if you think any of the related pages should be protected pending dispute; I am now myself uncomfortable doing it since I may be accused of doing it to preserve my own POV. --Nlu (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I was waiting all this time for an admin to see what User:Appleby did, and I'm surprised it took so long. I hereby request any admin to check carefully the edits done by Appleby on Dec. 18, 2005, the timing, and whether he had any concensus at all in the first place. Sea of Japan, East Sea, etc. are very controversial topics, and concensus is vital before doing such controversial page moves. Perhaps he didn't know that such multiple page moves can be very harmful. But please warn Appleby of any such unilateral edits again in the future, explain how to discuss with others, take votes, etc.--Endroit 01:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism is in progress by Appleby now. See East sea (small letters) and East Sea (capital letters) pages. Appleby was warned of Wikipedia:3RR in the East Sea (capital letters) page.--Endroit 17:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Since then, Appleby has continued to unilaterally impose changes on East Sea and East Sea (disambiguation) as well, making edits that are calculated to evade 3RR. I'd very much like to request, again, that someone other than myself look into this. --Nlu (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Appleby just broke the Wikipedia:3RR rule in the East Sea (disambiguation) page. Plus he has been involved in at least 2 other Wikipedia:Edit wars (other than Sea of Japan/East Sea) in the last 24 hours.--Endroit 03:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I just reported it in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. As a general comment, it is very difficult to edit pages when there are people like that reverting others at will.--Endroit 04:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair[edit]

This arbitration case has closed. User:Copperchair is banned indefinitely from editing Star Wars and War on Terrorism. He is on indefinite Wikipedia:Probation. These provisions are to be enforced, should he break them, by blocks. The full details are in the decision (linked above).

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 04:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Silly NPOV addendum[edit]

Some people, including infamous vexlit Zen-master, have put together Wikipedia:Information suppression, which in their own words is a proposed policy in addition to NPOV. However, of special interest is the phrase near the bottom, "Note that science ... when used to emasculate other views ... is also POV suppression." In other words, this is really a stealth proposal against using scientific facts to discount an article on pseudoscience. This was pointed out on the talk page, but of course it's not being listened to. Can I get some additional input there on why this is a bad idea? >Radiant< 11:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to its best ability." (emphasis theirs) Proponents are by definition not neutral and this is saying that the article should read as if a proponent wrote it. Proponents contributing is fine, but the article should not look like it was written by a proponent. It should be written as if by a neutral observer instead. Arguments in favor and against a position should be presented. Every article should be neutral in itself, not by the inclusion of other non-neutral articles in the encyclopedia. -- Kjkolb 11:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, reading it again, I think I misunderstood their position. So each side will get a chance to state its case, or something? Still, I think an article should be completely neutral and not switch back and forth between POVs. Each side's case should be presented, but it should be presented neutrally. -- Kjkolb 12:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush's Sixth State of the Union Address[edit]

Bigtimeoperator continues to vandalize George W. Bush's Sixth State of the Union Address by moving it to incorrect titles and insisting that it's actually the fifth. He insists that Wikisource is somehow making up Bush's 1st state of the union speech, or implies that it was not technically his s. of the u. speech. He also keeps on changing the content to say that this is the fifth, even though there is already a separate page for the fifth - George W. Bush's Fifth State of the Union Address. Please block him. KI 17:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not vandalism. If he commits a 3RR violation, I'll block him, but otherwise work it out on the talk page. Personally, I agree that using the year makes much more sense than the ordinal number. howcheng {chat} 17:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
This is not a content dispute. He's lying about plain facts. Whether or not 2006 is used in the title is irrelevant. Neither one of us cares. He's just trying to use the wrong number, 5 instead of 6, in the title. KI 20:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The only reason I bothered to intervene in what was at first a mistake and now a silly, petty debate is that I didn't remember any inaugural SOTU. Upon investigation, I found that it is a fairly common idea that officially there was no SOTU that year. Now, there was an address in 2001 that played the same role as a SOTU and for all intents and purposes was a SOTU. Except it wasn't, officially speaking. It was in fact called by another name. To call it a SOTU without explanation is a statement of error.
Beyond the fact that last night's address was officially Bush's fifth State of the Union, I agree with every other editor that it just makes more sense to categorize them by year.
But I'm curious... can you provide any documentation that the "official title" of last night State of the Union address was "Sixth State of the Union Address" as you claim in your revert? Any authoratative source at all?
Seeing as I'm the only one who has bothered so far to provide any citations whatsoever to bolster my claim, I'm guessing that you can't support your position. But hey, calling me a liar and a vandal works too, I guess. Bigtimeoperator 20:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The Washington Times, USA Today (caption), and the Atlanta Journal Constitution disagree with you. This took 5 minutes of Google searching. The other side is no longer completely wrong, the question is do you chose to acknowledge it and leave the debate to discussion or not? DrWitty 21:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


Following the deletion of male bikini wearing for the eighth (or is it ninth?) time, and the sockfest at DRV, I have gone through the contribs of those users with edits in the deleted history; Here they are:

Having reviewed the edit histories and failed to find a single good-faith edit from any of them, and some already indef-blocked because of p[revious incarnations of this article, I have indef-blocked the rest. Potential for collateral damage seems low: as I say, not one of them has any evidence fo good-faith edits, and a couple of them have a lot of vandalism. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Concur --Doc ask? 23:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Final decision[edit]

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming case. Raul654 01:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Bush-Blair memo[edit]

I moved to this title from Bush wanted to lure Saddam to shoot down UN plane because that title seemed to be pushing a conclusion and not an encyclopedic topic. I don't know what to do and I don't want it to be forgotten in the sands of time. Can someone find the correct name for this? gren グレン ? 02:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the memo should be merged into something. Perhaps with Downing Street memo? — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, it's a Downing Street memo... but that article seems to refer to a specific one. That's not a bad idea though. gren グレン ? 04:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Super Bowl XL[edit]

Due to recent vandalism, can someone protect the pages Super Bowl XL, Seattle Seahawks and Pittsburgh Steelers. — Moe ε 04:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

They're all linked from the front page. Wasn't there some discussion recently where it was decided that such articles shouldn't be protected for more than a few minutes at a time, if at all? --Carnildo 07:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
That's what it says on WP:PP.--Alhutch 07:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Most vandals have been removed promptly, as per WP's front page policy (sry, no link at the moment) it should remain unprotected. Many anon users have been posting useful content, no point in blocking all to catch a few bad apples Tawker 08:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Mesh Computers[edit]

Mesh Computers was recently deleted after an afd listing and subsequently listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review. The closure of the debate was out of process, it had been relisted on the 4th of February, although the previous relisting was not removed and thus it was inadvertantly closed as delete the same day as the relisting. On that basis, per Wikipedia:Undeletion policy I have undeleted and closed the deletion review listing. Given the strength of the opinion during the deletion review that a relisting at afd is unnecessary, I am uncertain whether to relist or not. I am minded not to relist, since the article is about a notable company, but am aware that is my point of view. Is a relisting of worth to the project, or would an expansion of the article be of more worth? Hiding talk 10:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As the closing admin...WP:SNOW. Johnleemk | Talk 11:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Do not relist. What came out in the DRV was sufficient to indicate that this article will easily survive any AfD. A re-listing would just be process for process's sake: a waste of everyone's time. Of course, if anyone, having read the evidence presented in the DRV, still thinks it should be deleted, they are free to knock themselves out at AfD. --Doc ask? 11:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I wish to apologise to John; I am not criticising his closure, I appreciate how it came to be closed so early, and I should have made that fact more widely known in edit summaries and my posting here. I was merely trying to prevent the situation becoming even more unnecessarily bogged down in process. Hiding talk 11:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The article itself still looks like an deletion candidate, but god forbid we should use AfD as speedy clean-up... *looks innocent, whistles* - brenneman(t)(c) 11:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
      • No it doesn't, Aaron; With the line MESH won over 90 industry and technical accolades in 2005. They won the Personal Computer Worlds best PC manafacturer in 2001. it passes WP:CORP. The award by a major computer magazine denotes press coverage. Hiding talk 11:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Not to put to fine a point on it, but it does say "multiple nontrivial". But this is really talk for the AfD. *wink*
          brenneman(t)(c) 14:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that we're talking about this. This whole incident was because I didn't take out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mesh Computers from the January 29 AFD log, and I did that because I had seen other admins leave them after using {{relist}}. I then got yelled at for not taking it out, but if others are not doing it, can we make sure everyone starts doing it now? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

duration of adminship[edit]

Why are admins appointed for life and not for, say, one or two years like the ArbCom? —Ruud 15:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and generally dismissed because admins regularly take actions that would make other editors none-too-happy, even if such actions are good and in line with policy. As such, if admins are required to regularly re-apply for adminship, there aren't too many that would pass. --Deathphoenix 15:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Makes sort of sense, though I doubt all the 3RR violating trolls would have that big of an impact on the votes? —Ruud 15:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
You'd be surprised. Another issue is that, with so many admins nowadays (I understand the number's nearly at 800 now?), we'd spend all our time reconfirming admins: RfA would be swamped with people who already have privileges. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, assuming exponential growth of the number of admins, this would only increase the number of active RfAs by a constant factor. —Ruud 15:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
when z > 1. —Ruud 16:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Unless you have a similar increase in the number of RfA voters and bureaucrats, it will leave RfA seriously understaffed, and in any case, RfA will still be swamped. --Deathphoenix 16:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of other projects have that policy; Meta, for instance, requires confirmation every year. We don't because we haven't adopted it, but the community could at any time (but is unlikely to do so anytime soon). Essjay TalkContact 15:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

True, I believe the Dutch Wikipedia does this as well. —Ruud 15:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Inactive (=no edits in one year iirc) admins at commons are desysopped and have to request it again if/when they return. Thryduulf 15:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the problem with admins-for-life is more theoretical than practical. I don't know of any admins who are generally considered to be misusing their powers (as opposed to having pissed off a particular group of users). Those who might be considered clueless tend to be the newer, less-experienced ones, so term limits wouldn't help there. And anything we do can be undone by other admins. The recent hysteria over some ill-considered blocks could have been avoided if people had just taken 24 hours to wait for bad blocks to be undone rather than getting overexcited at someone having dared to block them. Markyour words 17:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

New Template CSD[edit]

The following has been added to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion:

:+ 1 Templates that are divisive and inflammatory.

This seems to have the support of Jimbo, see [11], although he cautions:

At least for a little bit, I advise everyone to chill about this. Let's take some time to reflect on this issue as a community. That means: don't make any crazy userboxes designed to try to trip this rule, and don't go on any sprees deleting ones that already exist. A thoughtful process of change is important. And whatever you do, do NOT wheel war about this.--Jimbo Wales 07:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC) [12].

--Doc ask? 17:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti[edit]

A final decision has been published in this case.

Benjamin Gatti is placed on probation for one year and on general probation indefinitely. Enforcement is by blocking. See the final decision for details.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice[edit]

This request for arbitration is closed. The Arbitration Committe has imposed the following remedies:

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ryan Delaney talk 04:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason why I'm seeing {{User|Friday}} instead of the rendered template? enochlau (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What was that?[edit]

Good job, Mark: for a moment I thought we were under some kind of bot attack. What precisely happened? The page got duplicated 5-6 times (!) ENCEPHALON 23:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In attempting to post my notice about the Deeceevoice arbcom case, I accidentally copy/pasted the entire administrator's noticeboard, when I had only meant to copy/pasty my notice. Oops! --Ryan Delaney talk 00:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
LoL. OK, no problem :). MY CPU protested wildly, but she needed the exercise, I guess. ENCEPHALON 00:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks[edit]

Moved to archive 29 to keep continuity of discussion. Graham87 14:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Zen-master banned for 1 year[edit]

By ruling of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, Zen-master (talk · contribs) is banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of one year, ending on February 06, 2007.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ryan Delaney talk 00:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the ruling? I'm not disputing it, but I don't see any specific rational for a full ban on either the user's talk page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested, or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zen-master. - Taxman Talk 13:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
There is arbitration discussion, including the passed motion to ban, at this previous version of Requests for Arbitration. Demi T/C 15:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok - one of you needs to update the actual case page so it's not left in the edit history of that fast moving page. Secretlondon 16:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't see any recent changes on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zen-master page. Last edit to that page is 29 January, 2006. Was blocked for one year by User:Ryan Delaney on 23:45 UTC, 6 February 2006. Was previously blocked by User:Carbonite for 48 hours on 12:03 UTC, 29 January 2006. Secretlondon 15:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I have made a note re the ban. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Potential hacking of my (User:Blackcap's) account[edit]

Whoa! Hope I didn't scare anyone there, but here's the deal: I logged in, checked my watchlist, and went into the "edit your watchlist" page. There I found a number of pages, all redlinked, with highly suspect titles, which I certainly hadn't added. The list of the added pages is as follows:

  1. EGADS!!!! what are all the block bots on vaccation or something?
  2. Hey Kitten Boy!!! Forget about something!?
  3. Just one of your bumbling admin buddies
  4. Penis!
  5. SOMEoneis going to lose their admin rights over this
  6. User:De Syops the block bots! They're a menace I tell you! A MENACE!
  7. User:LOOOOL, this is confusing
  8. User:Not you off course
  9. User:Special Penis
  10. User:Sponsered by voters for the desyopsing of curps and his damned block bots
  11. User:T I can't beliebvethey actually unblocked me, LOL
  12. User:WoohooI love stupid admins, who unblock when they're not supposed to
  13. User:Woohookitty/Hey Kitten Boy!!! Forget about something!?

Although I'm not entirely sure why someone would break into my account to add bizarre titles to my watchlist, I don't really know what else could've happened. As far as I checked, all of the edits made under my account were done by me, so as far as editing goes I appear to be clear.

Given the names of some of the titles, I have to ask: if one of you lads did this, kindly fess up. It's O.K., it's funny enough, no worries, I won't prosecute. If this is the case, then I don't really care.

If that unlikely scenario doesn't bear fruit, then I'd appreciate someone CheckUsering me to see what that reveals. When you do so, e-mail me and I'll give you a list of the locations of the IP addresses you should be seeing (sadly, I don't know the exact addresses, and I know that at least my home IP is static). I'll ask an ArbCom member if I need to, but if one of you is reading this, then please feel free and welcome to do so now.

Sadly, I don't have the internet access I'd like to have in order to deal with this, but I'll make a strong and concerted effort to find some tomorrow to see what's been written and to respond. Oh, and if anyone's had a similar experience or has any ideas about what happened, please leave a post. Sorry to everyone, and thanks much, Blackcap (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Pages on your watchlist may have been moved to those page titles by a page-move vandal. Jkelly 00:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Change your password to something unrelated immediately, and make sure you log-off at home and wherever else you contribute. That would be the advice I suggest. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I get these kinds of things also, but I've noticed that it often is a result of page-move vandalism (both entries remain in your watchlist). However, Flcelloguy's advice is good, so follow it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yep... see the deletion log for the first entry above. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there never was a page called Penis! though. Another possibility might be that someone managed to mess with the MediaWiki namespace, but that's extremely unlikely. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but you can add page names that never existed to your watchlist which if the account was breached was probably what happened, must have been some idiot who breached his account though because they let him blatantly know that his account was breached. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Or a page move vandal. — Ilyanep (Talk) 01:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
But that would leave a redirect that even if deleted would show up on deleted revisions as well as the fact page move vandals normally set off all the bells and whistles for people monitoring the move log, just doesn't seem like the standard page move vandal style... but that's just my take on it. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Those really were the result of page move vandalism. When you add a talk page to your watchlist, only the main page itself shows up on the actual list. I took a look at the rest of them, and it appears that they were moved and later deleted talk pages. — TheKMantalk 01:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If I were a mischievous vandal-type person and I had somehow accessed someone's account, I can think of far more amusing things to do with it than to add non-existent pages to his watchlist and wait for him to edit it to see the non-existent entries. Can't explain why there's no deleted redirect, though. — Knowledge Seeker 01:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Here ya go! :-) --LV (Dark Mark) 01:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • In your user space, create [[User:{YOU}/Testing]]
  • Add it to your watchlist.
  • Move [[User:{YOU}/Testing]] → [[User:{YOU}/Really silly title]]
  • Move it back.
  • [[User:{YOU}/Really silly title]] is now a redirect.
  • Delete it.
  • View your watchlist, then click to edit it.
  • You'll see the redlink [[User:{YOU}/Really silly title]]. It doesn't exist anymore but its ghost lives on in your watchlist.

Of course, the same thing results if somebody else did the page moves instead of you, or if the pages aren't in your user space but in the main article space. That's what happened above. Many of the above names seem to be the result of the pagemove vandal User:WoohooDoggy. -- Curps 04:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. I hadn't thought of the possibility of a pagemove vandal, which makes total sense. Thanks to everyone for giving a hand with that, I can now rest easy. Blackcap (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Troll_Penis (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

Huge huge problem, major denial of service attack going on-- 02:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User RFC Reform[edit]

I've opened a straw poll on the User RFC process at Wikipedia:User RFC reform. Please feel free to contribute. All comments are welcome. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 04:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord[edit]

A final decision has been reached in this arbitration case. Beckjord and his socks are banned from Wikipedia for one year. When he comes back he may not edit articles related to the paranormal, interpreted broadly to include the likes of crop circles and Bigfoot. He is banned from sock puppetry, placed on personal attack parole, and general probation. He can be banned for disruption by any three administrators.

This is a formal request for implementation of the one year ban by a block. His socks are listed on the evidence page.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 06:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Was blocked by User:Dmcdevit at 9.35 UTC, 7 February 2006. Secretlondon 15:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppets (User:Dr Joe, User:DrJoe and User:Orphanannie have previously been indefinitely blocked by User:Android79. Secretlondon 15:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Darth mhaw moved my user page[edit]

User:Darth mhaw moved my user page from User:Qutezuce to User:Qutezuce (dumbass). I have no idea why this user chose to do such an unwelcome act against me, as far as I know the only "contact" I've had with this user is that we have both editted the article John Krasinski, and none of my edits were reverts of User:Darth mhaw's edits. Could an admin please delete the page User:Qutezuce (dumbass) and if possible remove the revisions from the edit history that deal with the move? (User:Darth mhaw's initial move, and my move back) Qutezuce 06:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted and partially restored. Someone else had already deleted the redirect. Have a nice day. --cesarb 11:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/EffK[edit]

EffK is banned from Wikipedia for one year (I have enforced this already). When he returns, he is banned from editing Catholicism articles, and may be banned from any articles he disrupts. Should EffK violate these prohibitions, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year.

On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 10:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Johnleemk has already blocked User:EffK for 1 year, in addition I have blocked sockpuppet User:Famekeeper for 1 year. Secretlondon 15:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Famekeeper was certainly the same user as EffK, but it's not a normal case of sockpuppetry. He registered originally as User:Flamekeeper, but did not want to give Wikipedia his e-mail address. Therefore, when after a few months the computer asked him to re-enter his password, which he had lost, he had to register a new account, User:Fiamekeeper. Then he lost his password again, and when the computer demanded that he log in, he registered again as User:Corecticus. That was abandoned for User:Famekeeper, which was followed by User:PureSoupS, and he finally re-emerged as User:EffK. He has never tried to deny that his new account was a reincarnation of an old one, and has on various occasions denied that he used sockpuppets. He recently made a long farewell speech, and signed it as EffK, then logged in again as Flamekeeper, and signed, saying that he had found his password, then signed again as Corecticus and Famekeeper, but said he was unable to sign as Fiamekeeper, and didn't attempt to sign as PureSoupS. Since he has been open about these identities, and never used two accounts simultaneously, until the night of his grand farewell, I don't think they should be blocked as sockpuppets. I do, however, think it's appropriate to block them, but feel a different wording should be used. AnnH (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked them as identities. Secretlondon 21:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The price of rules-lawyering and bureaucracy[edit]

See User:Kosebamse/stuff#Admin.3F_No_thanks and [13]. -- the wub 15:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually we're all totally dispensible. I left for 12 months with no ill effects at all.. Secretlondon 15:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
But we were still glad to see you return... -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
And I am not away either (and have in fact never nurtured any illusions about my dispensability or that of any other admin). It's not the encyclopedia from which I wish to disengage, it's a community several of whose prominent members seem to have lost every sense of good will, common sense or basic decency. If this situation helps reorient Wikipedia away from its current bureaucratic madness towards a common-sense-driven meritocracy, there is still hope. Kosebamse 19:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
You've added so much to Wikipedia as a contributor, your continued editing is very much appreciated. Babajobu 19:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of lists[edit]

Whose idea was it to delete Wikipedia:List of lists? I tried to find it out myself, but there's too many deleted edits (227) so my network connection seems to be taking forever to load the page. JIP | Talk 19:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted on February 1, the closing admin was Titoxd, the discussion is archived. Slambo (Speak) 20:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
(EC) It's not because of the edits, but because it's such a huge page. It's easier to look at the deletion log. Anyway, the deletion summary merely links to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of lists. --Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Rats. I spent the connection time opening up the page (and it took a while!), finding the MfD, then come back, only to see it's already answered. --Deathphoenix 20:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Heh, I was amused by the mention of Category:Lists_of_categories, and was inspired to look deeper. I didn't find any more triple-deep lists, but I did create User:Interiot/../List of meta-lists while researching it. --Interiot 21:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Love and Sunshine on a rainy day[edit]

Moved to archive 29. Graham87 14:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"—This user has left wikipedia" signature[edit]

I don't know if this is a problem or not, but it looks like User:Achille's signature has been changed to "—This user has left wikipedia," with no link to a user page, which makes the AfDs he or she voted on a bit confusing. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S23 Wiki (second nomination) for an example. -- Kjkolb 11:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Achille used a signature template for the vote above (actually it is a doppleganger account being transcluded as a signature). At the time of the vote, a signature was there. Since then, the template has been changed and the user has announced leaving wiki. NoSeptember talk 13:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, note that there are two similarly-named users, Achille (talk · contribs) and Αchille (talk · contribs), the latter using Greek letter alpha instead of Latin letter A. As far as I can see, the one is a sockpuppet of the other, but I'm still confused. Either way, I agree using a template inclusion of a user page in a signature is a Bad Thing. — sjorford (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Achille has created multiple dopplegangers and many are properly labelled. This one is not, but has been edited by Achille. And transcluding signatures (not using subst:) is definitely bad idea. NoSeptember talk 13:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I suggest reverting the page used as the signature template, subst:ing it everywhere it's used, and reverting back to his latest version. --cesarb 13:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
That may be easier said than done. He's been using it for a while including on many user talk pages. Maybe we should leave it reverted to the signature, post a notice on the talk page, and subst: where it is important to do so. Unless there is a bot that can do these subst:'s. Is there? NoSeptember talk 14:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Bluebot (run by Bluemoose) does template subst:ing. Thryduulf 14:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I left him a message. NoSeptember talk 14:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I'll get my bot to do it, but I assume we want to revert the sig back to something meaningful before subst'ing it? Martin 16:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki should be forcing signatures to be substituted as part of the pre-save transform signature check. Rob Church (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Achilles used to have a long commentary on the use of transclusion for his signature (I believe it was on User talk:Αchille) and it seemed to have been okayed. As for MediaWiki, it in fact prevents you from subst:ing signatures. Quarl (talk) 2006-02-06 17:36Z

If this user has elected to withdraw from Wikipedia, and implicitly nullify contributions he'd previously signed, it's not really anyone else's business whether his contributions are difficult to attribute to him.
The man's gone, for chrissakes, and not because he found Wikipedia pleasant, from his perspective. Let's not add insult to subjective injury. Adrian Lamo ·· 20:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, for legal purposes it's rather important to properly attribute contributions. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
If that was true every article would bear the signature of each author. The GFDL does not require signatures. GFDL requirements are satisfied by the edit history. ~ PiXiE — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
And GFDL is the only law in the world? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not a law at all :) It's a copyright license, and it's the only one under which Wikipedia is licensed. Quarl (talk) 2006-02-08 07:52Z
Come on, I meant law, not Law. Vernacular. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Lol, I noticed the same thing and decided to take matters into my own hands, even prior to reading this discussion. user:catapult is handling this as we speak. Note that I would not have reacted this way if he had had the courtesy to retain some form of username identification in his globalized "goodbye" message. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (