Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive34

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

Noticeboard archives


Edit war at Ron Dellums[edit]

A few seemingly California-based editors with an axe to grind appear intent on inserting blatantly POV statements, speculations, largely irrelevant essentially current events material and otherwise blatantly prejudicial information on Dellums. It is fairly obvious the intent is to try to skew public/voter opinion. (Dellums is a declared candidate in the Oakland mayoral race.) Prominent among the offenders is User:Justforasecond, who repeatedly has reverted deletions or reasonable edits of some pretty tackily written and prominently formatted information about Dellums' family life. Given the recent Seigenthaler episode, I should think there would be some care taken to avoid embroiling Wikipedia in another media incident over the disparaging of prominent public figures -- particularly those running for public office. This article needs immediate and decisive attention and warrants watching. Deeceevoice 12:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

givus a break. ron dellums is a *factual* article, siegenthaler was not. Justforasecond 16:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Factual verifiability is very important to Wikipedia, but so is the neutral point of view and our policy against original research. Superm401 - Talk 21:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Iranian Wikipedians' notice board[edit]

There may be a problem at Wikipedia:Iranian Wikipedians' notice board - at least, people are complaining to me about it. Is it appropriate for it to:

  • List an RFC Requests for comment/Aucaman under their "urgent attention" header
  • Ditto a user, MB?
  • List some articles as "Attacked by User:Zora and User:Ahwaz"?

These seems to me like the noticebaord is being used for factionalism. Comments welcome.

William M. Connolley 12:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks a lot for taking up this question. I might add that I brought up the same issue at the RfC in question (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aucaman#Outside View by Lukas Pietsch (II), and have pleaded personally with two of the Iranian editors involved ([1], [2]). The response has not been particularly positive so far ([3]), but as of today, somebody else has started cleaning it up and removing the worst bits ([4]). You probably saw the partly cleaned-up version already; it was worse until this morning, with an explicit black-list of alleged Anti-Iranian users who "need to be watched" and other such stuff. Lukas (T.|@) 13:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I didn't start that board. Secondly, I have only ever made one post to that board and that was regarding the situation with Ruhollah Khomeini (which was basically ignored). I don't know why you thought my response wasn't "particularly positive" but I wonder why it should be my responsibility to fix the problems there when I have only made one edit to that page? Simply because I happen to be of Iranian background or because I am involved in Iranian articles? It should be left to the responsibility of those who have been most involved with the page. SouthernComfort 16:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for my unclear use of the word "involved" above. I had addressed you because (a) I thought you as one of the more experienced and respected editors in the "Iranian" group would be in a position to exert some positive influence; and (b) because you were centrally involved back in the events that led to the confrontational atmosphere between Zora et al and the Iranian group, which seems to be the background to the present situation. Lukas (T.|@) 17:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I apologize as well if I came across as being "curt" but quite frankly I am tired of what you have correctly termed "factionalism." As I have just related on another talk page, I am tired of all the accusations that we all throw around so freely, of the racism (both subtle and overt) displayed by those who choose an extreme, of those who are unwilling to compromise or to communicate properly like human beings and discuss things civilly so that we can actually get down to how everything actually is. We are trying to have a society here, a civilization - and both online and in the "physical" realm all we see is a persistent breakdown in both civility and communication. Where does it end? SouthernComfort 17:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Iranian Wikipedians' notice board is meant to inform users who are knowledgeable on the various Iranian subjects to participate in the maintenance of Iran-related articles and improve their encyclopedic quality and reliability. There are doezns of similiar Regional notice boards to help knowledgeable editors collaborate with each other in order to improve a specific set of articles. --ManiF 13:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • You miss the point. I'm not complaining about the *existence* of the board - thats entirely sensible. There are many other boards, but of the few I sampled - e.g. Wikipedia:France-related topics notice board - none listed anyone as "attacking"; the few sections on disputes described them neutrally. The Iran one looks far from neutral William M. Connolley 16:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Each notice board has its own format. Many notice boards such as Wikipedia:Notice board for Israel-related topics are similar in format to the Iranian notice board where users describe their own account of the incidents. Simply put, anyone and everyone is welcome to contribute to the Iranian Wikipedians' notice board, the project is neutral and does not endorse the opinions and the views of individuals who participate in the project. --ManiF 17:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • User:ManiF has made an effort to clean that notice board up by deleting the section "Users to keep a watch on", which looked like a personal campaign against four users with explicit mention of the ethnicity of three of them. This removes part of the problem, but there is still some elements where its states "attacked by so and so ..." which are inflammatory. However, I think that there is a need for such a page so long as it does not have an agenda against individual users.--Ahwaz 14:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I hate to actually say this, but having known WMC, I think he is sort of a fair guy, and I feel the editors of the noticeboard should refrain from some of the sections they have been inserting, simply because we end up looking like the same person for whom we set up an Rfc page for, who posts help requests in the discussion pages of others. We really are not helping ourselves, although I`ve got to say users like Lukas seem to suffer from a clear case of double standards, since he is hitting the talk pages of many and identifying many editors as problem editors, which in a weird way, this noticeboard was doing as well (both are wrong). So, I dare say let`s keep the page, yet, unconditionally, erase any segments where it refers to certain users as attacking the articles. I`d say simply write certain articles are being vandalized (which with Iran being in the media a lot these days, they often are ), like in this case [5], or need clean up. Other than that, I think the board can serve as a good bridge between intreseted editors and certain specific articles. Zmmz 18:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Fine. We can mention which pages are under "attack" without actually naming any specific users. Fair enough.--Zereshk 23:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Iain Lee protection vandals...[edit]

Two more for the fire: Jonnox (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and Woolwich_Matt (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) have been blocked indefinitely for urging people who "want to edit Iain Lee" to edit a cut-and-paste version of it dumped into Briefs. I'd appreciate if a few more admins could keep an eye on Briefs...tho I am tempted to put a semi on it and move protection, since they did pagemove vandalism yesterday (check Flcelloguy's move log for the repairs). We may or may not hear from the monotonous piping of unseen ip addresses calling for my blood later today on WP:ANI. --Syrthiss 12:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

...emerged from the nuclear chaos that is Azathoth as well. --Syrthiss 20:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Urgent need for consensus: Police contacted[edit]

This subject is already being discussed on the notice board Self promotion spam but I started a new notice because this has taken an ugly turn. Ati3414 so strongly feels that people removing his selfpromotion spam is a personal attack that after he got blocked for adding his own name to the list of notable Romanian americans multiple times, that he called my local police and tried to report harassment.

I think / hope that if enough people besides myself explain to him that this is not a personal attack, but trying to maintain policy and consensus, that he will eventually calm down and remove his spam and contribute to the articles instead.

As a side note, User:Socrunchy and several others that Ati3414 sporatically calls my SockPuppets are in actuality just other editors removing his spam as well. Some of the newer editors go to the same school as me, so I do indeed know them in real life, but I fail to see the relevance of that. They are allowed to edit as well. And there are several veteran editors trying to combat his spam as well.

I should also mention (as I have to Ati3414) that besides the self-promotion reason, I and others have been removing his links because:

  • The papers are often not on the topic of the article and sometimes not even relevant in any manner.
  • The papers often contain large direct copies from other works / plagarism.
  • Some of the papers contain misunderstanding of the material and should not be included as a information source.

Due to the ridiculous heights this dispute has risen to, I think it is best if I bow out of this discussion to help Ati3414 come to consensus about how to handle the spam. I really do pray that everyone get this undercontrol.

Thank you. Gregory9 13:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Ati3414 for a month for off-Wiki harassment and to give us time enough to work this out. He's lucky I had just enjoyed a good lunch, or he'd have been indefinitely blocked. Clearly, this is vanity. Clearly, it is inappropriate and there is no need for the previously-mooted RfC. I'm inclined to bulk-remove all of his additions and be absolutely firm on the fact that they stay removed. -Splashtalk 14:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
By "additions" I mean his self-promotional additions. He has a good number of otherwise-decent (at a first examination anyway) edits. Most of his promo work has already been removed, and I've removed the remaining 2 or 3 instances. -Splashtalk 14:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Making a false police report is a criminal offense in most jurisdictions. *Dan T.* 14:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
IANAL, but, that's not quite correct: it is a legal offense to knowingly file a false report; not so if a person reports what (s)he thinks is a crime, when it actually is not. RadioKirk talk to me 16:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I think at the very least (i.e. if he's going to be blocked before his side of the story is heard) the blocking admin should place a {{block}} template onto his page so that he knows how to appeal. At the moment all it says is "you're blocked". --kingboyk 14:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I can't stand that template. He'll get a very long set of instructions on how to flame me when he tries to edit. -Splashtalk 14:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah. Hadn't seen that before. Maybe that message should be modified to include the {{unblock}} template? I'll take that suggestion over there. --kingboyk 15:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't legal threaths validate an indefinite block? -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to comment on this. This user has claimed ownership of a deleted and redirected article i.e. How to calculate Earth's Age. That was last month, when the article was nominated for AFD, I voted on the article to redirect to Age of the Earth. Another user and admin also voted the same. We then got messages on our talk pages that this was his article, don't mess around with it, if you have any doubts ask me. This went on for sometime, until a failed Request for mediation came along regarding an external link. Well, I'm not surprised to see this user being blocked for a month regarding his actions. Calling the police regarding Wikipedia harassment, this is totally absurd. Well, this is a severe offence worldwide for calling the police for unnecessary matters. Self promotion is definitely not acceptable on Wikipedia. This is vanity. Off-wiki harassment is worse still. I believe a month's block is fine, unless he creates sockpuppets, then that is the time to block him indefinitely. --Terence Ong 15:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Let me clarify :) If he called the police and alleged harassment, I support an indefinite block. However, it's currently one word against nothing at the moment. That was all I meant. --kingboyk 15:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Gregory9 can you provide some proof of this call to the police? Without that it's just your word against his. Now he probably earned a block for his other activities anyway, but a legal threat/action clearly calls for an indefinite block. Don't necessarily add the evidence on Wiki, but email Splash, the blocking admin or another with a way they can verify the claim. - Taxman Talk 16:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The two editors appear to know each others names, judging from the conversation on User:Gregory9. The connection between them appears to be fairly local and Gregory9 hasn't exhibited the symptoms of a troll or a distasteful user. That's enough for me until someone claims stridently otherwise. -Splashtalk 16:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No legal threats only applies to threats on wiki. However, this particular block is valid as a response to legally baseless intimidation. Superm401 - Talk 21:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of proof you want, as by the very nature of it I have no physical proof. I can supply you with the officer's name and phone number and you can check yourself I guess. Is that good enough?

Since this latest incident was against me, can I request some leniency? It was annoying being contacted by the police, but they told me right off the bat that they looked into it and didn't feel this was a matter to involve the authorities in. We shook hands and that was it. So, in short, I don't feel this is worthy of blocking him indefinitely. As Splash mentioned himself, in the volumes of spamming, there were some cases where Ati3414 added worthwhile content. I think we should be trying to encourage this side of him instead of punishing him. He may have issues that prevent him from listenning to other people or being able to question his own actions, but he seems to be a smart guy. Which just makes this all the more sad.

Please, error on the side of helping him instead of punishing him. Thank you Gregory9 16:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to make international phone calls to confirm a block on Wikipedia. I'm also not going to set a precedent for admins needing to go to such lengths to confirm a block. He has a dead easy way to get himself unblocked: a message either on his talk page or in my inbox apologising and promising to stop the spam campaign. Also, blocking is not a punishment, it is a remedy for a situation. A 24 hour block didn't achieve anything, he's on the road to an indefinite block and so a month seemed pretty lenient. -Splashtalk 16:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

reversion of WPA after closure of AfD[edit]

"This whole issue's looks complex...perhaps you may want to ask the admin noticeboard for a third opinon?" said Mailer Diablo 17:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC). So:-

Ombudsman restored the venom. ... I'd think that tactless at least. Had you seen the discussion around Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Fletcher (Deleted, deletion review in progress[6]) and the closing admin's comments there? This is of a piece with Talk:anti-vaccinationists and with the current Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Leifern/Accusations_by_Midgley#.5B.5BUser:Leifern.2FAccusations_by_Midgley.5D.5D with Ombudsman and Liefern in explicit alliance, and tacitly working with Liefern and "The original invisible anon" who is actually User: as a cabal. Midgley 18:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikiwork Brigade now in business[edit]

Devised by Danny, Gmaxwell, and others, this is the place to get things done. List specific tasks, complete specific tasks. Collect points for glory and fame. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-17 07:39


I can't pretend to know exactly what is going on, but user User:Seanver appears to be on a personal attack binge against es:Usuario:George McFinnigan aka User:George McFinnigan ie and involving a number of Es people and their user pages here. Seanver has:

I've put a strong 'second' warning on User_Talk:Seanver, but I think noone has previously understood the extent of the abuse. I didn't know what kind of warning to put there, as the abuse covers so many bases.

I just happened to come across all this, and spent quite awhile cleaning up. But what to do now? Help!

They're at it again! (19:34, 17 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Yrithinnd (top))

Help! Help! Shenme 19:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I blocked User:Seanver indefinitely yesterday for disruption and vandalism. I had posted to WP:ANI but after no response, saw User:Sean Black block User:Blisz, who is also involved, indefinitely, and so followed suit. Note to self, be more pro-active. Note to other admins, feel free to review block. Hiding talk 21:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Mr. Lefty[edit]

This user says he's been blocked (autoblocked?) on his talk page, but I couldn't find anything in the logs for his username or the IP in question. Can someone look into this? -- nae'blis (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

He needs to tell us the IP that has been blocked, and we can hard unblock it (that is, unblock the IP directly) which will clear any autoblocks. Autoblocks on IPs are masked and not listed in the user's blocklog, the IP's blocklog, or the admin's blocklog to prevent association of IPs with users. Essjay TalkContact 10:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
He gave an IP on his talk page, does that not come up with anything? Surely someone has access to that restricted area of the logs... -- nae'blis (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Aajonus Vonderplanitz[edit]

The above article, started by myself, was deleted by User:JzG without prior warning or discussion. SouthernComfort 00:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the deletion history it seems the official reason is that it's reposting of deleted material - which is a speedy criteria. NSLE (T+C) at 01:00 UTC (2006-03-18)
But as I told JzG, I didn't repost anything. I had no idea about the previous article that had been deleted. I noticed there was no article about the man, and being knowledgeable about the subject, I decided to go ahead and start it. And then it gets deleted just like that. That's not right and it's not assuming good faith. SouthernComfort 01:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
In addition, the article was about a verifiable individual who is also a published author, so I see no grounds for such deletion. Isn't that grounds enough for inclusion on WP? SouthernComfort 01:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Everybody in the phonebook is verifiable, but that doesn't mean we need an article on them. And I certainly don't see a need for one on this guy. The re-speedy was valid per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primal Diet. Beyond that this is not the place to discuss undeletion of a validly deleted article. - Taxman Talk 01:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I just realized that after discovering the "deletion review" page, which I didn't know about as I typically go out of my way to avoid these mundane admin areas. Thanks. SouthernComfort 01:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Anybody is welcome to participate in the deletion review process, not only administrators. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
As opposed to the ethereal admin areas? ;) --Syrthiss 13:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the admin plane is awesome; too bad we can't let the rest of the rabble in. --maru (talk) contribs 17:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I responded on my Talk and directed the complainant to WP:DRV. The two did not seem that different to me, not that I am infallible or anything, and the AfD was recent enough that consideration of the subject then is almost certainly still valid now. DRV is already considering this. Just zis Guy you know? 21:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Intel VIIV[edit]

Intel reps have been repeatedly disputing the viiv article I am not knowledgeable about VIIV, but someone here might. (Oh, and, someone contact Intel PR and tell them the proper way to edit Wikipedia)

Note: The edits have been coming from it seems to be some kind of proxy for all intel employees and it includes good edits too. 20:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

They've been given a talk page notice to maintain NPOV. Stifle 21:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and I also posted a {{sharedip}}. If they keep editing inappropriately, contact . They will probably be able to trace it to the person responsible if you provide exact times (from Special:Contributions/ Superm401 - Talk 21:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
It was a faux pas for Intel to add a (likely unofficial) response to this article. But they did have a point that the article was biased. I don't think we should contact the abuse team - although they didn't correct the article in the most appropriate way, they were correct to point out the article's anti-DRM bias. Rhobite 21:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediating a dispute (RFC)[edit]

  • I've acted boldly after mediating this matter for some 18-20 hours. I can use an Admin to help me close this more ordinarily than this temporary: Iterim Notice of Resolution. All parties want to stop the 'Talk Page Noise' and get onto life.
  • I'm mainly just looking for what might be done to cut 'N' paste from the threads given Tony S and my talk, into the original document, or whether the RFC can just be archieved before I put the INUSE on it. I'm waiting for guidance. The time pressure is from the co-complainants who realize (realise) this was the improper measure/venue.
  • If this seems unclear, it should be very clear by examining the above link and where it leads you as well as User talk:fabartus. Most clearly the second complainants link shows the matter resolved taken with my less organized and chronological talk. My communications with Mel have been mainly via email, but I assure you he'll be glad to see the end of this. Ideas anyone? FrankB 22:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm puzzled[edit]

I made this and this edit. Then Mel makes this and this edit. I'm puzzled. WAS 4.250 00:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh? Could you be a little more specific about what you're looking for? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Mel's reverts of his edits as if they were vandalism. Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 05:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


0waldo was blocked for 3RR (he was also violating WP:CIVIL). He is evading the block by editing from other IPs (see the edit history on User talk:Cburnett). Policy is to lengthen the block time on someone who deliberately evades their block, right? Could someone please lengthen 0waldo's block?

Sorry if this isn't the right place for this; wasn't quite sure whether it should maybe go on one of the pages connected to WP:AIV or whether it should go here.


Hbackman 04:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on my talk page[edit]

Even though I explain in detail how I deal with posts on my user talk page, Metros232 and Misza13 keep reverting on my page. Could someone please stop them? ROGNNTUDJUU! 16:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are reverting because User:ROGNNTUDJUU! is removing warning notices (though he states that he simply reverts vandalism). Misza13 T C 16:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
A warning that I shall not edit my own page? Could you please just stop? ROGNNTUDJUU! 16:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
You don't own the page. Misza13 T C 16:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
No one says I own my page, but I am entitled to remove posts after I answered them. You are not entitled to revert me. It is as simple as that. Now please start using your time in a reasonable way. ROGNNTUDJUU! 16:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
From WP:TP:
  1. If you feel that your user talk page is getting too large and is taking a long time to load, you may archive it. You may then remove comments from your talk page, but please make sure that those comments are readily accessible on another page.
  2. Furthermore WP:VAND states: Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism.
--Misza13 T C 16:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
User has been removing any negative comments he received from his user talk page and displacing them to other pages, but retains only a few comments that are neutral towards his "cause." The user has also violated don't use Wiki to make a point on various occassions and has been hostile towards numerous users. He has engaged in mass-spamming of user talk pages by posting the same copy and pasted comments to each page and then gets upset when they dislike the fact that he's being hostile towards them.--Metros232 16:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Posting "vandalism" warnings to someone because you do not like how he/she deals with posts is vandalism itself. I am not hostile to anyone, I just asked those who crossed out the EU flag for some respect of those who feel represented by it. I showed respect to them by letting them know instead of just getting their picture deleted as was done before. Several users agreed with me, and some removed the picture. I leave honest comments on my talk page even if I do not agree with them but prefer to keep discussions together. I explain this on my talk page, and if you do not agree this does not mean you should revert on other users' talk pages. ROGNNTUDJUU! 16:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
It is not that I don't like your way of dealing with posts - it's against the rules. Again: why don't you just archive it? Misza13 T C 16:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I choose not to archive, everything stays in the history anyways. Many users do so, just respect it. ROGNNTUDJUU! 16:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Just want to point something out to BOTH involved parties, while impolite to remove talk page comments, it is also bad to edit war, "However, reverting such removals or redirects is not proper and may result in a block for edit warring." (from talk page help page). Please take this through the dispute resolution process, instead of edit warring and using this as a venue to fight. Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 16:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I am however not willing to accept vandalism on my talk page, and I do not think the 3RR rule was created in order to force users to keep absurd warnings on their talk pages. ROGNNTUDJUU! 16:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Its not vandalism however. IT is a legit message on your talk page. My suggestion, reply to it on your talk page and archive it. Deleting comments after you reply to them is acceptable, i am unsure about warnings however. Best to archive.Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 16:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
As you write yourself, "Deleting comments after you reply to them is acceptable", so warning someone else for it is absurd and doing it repeatedly after being asked to stop is vandalism. ROGNNTUDJUU! 17:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Heck, may I remind you that wikipedia is not meant to be a place to aggress each other? Many users like to keep their pages clean and do not archive, so you should not single out one and revert on his talk page. De mortuis... 17:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are these "warnings" and who issued them? I've checked some of the reverts and I don't see any legitimate warnings. Furthermore, if anyone is acting in good faith it's User:ROGNNTUDJUU! who seems to be fighting a one man battle against a divisive image, the presence of which can't be helping our encyclopedia in any way.

Unless there's some hard evidence of real wrong doing, I suggest you all take your petty squabble away from the admins noticeboard and get back to writing the enyclopedia. Misza - as far as I know you're not an admin, it might be best if you left the enforcing and citing of rules to those of us who are. --kingboyk 18:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The hell? Kingboyk, anyone can "cite" rules, and certain rules can be enforced by any user in good standing. Your attempt to prevent non-admins from getting involved smacks of a division and factionalism, and can't be helpful in the current environment. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, it originated from ROGNNTUDJUU! noticing the userbox with the crossed UN flag. He started mass-posting to talk pages of users bearing the userbox, talking about "respect". I probably responded to one such post which resulted in him taunting me as well. Discussions went for a while until this edit after which I unfortunately couldn't assume good faith anymore. All the rest is both sides (yes, including me) getting hot and into a revert war.
Anyway, everything seems to cool down now and we hopefully can go back to writing an encyclopedia. Finally, I agree with nae'blis above - can't regular users remind of policies as well? Misza13 T C 18:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolved. Misza13 T C 18:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You're "warning" him about something which is just impolite and not a blockable offence (many users remove comments rather than archiving them), and then calling him a vandal for removing the "warning". That's why I caution to leave well alone. Anyone can cite rules, absolutely, but it's best to get them right and - more importantly - it's better to try and find common ground than to go waving the rule book. As for enforcement, revert after revert isn't the way to go about it, surely? If he's truly a vandal he should be blocked as per policy, and a non-admin can't do that.
All that said, I do apologise if anyone felt I was being divisive. Perhaps I would have been best advised to stick to the fundamentals of my message, which was: this is all a petty squabble, let it pass, let's write an enyclopedia. --kingboyk 18:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolved, lovely. Peace and happiness is restored. Now let's grab a coffee. --kingboyk 18:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing impolite in his way to keep discussion together. Well sure you can remind someone of the rules, but posting absurd warnings and reverting when they get removed with an edit summary indicating that what you wrote had already been answered is not encouraged. I think if you are not an administrator you should not post a warning at all as this would just lead to all those who have disagreements with others posting warnings at each other and claiming "vandalism" whenever the warnings get deleted. De mortuis... 18:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense. Only admins should be able to post vandalism warnings? Superm401 - Talk 22:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

(Un)Protecting pages and WP:PP[edit]

Since many admins (even I) have gotten lazy with WP:PP, and some of the listings are outdates/incomplete, I developed quick listing/tagging AND unlisting script. It is available at User:Voice of All/adminnolupin/monobook.js (no popups) or User:Voice of All/admin/monobook.js (popups). These are stable versions, I only experiment on my own, and copy over once it works (from User:Voice of All/monobook.js). These tabs can automagically delist with the click of a button (to the protected page in edit mode).

See User:Voice_of_All/Useful for more info. This is for Firefox/Netscape browsers (i.e. browsers that know how to read java worth 2 cents).

There is really NO excuse to not list now :).Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 06:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. Still not coming back to PP or RfPP but awesome. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Please...people...use "*" instead of "* ". The space sometimes causes 1-2 extra entries to be removed (if two+ of the ones right after the one in question have those annoying pointless spaces too). the article to not be recongnized. I'll see if I can fix this bug, but is much easier to just list consistantly.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 07:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've set it to just give an error message, as opposed to risking extra removals.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 07:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks like everything is about how I want it now. Many things are recognized :).Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 06:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


Definatly not worth a block. One edit in a day, and no clear consensus about the text on the talk page. --InShaneee 02:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion page of the article there is a clear consensus there. The material is a translation of the historian for whom the article is named after, and it is relevant to that section; it does come with ample references from R. N. Frye of Harvard and others. The user continues to erase that section, despite good intentioned warnings, although, as of today, he has been eerily quite. ThanksZmmz 02:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


FYI, Ambi and Essjay have been given checkuser rights. See here and here. TacoDeposit 21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

GOOD!! Best news in a long long time! Especially Essjay, probably one of the most active people on here, he will help clear it up I hope! Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 01:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't Ambi have already had it as a former member of arbcom? Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 04:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


User:, He promised to stop the vandalism, and I gave him a few rules to read in the meantime. He sounds serious, and is almost begging to be unblocked. Whopper 00:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • In the interests of assuming good faith, I have unblocked this user. Joyous | Talk 00:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

April Fools Mayhem[edit]

Does this mean that people can vandalise articles and the like ? I've heard rumors and scuttlebutt about this going on only on April Fools Day. Martial Law 00:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC) :)

People can vandalise articles any day of the year. They'll get blocked for it just the same on April 1. And there was an arbitration case after last year's foolishness, I believe. -Splashtalk 00:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Since April fools end at noon, which time zone would this be in? April fools is another stupid day that people try to use as an excuse to act out in ways they wouldn't normally. Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 01:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I hope rules against the vandalism and other antics that appear on April Fools' Day really are enforced. I don't want to call anyone out, but the participation by some admins and bureaucrats last year was disheartening and only served to make other users believe April Fools' pranks were okay. joturner 01:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Users interested in vandalising on April 1 are encouraged to do so on their own user and user talk pages and nowhere else. ;D - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I say free reign for civil, non offensive, fun pranks on USER PAGES. But article space, forget it. Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 03:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. I hope we all intend on enforcing the vandalism policy for April fools just as we would for any other day. I suppose we may have to take an extra step of assume good faith and warn everyone first, but more pranks in article space after a warning is grounds for blocking. As I've said here and elsewhere, there are plenty of people in meatspace to goof around with, there's no need for the pranks to be in articles, especially not on the main page. - Taxman Talk 21:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page. --LV (Dark Mark) 03:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

In my area, April 1 starts at midnight, ends at midnight,April 2 Martial Law 04:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Here is a good idea: Pick a User who is not a Admin to be one, but only for April Fools Day ONLY, so that the User will experience what it is to be like a Admin. I've heard that in some areas of the planet during the Middle Ages, roles between the rulers and those ruled got reversed for this one and only day. Is this a good idea ?! Martial Law 04:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC) :o :)
I hope that wasn't serious. joturner 04:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Just making some inquiries. Martial Law 04:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC) :)
One could ask the boss to appoint a user to be a Admin, but for April Fools only, and only for April Fools, but have a different User appointed every year. Is that a good idea ? Martial Law 04:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC) :o :)

Anyone we can trust with admin access for a day should probably just be promoted to admin, I would think. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I say we call the contest "Be a janitor for the day!" and see how many applications come in. And you are right, anyone with the powers for a day should have them forever. Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 06:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Appreciate the assisstance. Martial Law 00:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC) :)

what gives?[edit]

"You have created 6 accounts, which exceeds the maximum allowable limit. As a result, you cannot create any more accounts at the moment."
I am confused why anyone would need 6 accounts nevermind 10! Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 03:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
AOL users get this message all the time. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
(Reply to the anon) - People are using them to go on vandalism sprees while avoiding the autoblocker. Cutting it down from 10 to 6 was a necessary measure. Raul654 03:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Why does it say "you" instead of "this IP address" or "your IP address"? -- Kjkolb 07:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Because nobody had changed it yet. I just did it (it's at MediaWiki:Acct creation throttle hit, if you want to propose a better wording). --cesarb 16:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I have changed it further. I would appreciate someone checking I got it right. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I've tweaked it some more. Rd232 talk 21:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Diyako Makes claims that he varified with phoney sites[edit]

On the Kurdistan webpage user:Diyako added a claim that the Kurdish flag is criminal in Iran. He cited bogus non-existant cites as verification after the issue was clearly pointed out on the talk page recently and in the past. This is gross falsification of articles. For references bless see my talk page and the administrator I asked to get involved's talk page. I asked user:InShaneee to act on the issue, but the adminstator did nothing and said it was basically okay as long as any web page is given. That is ridicuolous and an insult to everything Wikipedia stands for. Additionally this user was warned just before that for personal attacks and instigation with offensive terms that he uses continually. I would like to see some action taken. The Kurdistan and Iranian peoples are constantly vandalized and falsified by this user and user:Acuman who has made racist attacks and personal attacks on other editors who are asking for neutrality or reasonable articles. I offer my talk pages and the Kurdistan talk page as evidence and the section with the flag and the sources used. Once agin it was clearly pointed out that these were phoney sources and for this behaviour to stop. Manik666 04:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • sigh* For the record, I simply told him that if they're bad sources to say so, and hopefully get a counter-source to prove it. And Aucaman's warning was not nearly as dire as it sounds here. --InShaneee 04:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

undeleting Clockwork Storybook article[edit]

Maybe I didn't make my case clearly enough, and I'd be happy to do so. CWSB was instrumental in the careers of the four authors. Willingham went on to his DC comics work, much of which was related to his stories in Clockwork Storybook. Now fellow CWSB founder Matthew Sturges is working WITH Willingham on his new Fable spin-off series for Vertigo. Chris Roberson launched a new publishing company, Monkeybrain Books, specializing in printing non-fiction genre books, as well as establishing his chops as a novelist and short story writer. Mark Finn wrote some fiction and turned his attention to non-fiction work as well and is now one of the more recognized Robert E. Howard scholars in the country. Maybe a couple of the wiki reviewers never heard of Clockwork Storybook, but a Google search of any of the four authors above with Clockwork Storybook produces many results for their books, the reviews of same, and comments about the work they did. Seems valid enough for me, and likewise for something as all-encompassing as Wikipedia. Solomon Kane 04:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can take this up with deletion review, and try to get the article undeleted. Alternately, you can write a new article that better establishes notability, or insert info on the work on CWSB into the articles on the (apparently notable) authors. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User talk page blanking[edit]

What's the policy on a user blanking his own talk page? I know that it's considered "bad form" (per WP:3RR#User pages), and many editors will revert a user who blanks his talk page, but is there actually a policy or guideline against it? I've been trying to explain WP:V to a rather obstinate editor, and his response has been to make vague threats and blank his user page — nothing severe, but certainly not in the spirit of WP:CIVIL. I'm not mentioning the user's name because I don't think it would necessarily be helpful for a horde of admins to descend upon him — I want to defuse the situation and get him to leave the (non-templated) warnings on his user page, not get him blocked. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you've seen it, but Wikipedia:Talk_page#Can_I_do_whatever_I_want_to_my_own_user_talk_page.3F makes it suufficiently clear to me that this is A Bad Thing. Superm401 - Talk 06:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know that. Unfortunately, the user's attitude seems to be "if it's not explicitly against the rules, I'm gonna keep doing it, yah boo sucks." —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know the page could be more explicit. Would it help if I put a guideline tag on it? Superm401 - Talk 06:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Another admin has warned the user not to continue blanking his talk page. We'll see if he gets the message this time. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 13:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleting userpage images[edit]

Who is the admin who deletes userpage images without informing the user? That is rude, to say the least. Please check my userpage, two images have been deleted without any notification. (They were tagged as userpage images, and thus acceptable without any other licensing, AFAIK) I ask here, because I can find no history to refer to, nor can I any longer see exactly how I tagged the images, back then... Thanks, --Janke | Talk 10:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That they were tagged for deletion without notification to you was, indeed, impolite. But as far as I can tell, the deletion itself was justified: the licenses on those images qualified them for deletion under speedy criterion I3. Angr/talk 11:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, Thanks for the info, I'll upload them anew under CC or GFDL, then. --Janke | Talk 11:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Association of British Drivers[edit]

User:DeFacto and I have been editing a number of articles related to motorist advocacy, from opposite standpoints (he is pro-motorist, I am sceptical). Thus far I think we have worked productively to the benefit of the encyclopaedia, holding each other's point of view up to scrutiny. Recently on Association of British Drivers (A UK motorist pressure group) there has been some difficulty over one of the group's claims. They state that the UK has low car ownership rates by international standards. I compared the official figures and found:

  • UK car ownership per capita is ranked 14th among the list of countries in the figures; UK GDP per cpaita is ranked twelfth
  • UK total car ownership is ranked fourth, population is ranked sixth
  • UK GDP per capita in purchasing power equivalent is ninth in the list
  • Of the four countries with population density per km higher than the UK< two have higher car ownership rates, two have lower (one of which is Japan)

Which seems to me to refute the claim.

De Facto has now removed the comparitive ranking per capita, and is comparing car ownership per capita with total GDP. This is, to my mind, a false comparison - the size of population is accounted for in one, and not in the other, whihc is absurd. If I came across this as an outsider I would give De Facto a warning re NPOV and 3RR, but (a) I am involved in the dispute and (b) my POV is not neutral. So if somebody would like to have a look and perhaps ask De Facto nicely not to do this, I would be grateful. I would stress that this is the first time our strongly opposing points of view have come to anything I woudl characterise as an edit war, so I think a gentle comment from a neutral third party is probably all that's required.

Or, of course, I could be wrong. But I don't think so, not this time. Just zis Guy you know? 11:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm being quick, but to me that article is not of encyclopedic standard. The bulleted list of objectives, I would argue, is in violation of POV, since such a presentation discourages a discussion of each point. However, the association do state that the UK has low car ownership rates by international standards, so removing it as a method of refutation is also POV, the claim should be refuted in the article citing sources. You can't refute that the ABD claim such a thing, since they do and a cite is provided. Hiding talk 13:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You've got an entire section devoted to one claim by ABD, and the attempt to invalidate it is clearly original research. If Transport 2000, the Department of Transport, or some other external body has scrutinized that claim, write about that. Don't make up your own refutations like this.

In "Criticisms", the first paragraph reads: "Taxation per car in the UK is around the European average, similar to France and Italy, higher than Germany, much lower than the Netherlands or Ireland, and claim robust evidence that reducing speeds reduces both the incidence and the severity of collisions."

I cannot parse this. Who claims what? --Tony Sidaway 13:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


A final decision has been reached in the above arbitration case, and the case has been closed.

Boothy443 (talk · contribs · logs) is subject to a personal attack parole. If he engages in personal attacks, he may be briefly blocked. The maximum block length will be one week. Unlike the standard personal attack parole, the maximum block length will not be increased after five blocks. Blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 17:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

IMO, this case has been handled in a negligently poor fashion. Half the Committee didn't bother to turn up and vote and half again closed the case without waiting for the others. There was a significantly opposed Principle (of "administrative fiat") which has been rejected even though there is no majority either way, backed up by a rejected but majority supported remedy that failed for want of one vote, which might have been somewhere in the sleepy half of the committee, which could not have been enforced if it had passed, since the enforcement was being rejected; but without a committee majority either way! And yet 4 arbitrators (out of 12 non-recused!) have closed the case. You should reopen the case and do it over again. And abolish the rather silly-looking 4-to-close rule. Bed without cookies, the lot of you. And the clerks, too, for not making sure the Arbs are doing their job. -Splashtalk 18:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

New editor name and LaRouche-related pages[edit]

User IAMthatIAM has arrived and is systematically editing LaRouche related pages to sanitize criticism and posting AfD's. These actions need to be inspected for possible violation of arbcom rulings concerning LaRouche-related pages. See: --Cberlet 17:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There were only about 9 article edits under that username, and all appear to be handled. Let us know if more show up under other usernames or IP's. - Taxman Talk 21:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


There is some organised vandalism going on at Holland, all inserting variants of the phrase: Toast is used as currency in Holland, by a large series of different IP-addresses. KimvdLinde 17:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Crazy. Anybody knows that the Netherlands is waffle territory! --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Exactly! KimvdLinde 18:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3[edit]

The arbitration committee has closed the above case.

Restrictions applying to Huaiwei:

  • Huaiwei (talk · contribs · logs) is placed on General Probation indefinitely. Any three administrators may, for good cause, ban him from the site.

Restrictions applying to Instantnood:

  • Instantnood (talk · contribs · logs) is placed on General Probation indefinitely. Any three administrators may, for good cause, ban him from the site.

For details, see the final decision.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Page Edit War on Buu[edit]

User Weki-star has been recently adding nonsense and errors into the Buu article. He has been adding all sorts of made up attacks like “Galaxy Ball” and renaming the already officially titled attacks names like "Special Beam Cannon" and "Super Ghost Kamikaze Attack" to "Super Special Beam Cannon" and "Super Ghost Buu Kamikaze Attack". I have tried to reason with the user on the discussion page but he assist on turning it into an argument. I tried asking him for proof or evidence and so far he has given me none. He has responded with more irrelevant information based on dub errors. (Ex: Super Buu existing before the absorption of Majin Buu arc)

Gunsword 01:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Asking for a block for User:Benjamin Gatti[edit]

(cross posted from AN/I) Per his arbcom case, Ben is on General probation and regular probation for continued disruption. Well, a couple of days ago, Ben was banned from Nuclear power and Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act for disruption. His response? He put an arbitration request up for nuclear energy. It is completely ridiculous. He's pulled this stunt before. It's Wikilawyering at its finest...and it defines disruption. He was blocked a week under the general probation provisions in February. I am asking for 2 weeks this time. We need 3 uninvolved admins to concur. If the block is performed, it needs to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

PS - If people think that a longer block is warranted. I would not object. I just asked for 2 weeks since we need 3 admins on this. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin number one here. This is ridiculous. He's wasting arbitrators' time with that. Hermione1980 14:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
How do we expect to keep getting uninvolved admins? I'd be for the 2 weeks considering he had several options to discuss the issue of his behavior without wasting people's time on the disruptive arbcom request, and he knew that. He could have discussed it on his talk page or here. Consider me involved or not as you like, I've had a different dispute with the user over similar behavior in the past, and no contact since other than commenting on AN and his arbitration talk page. If not for the obviousness of the disruption this time and last, I'd be for giving some leeway considering he is trying to be a little more helpful in his edits. - Taxman Talk 21:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd consider you uninvolved. So that's 2. We need one more. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Intel Core Microarchitecture[edit]

An IP vandal has started an edit war, please IP-block this article for several days. Thanks. --Denniss 03:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a single IP, but several, most in the same range. I'd recommend semi-protecting the page if this keeps up. --InShaneee 04:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I've temporarily {{sprotected}} this page, and will follow up on it. — xaosflux Talk 05:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Protection has been lifted. — xaosflux Talk 04:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Old Man Murray Discussion Page[edit]

I’m writing to complain about the actions of one of your administrators, Golbez:

This user came to my attention when I attempted to correct some factual errors on the wikipedia entry concerning the Old Man Murray website:

When I attempted to correct these errors, I discovered the article had been locked. I then went to the discussion page concerning this article:

Only to discover THAT page had been locked as well. At this point I am at a loss as to what to do. I was under the impression that the free exchange of ideas is not only a feature of wikipedia, but it is INHERENT and VITAL to the continued existence and relevancy of the project. Mr. Golbez seems to have entered into some sort of flame war with an external site ( and this has caused him to unilaterally shut off ALL contributions concerning Old Man Murray.

I respectfully request the article and its discussion page be unblocked, and that Mr. Golbez be instructed as to the true responsibilities of an administrator on wikipedia. If he feels he cannot carry forth those duties, his admin priviledges should be revoked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fussbett (talkcontribs)

There wasen't any edit warring going on on the talk page, but rather an arguement with the admin in question over someone on the actual page, IMNAO (in my non-admin opinion) I dont think the talk page should have been protected. Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 05:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I'v unprotected the talk page and notified Golbez. Superm401 - Talk 06:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, fine. I don't wheel war, and if others think it's a valid thing to do, OK. Though to be honest, I should have unprotected it after only a day or two of so-called cooling down. Do tell me what is objectionable about [8], however, aside from the quartermine comment being caught in my revert. This is not a DISCUSSION of my protection, it is attacks on me. I particularly enjoyed the wikipedo comment.

They had their chance to be adults. I do not find it incivil to describe them factually. An edit war is inherently childish, their reaction to my quashing of it doubly so. The article is off my watchlist, it's your responsibility now. --Golbez 10:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with unprotecting a talk page without asking, after the protector apparently forgot about it. Also, it can often be incivil to describe factually; that is not a defense. Superm401 - Talk 15:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. --Golbez 00:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Deasy[edit]

Would somebody consider closing this AfD? It's become a farce and having just been personally attacked I'd rather the temptation to respond was removed. The creator of the article isn't going to stop until the debate ends. Cheers, Deizio 11:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I for one am not prepared to close it a day early, despite the meat- and/or sockpuppetry going on. If you want to avoid the temptation to rise to the bait, just take it off your watchlist. Angr/talk 11:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I've got the AFD tagged {{inuse}} whilst I sort out the mess. Give me a few minutes please. At the moment it's looking like comment after comment by the article creator one staunch defender. --kingboyk 11:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It's cleaned now, and basically there's one keep vote and a stack of deletes. It could be closed early citing WP:SNOW but since that's not yet deemed policy I recommend leaving the debate to reach it's natural conclusion tommorow (which will be deletion or userfication, of course). --kingboyk 12:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Will314159 has really blown too much hot air on the page now, he keeps coming back and flaming. I don't like being called a "Bozo" (hey, it's funny though), but even worse is the comment he left on Kukini's talk page. To have a racial opinion thrust in your face for the dreadful crime of writing "Delete. As per above" on a vanity page's AfD is a little much. Most of his comments are just babble written in slightly obscure language, but the comment that those who don't want this vanity in WP are apparently "...low class people unworthy of being associated with a great encyclopedia." is out of line. Any admin care to mention the incivility of this (and perhaps give a brief run-down on AfD etiquette) to Will314159? Deizio 18:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC

I regret any uncivility. I don't think Kukini took offense when I pointed him to a forsenic anrthopologist's position from a nova pbs site on a position he takes on his user site although Deizo enjoys having a go with it. I really have no clue what he means by "meat socket puppet" stuff though I find the language instantly viscerally inflammatory. It has been quite an experience and mercifully it is over. Thankfully, I did not contribute any funds to Wikipedia during the fund drive, although I came very close. I need to learn a lot more about its control structure and how it is run. I see that are reasonable folks here punctuated by hotheads. Take Care —This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

I have found out what a "meat socket puppet" is. I had a right to get mad and call the guy a BOZO. He basically called me a FRAUD. He said I was masquerading as somebody else for an improper purpose. And he is an administrator. All he had to do was look at my IP address. It was a NC USA IP. Also he could have googled Will314159. I have thousands of posts on veterans boards. I demand that BOZO be removed as an Administrator. Please refer me to the proper forms to fill out.--Will314159 00:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I too regret any incivility, and my sockpuppet comment (I've explained the meaning of this to Will in talk) was retracted after Kingboyk cleaned up the page and chased some IPs showing we were dealing with a great number of posts from one user unfamiliar with posting on Wikipedia. However, as I am not an admin, and given the large number of unsigned posts that were left by Will which led to my suspicion of sockpuppetry, I think Will has shown inexperience with Wikipedia practices and recommend he get to grips with the project a little more before calling experienced users with extensive contribution records "Bozo" and saying I accused him of fraud. I do apologize for any inadvertent bad feelings my actions caused. However, it is not up to me, or anyone, to look up IP addresses if users cannot follow the given advice about signing posts. I would also strongly encourage others to look at this AfD to get a true measure of what actually took place. As a result of this and several other AfDs I've noticed where (among other reasons) new users with an interest in one particular page being considered for deletion get a little too involved I've proposed a policy at Wikipedia:EsperanzaRLY. I know some wikislang is strange for newer users and am being more careful to explain things to such users in AfD debates to avoid precisely this kind of situation. I hope Will continues to contribute to Wikipedia and realizes that like many Wikipedians I am only interested in quality content in line with WP policies and guidelines entering the encylopedia. The article that precipitated all this off has been deleted. I hope this can be the end of the matter. Deizio 00:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I did actually look up this user's IP (he posted as an anon IP on occasion) and it resolved to the USA as he states. The IP of the article creator also appeared - but not as Will314159, and taking the opposing view - and resolves to the ESA in Germany. I can therefore confirm that to the best of my knowledge Will314159 is indeed an American user and not the author of the article. As regards the article, community consensus in the AFD was that a self published book and one notable cartoon does not satisfy WP:BIO. If Mr Deasy becomes more notable in the future the decision can be reviewed. My recommendations are a) that anyone who has an outstanding allegation against User:Will314159 that he is a sock or meat puppet withdraw those accusations now and apologise, b) that Will314159 accept said apology, c) that Will314159 take a nice cool shower and chill out a bit, d) we all get back to writing an encyclopedia. There were no serious accusations of racim so I won't even address that point. --kingboyk 11:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

With apologies to Rene, after having my existence challenged, Scripto Ergo Sum.Will314159--Will314159 17:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

History merge and possibly more needed[edit]

Ohm was copy-paste moved to Ohm (unit), as was the talk page. I'd think this is a clear case of primary topic disambiguation, and doesn't need to be put on WP:RM to be moved back. Either way, the histories should be merged. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

History merges still confuse me. But both articles have been edited in the interim, and my understanding is that a history merge in such a situation will lead to a mess: the diffs will all be wrong since the histories will become interleaved. -Splashtalk 03:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Freakofnurture appears to be doing this regardless. I'm not sure that's the right thing to do. -Splashtalk 03:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
All of the revisions relating to the unit are now at one title, and all of the revisions taking the form of a disambiguation page are now at the other title. So now if one of the pages suddenly drops off the map, everybody who contributed to the remaining page still is credited for their work, get it? Also, I've run a bot to fix all of the links. "Uninterleaved" is the word you wanted. Trust me, I know what I'm doing. I probably should write up a detailed guide to the process. — Mar. 21, '06 [04:12] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Ok, I see. I hadn't thought of the idea of slicing up the edit history between the two articles. So I thought you were going to delete Ohm, move Ohm (unit) and then restore Ohm. Which would have interleaved their histories. But you were smarter than that. -Splashtalk 04:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems pretty straightforward- basically just deleting, restoring what you want to, then moving...right? Ral315 (talk) 07:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, and it's kinda fun too. — Mar. 21, '06 [10:03] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Admin InShaneee[edit]

It seems to me actions that admin InShaneee is taking regarding the edit war between some Iranian editors and other editors like Aucaman and Diyako, which has resulted in "exclusively" blocking various Iranian editors (for reasons that other admins may not find sufficient enough to block for [9][10][11]) , are not helping to calm the matters down and instead such actions have resulted in fueling and perpetuation of the ongoing feud, and have created a perception by some editors that InShaneee is having a POV and so far has acted one-sided. [12][13][14]. I think InShaneee's actions (in this war) and this whole edit war strongly need to be supervised by other admins to finally reach a mutual understanding between the "two sides". Here I urge the other administrators to check this matter and comment. Amir85 10:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Suspect sockpuppet[edit]

User:Arcarius appears to be a sockpuppet of User:Fastifex - a huge number of his/her contributions are revertions of other people's edits back to Fastifex's edits. See also Arcarius' deletion of the same point made by User:Tskoge on User talk:Arcarius. Being a new admin, what is the correct proceedure in a case like this? - thanks, MPF 13:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but it seems like you want to request that someone compare their IPs to see if they edit from the same locations. You should go to Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser.—WAvegetarianCONTRIBUTIONSTALKEMAIL 20:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I had a look; the technical evidence suggests it's the same person. However, it's important to remember that checkuser is not, as David likes to say, "magic wiki pixie dust"; the technical evidence only helps to confirm or deny what is already believed. The real evidence is the similar editing style. Essjay TalkContact 04:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; is it a case for taking action? I suspect the second account is being used to break 3R rules - MPF 10:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich[edit]

The above arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

Jason Gastrich is banned for one year for serious disruption. When he returns to editing, other restrictions will apply; these are detailed in the full final decision. In particular, he is indefinitely restricted to use of one editing account and indefinitely banned from editing the articles Louisiana Baptist University and The Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

For the arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 19:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist[edit]

The Arbitration Commitee has reached a decision in this case.

Karmafist is prohibited from welcoming with any template or wording other than {{welcome}}. He may not link to personal advocacy pages, or include political language, in the welcome message, signature, or edit summary. He must use a reasonable, civil, relevant edit summary. "Welcoming" is to be interpreted broadly, to prevent gaming. If Karmafist violates this remedy, he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.

Further, Karmafist is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.

For the Arbitration Commitee, --Ryan Delaney talk 21:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Main Page problem...[edit]

Hi... I apologise humbly if this isn't the right place to post this, but there is a bit of a problem on the main page at the moment and I would appreciate it if some admins could have a look. Currently the first main page news item misleadingly states "Swedish Foreign Affairs Minister Laila Freivalds resigns following the Muhammad cartoons controversy." As I've explained over at Template_talk:In_the_news#Laila_Freivalds_news_item_wording this isn't quite right because she didn't resign over the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (as the item suggests) but the related controversy over her alleged complicity in the censorship of a right wing party's website. (Note: the same issue was raised at Talk:Main Page, see Talk:Main_Page#In_the_News). Could some admins please have a look? Thanks, Mikker ... 21:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Splash has fixed the problem... Mikker ... 22:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Libel to be removed?[edit]

It looks like a potentially libelous statement about a school administrator has recently been added to the page Niles North High School. How do we get it removed from the page history-- beyond just removing it from the article if that is appropriate?

  • Removed (diff) for now. I don't know that it needs to be removed from history (especially if it is factually true) but it is not worth including in the article period unless there was some sort of uproar over the event. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It's verifiable. Should not be a libel issue. Truth is an absolute defense to libel in the US.

WP:OFFICE intro section[edit]

(crossposted from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), please reply to there)

I have added an introdutory section to WP:OFFICE, attempting to better explain what it's all about (and perhaps reduce the number of people confused about it). However, since the lead section will probably end up being taken as the "official" version, I would like for as many people as possible to review it and make it as clear and as close to the real policy as possible. --cesarb 02:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Jebus Christ username block: a request for administrator review[edit]

This username was blocked as unsuitable by an administrator last July, about one month after the user had been warned that the name was considered unsuitable. Well he's back and he and his friends think he should get his username back. It looks like a very straightforward username block to me and one or two other admins who have commented on it, but it can't do any harm to have others look at it.

Thanks. --Tony Sidaway 10:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a straightforward "potentially inflammatory" name to me. I wouldn't have any problem with it on other websites, but I feel that on Wikipedia - where we aim to build an encyclopedia - we must have a higher standard. Endorse block. --kingboyk 11:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Whilst I don't personally find this offensive, I can see how others might, and it seems to me anyone choosing a name like that is at least to some extend trying to provoke/troll. He should choose another name - keeep blocked. --Doc ask? 11:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Kingboyk. I think this block was entirely appropriate. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree with others. No one is stopping the user from editing productively so there's no problem. There's no right to a given username, we're here for an encyclopedia not a social experiment. In addition the user was asked to change it before being blocked. - Taxman Talk 15:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
This user has most likely been editing under a different username these past eight months, and obviously has no actual interest in this situation other than for trolling. — Mar. 22, '06 [15:41] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Fix of a cut and paste move half done[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen I listed a case of a cut and past page there:

I then did what was recommended on Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves and added the db-histmerge. This adds a request that the page be speedily deleted. Someone speedily deleted it, but did not do the requested merge of the history into the Nemmersdorf page. If it is possible please could an administrator finish the job, or if it is not possible let me know so that the last version before the redirect on the Nemmersdorf page can be reverted to. NB: I have moved "Talk:Mayakovskoye, Kaliningrad" to "Talk:Nemmersdorf" as this could be done by a non-admin. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Merged. I've no opinion on the naming issue itself; you folks get to settle that one by yourselves. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
But you didn't remove the speedy tag, so User:MONGO came along and deleted it again! Angr (talkcontribs) 14:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
D'oh!Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Azure Sheep text article request[edit]

If possible, please give me the content of the deleted article Azure_Sheep. Thanks Snewerl 13:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Angr (talkcontribs) 13:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Quick new admin question jsut to confirm something[edit]

A blocked IP address can still explore the site and use it as an encyclopedia, but just cannot edit it until the block expires, correct? Thanks.Gator (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, you've got it. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
That's what I thought. I have a vandal e-mailing (over and over) claiming he can't research a subject becuause his IP is blocked. I thought that was bogus (which proves he's the vandal) but wanted to make sure. Thanks.Gator (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Libel against Wikipedia and Jimbo[edit]

Hi, an article defaming Wikipedia is spreading across the internet. You can read it at the bottom of this link. The article's author, Judi McLeod implies that Wikipedia is connected to and takes its orders from Kofi Annan. She also claims that Wikipedia removed information from the Kofi Annan page at Kofi Annan's request. According to her, the article had claimed Annan's father was a freemason.

Wiki contributors went through all 542 revisions of the Kofi Annan article and found no mention of freemasonry whatsoever. There is an ongoing discussion about this at talk:Kofi Annan

Senior sys-op and Wiki news reporter Zanimum wrote her two letters asking for proof but she refuses to respond. She also refuses to correct the errors or withdraw the Canada Free Press article.

Can anybody advise us on the next step to take? Ignoring them isn't an option since they have written several error-ridden articles about Wikipedia. No doubt there will be more.

This is very frustrating and upsetting. We have gone out of our way to address her concerns but she gives us no credit. Both HOTR and I have made sure that unproven assertions and inflammatory statements are quickly taken out of the article whenever they appear. I myself made it a priority recently to include positive details such as the journalism award McLeod won in 1983. And yet she calls us "wicked pedia". --Cyberboomer 21:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Lots of people don't like us. There are a fair number of anti wikipedia articles out there. So what?Geni 21:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia Review has an interesting article on this case: (it's pretty neutral and most of the people seem to disagree with the actual article) Bob, just Bob 09:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about it. It's a badly written article in a little-known publication, and the link you gave above appears to be an anti-Semitic website. Nuff said. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) similar sentiments to SlimVirgin. It's by a holocaust denier; I've given up trying to reason with those people. Remember with great fame comes lots of criticism, not all of it sane. Antandrus (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I stumbled over the original story from a link in Google news a month or so ago. The claim is just a baseless "so what?" type of issue, and I think anyone who isn't a freemason conspiracy theorist can see that. =P  — TheKMantalk 22:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone should write this article up at the Judi McLeod page. I think it would hurt her credibility a lot more than it would hurt Wikipedia's -- it's obviously completely bonkers, anti-Semitic nonsense. --Fastfission 22:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Nevermind, didn't realize that only the content at the bottom was by McLeod. In any case, we should write up the Annan nonsense on McLeod's page -- if she has made baseless claims, might as well point them out. --Fastfission 22:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh goodie. In my four years here I've been described as a republican by monarchists, a monarchists by republicans, a Catholic apologist, an anti-Catholic bigot, a homophobe, a pusher of the "queer agenda", a paedophile, an attacker of paedopholes, a pusher of a Jewish agenda, an anti-Semite etc. Now I'm Jewish, according to some bigoted anti-semitic idiot called McLeod. What will I be called next? lol FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 22:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Chopped liver? Hermione1980 22:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
No way. JTD's obviously pushing the Illuminati/Freemason/Druidic agenda. All those other POVs are but camouflage. --maru (talk) contribs 23:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Darn it. Unmasked at last! Though the funniest one was being told on one page that I another user knew I'd been hired by Pope Benedict to be his representative on Wikipedia and write pro-Benedict stuff. Later that day I was told categorically that I was in the pay of MI5 to push a pro-British slant on Irish articles, and by another editor a member of Sinn Féin pushing an anglophobic Brit-bashing agenda, for the same edit. Zeech. With all these pay cheques coming in from His Holiness, Her Majesty, Gerry Adams and everyone else to be "their representative" I must be rich. Let me look at my bank balance again? mmmm obviously their cheques all bounced. But I guess some day someone will claim that I am simultaneously the author of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and their chief detractor. Maybe I feature in them myself! lol FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 05:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been a Zionist, Islamist, Jihadist, pedophile, an ethnic cleanser, and an employee of the British royal family planted in Wikipedia to protect the Queen from Lyndon LaRouche. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
But all of those things are true, I've seen it myself (!). How will you explain youself now? ;)--Sean Black (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
So you are that mysterious other person at that dinner with Her Majesty and Tony Blair in Windsor Castle where we planned the secret takeover of Wikipedia in a hidden masonic royal New Labour conspiracy. I was wondering who my co-conspirator was. Sorry I couldn't stay. I was rushing off to fly to Jerusalem to meet with Sharon to plot the Jewish takeover also. That was on busy Thursday. I simply had no time to drop in and take my orders from His Holiness on the way back. But at least George Bush let me stay in the Lincoln bedroom for the night, and gave me my pro-American orders the next morning over breakfast with himself and Laura. FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 05:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I've only ever been a stupid wanker, a loser, and a smelly bitch. I must be doing something wrong, if I'm not getting better insults than that. Joyous | Talk 05:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
LOL!! Since writing the above, I've also become a neo-Nazi and "Robert Mugabe-esque". :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert in libel law, but appears to me there's nothing to be done (BD2412 or another lawyer correct me if I'm wrong) until it can be shown that Wikipedia, or actually the foundation or its owners, are actually harmed or damaged in some way by that post which they're likely not. SWATJester Flag of Iceland.svg Ready Aim Fire! 05:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can find a reason the sue in the uk in which case you don't need to show that.Geni 03:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock[edit]

There has been a sharp increasing number of people; mostly registered accounts being blocked (without actually being blocked; thier IP is blocked). Can someone run through this category and see if any accounts/IP's of accounts need to be unblocked? Moe ε 23:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There is an IRC channel that has a bot that reports additions of the {{unblock}} template (#cvu-unblock), with a full list every three minutes; additionally, it reports in #vandalism-en-wp as they are added. Anyone interested in tracking unblock requests is welcome to use the channel. Essjay TalkContact 03:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
What's it got to do with CVU] fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Only that the folk involved in CVU have been good enough to create another valuable tool for wikipedia. What's the problem with that? --Doc ask? 12:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Branding, Doc, branding. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
What, pray tell, is CVU?? --kingboyk 13:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
See WP:CVU. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh that. In that case, I don't understand the objection. Never mind, I suspect it's tongue in cheek and the answer isn't worth knowing :) --kingboyk 14:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The increase is probably mainly due to the fact that a mention of {{unblock}} was added to MediaWiki:Blockedtext recently. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Could be, and proof that the change was a good one I'd have thought - especially if people are monitoring it real time on IRC. --kingboyk 13:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
In any case, I'll go threw and see if any of the unblock templates need to be removed. Moe ε 21:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Halliburton Shill[edit]

This MfD discussion has been removed from the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion page, but hasn't been closed. The User has been blocked, the objectionable content deleted and the User and Talk pages protected, but the MfD hasn't been closed. As the nominator, I can't do it, would somebody else, please? User:Zoe|(talk) 18:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Plagerism of Wikipedia[edit]

The site, a national drug rehab organization, is using information from wikipedia city pages without citing wikipedia as a source. Below are a couple url's from and their corresponding wikipedia pages. I couldn't find anywhere on the site and don't know where else to report this. If you have any more questions send me an e-mail [cyleriggs (at) gmail] - -

ROFL at the first one, they copied vandalism. :D That's gold. --Golbez 20:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Wait - they didn't just copy vandalism... if you look at the three different vandalisms... Someone actually read either [15], [16], or [17] and then willfully typed "..." lives here based on these entries! Wow... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
No... see here. Sorry. Still funny though. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't copy things like that to this page. Comments like that are worth deleting from the page, not copying here. Ral315 (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

User:[edit] (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) seems to be pushing a barrow over naming. Look at Centimeter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)/Centimetre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Hot dog stand (edit | talk | history | links | watch |