Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive41

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

Noticeboard archives

User: - Vandalism[edit] (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) constantly changes articles about bands that have peoper nouns for names. For instance, a passage in the Guns N' Roses article said "Guns N' Roses is" (correct) and he changed it to "Guns N' Roses are" (incorrect). The vandal suggested we discuss it on the Guns N' Roses talk page. We did so and concluded with proper evidence that "Guns N' Roses is" is the correct wording. However, when we go back to revert the changes has made, he reverts back immediately and calls us vandals that should discuss the situation further. He then threatens to report us to Wikipedia, despite the fact that he has been blocked and banned from Wikipedia numerous times for doing the exact same thing. Please prevent him from further trolling and vandalizing Wikipedia. TheNewMinistry 15:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please report further things like this to WP:AIV. Thanks, Master of Puppets Your will is mine. 23:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually "Guns N' Roses are" IS correct. I was mearly trying to correct what I saw (and still do believe is) misinformation, which is "Guns N' Roses is". The name sounds like the band is talking about more than one gun and rose. TheNewMinistry (or other users) doesn't stop changing "are" back to "is", I will report him (or her) for vandalism. FOR THE LAST TIME: "Guns N' Roses are" IS correct and "Guns N' Roses is" IS NOT correct. 03:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
This is, in fact, a local linguistic variation. British English commonly uses "Group are adjective"; American English uses "Group is adjective". It's mostly a matter of style, not "correct" or "incorrect". See American and British English differences#Singular and plural for nouns
(That said, "Guns N'Roses" is a proper noun which is plural in form, so that suggests "are" would probably be preferred over "is" in both dialects) Shimgray | talk | 00:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user using talk page as attack page[edit]

User talk:Travb is now being developed into an attack page, which includes several false statements and deliberate lies. (True, the user he's attacking, he doesn't name, but that only makes it less bad, not acceptable.) Example:

The admininstrator A admitted he was guilty of a 3RR violation, stated he was going to voluntarily boot himself, then three minutes later unbooted himself, stating he "changed his mind" Another administrator B then unbooted him.

This is a statement that Travb has acknowledged to be false under Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Decision not to have a fellow admin blocked above.

Statements between myself, Administrator A, and Administrator B were erased on his user page. They are no longer in the history of Administrator A talk page.

Just as Travb has demonstrated an inability to check block logs before making false statements about what they contain, he also has an inability to check page histories before making false statements as well.

This all stems, not only from his obsession with me stemming from a recent dispute, but also from his repeated insistence to use a fair-use image on his user and talk pages, even after repeated admin intervention. Given my past with this editor, it would be inappropriate for me to intervene, but something must be done. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 16:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: the second false statement has since been corrected. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 17:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Attack blanked, page protected. --Tony Sidaway 17:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Complaining about (what they see as) unfairness isn't the same as making a personal attack. I've been watching this too, and while I don't see that his complaining is helpful, I'm struggling to see how it's harmful. If someone thinks they're being treated unfairly, we only escalate the problem by blocking them for complaining about the unfairness. If he were spamming this stuff onto other's talk pages, that would be a problem, but as it is? Why not just leave it alone? Friday (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Is it helping build the encyclopedia? · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 17:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Certainly not. But, unneccessary drama doesn't help build the encyclopedia, either. Friday (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you've come around to agreeing with me on this. After all, the only unnecessary drama here was recently deleted from Travb's talk page by Tony. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 17:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments User:Katefan0 and User:Friday. I agree with you both that this behavior does not helping build the encyclopedia. Deleting thousands of images from user pages with little understanding of copyright law, with the users own interpretation of copyright, with no consensus at all, does not help build an encyclopedia, and causes a lot of ill feelings and bad will between dozens, maybe hundreds of people. I also agree that ignoring a {{inuse}} tag and causing a page to be reverted 3 times also does not help build an encyclopedia. Applying the rules in what I see as an arbitrary way, also does not help build an encyclopedia, and creates a lot of bad will toward others. Please keep in mind that I did not start either of these arguments. Phil did, and the other user did, as I wrote above. If anyone misses this point, I will repeat is as many times as needed to drill this point home, I will also provide all pages and all information to back up any claim which I make.Travb 19:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As I understand, the image deletion was not due to copyright law, but rather due to Wikipedia's more-restrictive copyright policy. Yes, one can argue that posting that image in your userspace didn't violate copyright law. But it does violate Wikipedia policy. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 19:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
That is another debate, at another time, another place.Travb 21:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Complaining about unfairness is perfectly fine. Making false statements about other people's actions isn't, especially when one has already acknowledged those statements to be false. That's something we call lying out in the "real world". Bizarre obsessions with me are also rather unwelcome. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 17:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

So what would you call this statment Phil, in the "real world": I have never blocked myself and you know it. You've been shown my block log before.
13:55, 15 May 2006 Philwelch blocked "Philwelch (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (I broke the 3RR and can own up to it myself.) Signed: 21:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Further, I did not "lie". I was mislead. By your own statments: That you would boot yourself, then you changed your mind, then you actually booted yourself, then, not 5 minutes later, jareth unboots you. (See above for the entire series of events) I apologize for assuming good faith, and believing the statments out of your own mouth.
Please assume good faith and not call my statments "lies". After my repeated admonisions for you to stop, I am already going to report you for your continual deragatory statements.
If you are really sorry for breaking 3RR, as I believe because I assume good faith, block yourself for 24 hours. Travb 21:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I would call that an accidental misstatement, much like the multiple misstatements you have made in (for instance) confusing Admin B with Admin C. As you can see, I have corrected myself. I suggest you accept it as an honest mistake, just as I have accepted your honest mistakes as such. You have had ample opportunity to read my block log. You stated at one point that I didn't unblock myself. And then you repeat this allegation you know to be false. That is lying. And I've already blocked myself for 24 hours—I had no idea Jaroth would unblock me, and I don't even know him. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 22:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning: if you said that I lied one more time, I will report you to the verbal abuse page. I have repeatedly asked you to stop. Further, you do not "know" what I am thinking, so please stop assuming that you do.
AGAIN: I RELIED ON YOUR STATMENTS instead of "... read(ing)(your) block log.": that you would voluntary block yourself, and then that you "changed your mind" 33 minutes later you blocked yourself, then 5 minutes later Jareth unblocked you. Relying on your statments is not a lie. It is called assuming GOOD FAITH. Assuming good faith is not calling people liars, and it is not assuming that you know what the other person thinks.
That is the facts, I would post those facts here again. If you state that I lie, then why would you write: You have had ample opportunity to read my block log? This statment shows that you are entertaining the idea that I did not read your block log, and it was my own neglegence which caused me to beleive your statments. This is similar to your response when I told you to stop editing my section which had a {{inuse}} tag.
I suggest you invest in a text editor, learn to merge edits after an edit conflict, or simply override edit conflicts and reintegrate any interim changes later. I've used all of these tactics successfully for years.
In otherwords, instead of admitting a mistake, and aplogoizing, you blame me. I should have investigated into a "text editor" I should have read the "block log".Travb 22:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Travb's response[edit]

This all stems from Phil ignoring a {{inuse}} tag, and beginning a revert war, and violating 3RR, which he admitted he did, blocking himself, unblocking himself 6 minutes later citing that he "changed his mind, then blocking himself again(?) and being unblocked by Jareth after a few minutes.

Umm Phil, the creator of that image: has just given the permission as the creator to allow it as a free use. If the other user would have simply asked the creator premission, instead of deleting the image from many pages (I don't know how many) this intrusive and unproductive argument between myself and another user would have never started.

So the other user who interprets fair use so strickly, cause a huge, huge, huge scandal, similar to the Time magazine fair use scandal, not only with my but with dozens, maybe hundreds of users.

I may point out, that none of these people who are deleting these images citing fair use, to my knowledge, have any legal training. Further, they (mis)interpret the words of Jimbo in the strictest possible way, and cause a lot of contention and bitter feelings by their unilateral approaches. Further, there is no comprise with these people, none at all, despite me mentioning appelate court cases on point, which interpret fair use quite differently, they ignore these posts, and are quite agressive when dissent is pointed out. See my protected user talk page for examples.Travb 18:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Per me unblocking myself: that's a goddamn lie and I don't appreciate you repeating it. Read my block log. I have never unblocked myself. Per fair use: We're here to enforce Wikipedia policy, not the law. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 19:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Please assume good faith and do not call my accusations "lies". Thank you. I have asked you repeatedly to stop, and you have ignored this.
I did not "lie". I was mislead. By your own statments: That you would boot yourself, then you changed your mind, then you actually booted yourself, then, not 5 minutes later, jareth unboots you. (See above for the entire series of events) I apologize for assuming good faith, and believing the statments out of your own mouth. Despite your statment above:I have never blocked myself and you know it. You've been shown my block log before. you actually did block yourself at 13:55, 15 May 2006. Travb 19:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Philwelch wrote: This is a statement that Travb has acknowledged to be false under Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Decision not to have a fellow admin blocked above.

I was incorrect, after checking my own user page, I assumed good faith with the other person's stmt, I was wrong, Philwelch did state he was going to voluntarily boot himself, then "changed his mind". I will correct this now. User:Philwelch message: (→Apology - change mind) Travb 17:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, as you know, I did block myself. For reasons outside my control, I was unblocked. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 19:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Statements between myself, Administrator A, and Administrator B were erased on his user page. They are no longer in the history of Administrator A talk page.

Thanks for correcting this incorrect statment (below), pointing out that I did, in future edits change this, when I realized my mistake.Travb 18:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Everything I state is correct:

  1. At 13:16, 15 May 2006 User:Philwelch admitted he was guilty of a 3RR violation, stated he was going to voluntarily boot himself, (...I also apologize for repeatedly reverting you. As per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Philwelch, I shall block myself for 24 hours, which is the standard remedy. See you in 24.)
  2. At 13:22, 15 May 2006 User:Philwelch six minutes later unbooted himself stating he "changed his mind", making me assume, mistakenly based on his own statments, that he had first booted himself, then unbooted himself, without checking the block log.
  3. 13:55, 15 May 2006 User:Philwelch blocked himself.
  4. 14:00, 15 May 2006 Jareth then unblocked him.

Why did you boot yourself 33 minutes after you said you "changed" your mind? Did you email or contact Jareth before you booted yourself for real the second time?

The bottom line is that you broke the 3RR rules, and should be booted, as the average user is booted.

Please assume good faith and do not call my accusations "lies" further do not say that you will use my RfC as "toilet paper", further do not call my inquires an "obsession", which you have done twice, and finally, please do not call my a "tempremental child". Thank you.Travb 19:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You are completely unable to let go of a dispute that has been long over and that I have already apologized and blocked myself for. Do not blame me for the fact that another administrator chose to unblock me. Furthermore, I have never blocked myself and you know it. You've been shown my block log before. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 19:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Allow me to correct myself: I have never unblocked myself and you know it. I mistyped. Since you accused me of unblocking myself (as we both agree that I did block myself), this was in fact a more relevant question. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 22:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I have never blocked myself and you know it. You've been shown my block log before.
13:55, 15 May 2006 Philwelch blocked "Philwelch (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (I broke the 3RR and can own up to it myself.) Signed: 21:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Phil, I dependend on your statment:
  1. At 13:16, 15 May 2006 User:Philwelch admitted he was guilty of a 3RR violation, stated he was going to voluntarily boot himself, (...I also apologize for repeatedly reverting you. As per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Philwelch, I shall block myself for 24 hours, which is the standard remedy. See you in 24.)
  2. At 13:22, 15 May 2006 User:Philwelch six minutes later unbooted himself stating he "changed his mind", making me assume, mistakenly based on his own statments, that he had first booted himself, then unbooted himself, without checking the block log.
I did not check the block log, because I believed what you said. 30 minutes later, you actually blocked yourself, and then 5 minutes later Jareth unblocked you.
I am interested:
  1. Why did you boot yourself 33 minutes after you said you "changed your mind"?
  1. Did you email or contact Jareth before you booted yourself for real the second time?
The bottom line is that you broke the 3RR rules, and should be booted, as the average user is booted.
If you apology is truly sincere, then block yourself for 24 hours, like everyone else has.Travb 22:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Full table[edit]

The offensive table, minus the title. If this is not okay to post here, please remove. The entire table is also found here:


I incorrectly stated that: "I was blocked by Administrator B for WP:POINT. I never "vandalize pages (user or otherwise) to make a point again."

I apologize for Administrator B [Jareth], I meant Administrator C. I have since corrected this mistake.

Sorry Jareth. Travb 22:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted as suggested. This thing is way too big and there's the link. --Tony Sidaway 18:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
This table is incorrect. I am Admin A and I have never unblocked myself and Travb knows this. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 22:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I relied on your words, stating that you would block yourself, then that you changed your mind. Thank you for not calling me a liar again.Travb 17:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


Please keep in mind that both User_talk:Philwelch and the other User instigated these disagreements.

User_talk:Philwelch started a revert war, which he admitted guilt for, he also repeatedly ignored a {{inuse}} tag.

The other user began to delete hundreds of images from user pages. Instead of asking the creator of unencyclopedia for permission, he simply began to delete them. I reverted, he deleted it again, I deleted, he reverted again.

Tony, who protected my own userpage, is a strict copyright violation person, who interprets the law strictly. He was involved in some other copyright violation disputes involving Time magazine covers, which were promenent here. He is one of the admins that I emailed, who never responded to my message. He had been involved on the same side as me in the WSI arbitration. I felt that, dispite our minor disagreement about copyright, that he would be a fair and impartial judge of me being blocked today. For whatever reason, him, and another admin who did not punish phil for starting a revert war and a 3RR, never responded to my emails. (Tony was never directly involved in the revert war of my blocking, I felt he was an imparial third party)

The admin who blocked me, despite my apologies, felt like I should "cool down". Despite 4 emails, he refused to remove the block. So: there is one admin who starts a revert war, ignores an {{inuse}} tag. and has been banned twice before for 3RR reverts, and also has told other users to "fuck off", and gets off scot free. I was shocked at some of the behavior of Phil above, but yet many admins come to his defense, stating he may have had a bad day, etc. Myself, on the other hand, get the full 24 hours.

Favortism? You decide.

I would also like to mention the repeated deletions of what I write on this page by certain admins.

Or, you can just prove my point and try to silence me, as user Friday pointed out above, making the situation worse, and proving your own blatant hyprocricy.

Signed:Travb 18:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As I explained at WP:DRV, I think Travb to have been exceedingly decorous in his postings here, and I think, irrespective of one's differences with him apropos of Wikipedia's fair use guidelines (which he seems to have come to appreciate are stricter than those Wikipedia would otherwise or by law be required to implement), one must concede that he has attempted, on the whole, to make his case through logical argument, rather than through vituperation. The substance, IMHO, of his subpage, talk page, and post supra is Wikirelevant, and his criticisms seem to be directed at the actions of various editors, rather than at those editors themselves. From his posts here, I infer a genuine desire to help to grow the encyclopedia; these are neither the posts we typically get from those intent on disrupting nor the posts we typically get from disgruntled editors simply upset about having had images removed, for example, from their talk pages. I surely think that we ought to treat Travb in the fashion Friday sets out above, with the hope that he might better understand WP policy (and the reasons behind it), in order that he might then contribute productively. Joe 18:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Decorous? Perhaps? Accurate? Not a snowball's chance. As the aforementioned "Administrator B", I have never blocked Travb, the unblocking of "Administrator A" was to reverse a punative block that Travb still cannot let go of and finally, I did respond to his email the moment I got online, it simply wasn't the answer he wanted. I have no problem with his discussion of policies, I do have a problem with the continued disruption, attacks and lying. You might find a deeper look at his history educational. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is a response to User:Jareth, on my talk page, and an additional two lines:
I never said that you blocked me. I said admin C did. You are admin B. Please reread the table, it is confusing at times, and I attempt to keep admin A admin B admin C and admin D seperate.
Secondly, I did not "forgive" anyone for a 3RR violation as many people have tried fruitlessly to explain to you.
What word would you like to use instead: "dismissed"? What is a correct verb which we both could agree on.Travb 19:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
claiming I did not respond is certainly false at this point You did not respond. I did not accuse you of ignoring my email, I only stated that you did not respond. I have not gotten your email yet, so I will check me email.Travb 19:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE: Hi, I got your email. It was in the bulk mail folder. I dont know why. Thanks for the email.Travb 19:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Jareth Please assume good faith, and don't call my statments a lie.
Have a cup of tea, or a hot bath and come back feeling refreshed; as you said, its the internet and just not worth getting so worked up over. Travb 19:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
You may wish to review your above table; it current states "I was blocked by Administrator B for WP:POINT. I never "vandalize pages (user or otherwise) to make a point" again." Apparently you got which admin you were accusing of what by which fake name confused while writing it since you used B for me everywhere else. As for the 3RR incident, as before, blocks are not used as punishment, they are to stop disruption. Since the disruption was long past, blocking was completely uneccessary and your continued rallying for such and continued whining is frankly rather silly at this point. Had you been willing to consider that your current conduct might be disruptive and stop the behavior, I would have been happy to unblock you. I'm glad you were able to find the email -- junk filters can be bizarre at times. And I'm having white tea with pear; rather refreshing actually. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
"I was blocked by Administrator B for WP:POINT. I never "vandalize pages (user or otherwise) to make a point" again."
My mistake, I try to be 100% accurate, because I know that I will others will point this out quickly. MY APOLOGIES: User:Jareth HAS NEVER BLOCKED ME. I WAS WRONG. User:Jareth HAS NEVER BLOCKED ME. I can add this apology anywhere you would like.
As for the 3RR incident, as before, blocks are not used as punishment, they are to stop disruption.
As mentioned before, I gave in to Phil, and stopped the revert war, which he started, and reported him to 3RR, hoping that, since he obvoiously broke 3RR, which he later admmited readily, his actions would be punished. That is the entire reason why the disruption stopped completly. So because I had the good sense to stop the 3RR, and report it to 3RR, Phil gets off, scot free, and is not punished for his actions.
Further, he states that he will block himself, he changes his mind, then 30 minutes later he blocks himself, and 5 minutes later you unblock him. Despite this confusing change of heart, you take his sincerity at face value, yet you state that in regards to my own apology: "It does appear, however, that your apology was less than sincere".Travb 22:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Please stop using your userspace to create malformed RFCs. This is the second example of this in a week. If you think an issue or behaviour is worth bringing additional community attention to, please create a proper RFC. Jkelly 18:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi--I assume you are talking to Phil, who brought this up on this page today? I am simply defending the accusations of the opposing parties here. Phil said he would use my RfC as "toilet paper", so I don't know how effective it will be. I like the RfC discussion, but what should the RfC entail? We are covering a lot of issues here:
  • possible admin favoritism in applying the rules even handly,
  • copyright and fair use issues, etc.
Pretty broad topic. What do you suggest? Travb 19:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, not a single RFC on both concerns that you have, that's for sure. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example admin for how to file an RFC on an admin. I suppose Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies would be the right place for the other one. Do read all of WP:RFC first, however. I understand that a "toilet paper" comment doesn't inspire confidence, but the point of an RFC is get feedback from community members who aren't an involved party; to guage how that broader community feels about an issue. Having said all that, my guess would be that lots of users would wish for less crankiness, less edit-warring and more civility, and it may not be worth the effort of an RFC to establish that. Don't, however, decide that a real RFC isn't worth the time and then put up a malformed one in your userspace and thereby feel that you get to WP:OWN its content. Jkelly 19:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I think my debate with Phil will die. In fact, I will not report him to the page for abusive comments. I will pursue a RfC about general fair use rules in the future. But I want to build my case first, so it may be some time in coming. I have also calmed down a lot, so the urgency of doing this has subsided.Travb 22:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd still like to see where I told anyone to fuck off. Please give me a link to the precise diff. Special:Contributions/Philwelch is a good place to start looking. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 20:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I am relying on this statment above:
If you visit Philwelch's talk page you will understand the whole sequence of events. User:Samir asks him "Phil, please don't call him names. Thanks." for whichhe replied "Who the fuck asked you to come to my talk page? I really like being lectured by clueless newbies. Go find yourself a better hobby". At this point I put a no personal attack warning on Philwelch's talk page and I was blocked and asked by him to "Leave me the hell alone! ". On posting a noblock template on my talk page I was further blocked for 3 hours. - 10:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I will assume good faith and trust that you never said: "Who the fuck asked you to come to my talk page? I really like being lectured by clueless newbies. Go find yourself a better hobby" My apologies for believing user: 22:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course I said that. But I never told anyone to fuck off. I'm sorry you can't see the distinction. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 22:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Uh huh. I see. Sorry, from now on I will state that User:Philwelch said: "Who the fuck asked you to come to my talk page? I really like being lectured by clueless newbies. Go find yourself a better hobby" I am glad that we are clear on that point.Travb 22:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Isn't this the same garbage that was deleted from your Talk page? Why are you importing it here? Why does it matter? Go write an article. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Zoe, for your vote of support (I am being cynical, if you didn't catch that). User:Philwelch began this argument here. I am defending myself from his allegations. I can defend myself from User:Philwelch allegations, can't I, even if you may personally disagree with my view, and call my views "garbage"?Travb 16:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Leaving the subject be and engaging in some article construction sounds like a fine idea. Boy, I just finished making three: RayStorm, RayCrisis and RayForce. Gets you busy and alleviates quite a bit of stress. I've never felt better. -ZeroTalk 17:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

can't find User:Kirkham who send request[edit]

I have been contacted by a user who say his name is User:Kirkham, however I can't seem to find him? He says that he been blocked from editing even though he was not at fault? Am I doing something wrong in the search, is it possible to search for a user account with an email address, which I have since he contacted me directly? this is kinda odd... thank you for your help. Gryffindor 17:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a user Kirkham (see I would guess that (s)he has been hit by an autoblock or an IP block. Either way unblocking the IP will unblock the user. Do you have the user's IP address? Prodego talk 17:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. No I don't unfortunately. Should I ask (doubt the user will know it though). Or should I just recommend the user to start with a different account? Gryffindor 00:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Restoring User:Dzoni[edit]

I don't know if this is the right place for this request, and if not would appreciate a pointer to what would be the right place.

I'd like to put in a good word for restoring User:Dzoni's account. He was banned for being a sockpuppet of the Communism vandal, but he pretty clearly is not the Communism vandal, mainly because he hasn't been following the modus operandi: vandalizes with references to communism and/or the hammer and sickle. He's had a noticeable tenure here at Wikipedia, so would have had plenty of chances to do that if he was tCv. His only connection to the Communism vandal is that he mentioned him in admiring tones. He hasn't vandalized following the tCv model.

He is a well meaning, if somewhat rash and hot-tempered editor, which has earned him a few temporary blocks. However blocking his account forever for that plus mentioning tCV is like convicting a jaywalker wearing a Charles Manson tshirt of homicide, and will dilute the impact of blocking real sock-puppets of tCv.

He's been blocked for quite a few days now. That should be sufficient punishment. His attempt to get his account reinstated is accompanied with promises of better behaviour and moderation. Given that he was convicted of a false charge, I recommend giving him that chance. If he is punished, it should be for something he genuinely did, not for guilt by association. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm inclined to think the sockpuppet allegation to be, although not unfounded, unpersuasive. Dzoni may eventually exhaust the community's patience and merit an indefinite block (his talk page is replete with warnings and short blocks for disruption [though normally only in the form of personal attacks, which I think, on the whole, to be minimally disruptive]), but I don't think such a block is in order now, and so I'd concur in the assessment that he should be unblocked. Of course, if his intemperate behavior proves disruptive, either in mainspace or at the sundry AfDs in which he participates, we'd do well to rethink that; I'll hope, of course, that disruption won't occur, and I'll surely assume Dzoni to be editing in good faith and genuinely to want to contribute productively. Joe 18:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If I get another admin's support, I'd consider unblocking Dzoni. I agree that he doesn't look like the communism vandal, and if he is fooling us and vandalizes like communism we'll just reblock. Not like WiC is subtle. Syrthiss 18:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll go along with that ... we should all try and assume good faith. And vandals have been rehabilitated (is that the right term?) before. He needs tp be kept an eye on, though. But he needs to have it made perfectly clear that any further asshattery may result in a long-term / infinite ban. Proto||type 14:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll go enact that, and email the user just in case they aren't monitoring their page. Syrthiss 14:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
User does not have email enabled. Syrthiss 14:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you both. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree,I was blocked for no reason,and now Im unblocked because I should have never been blocked(off course,I wasnt blocked for being sockupuppet in the first place,it is clear that administrator tried to block me few times and he was just waiting for a right time,although he knew I am no sockpuppet).Anyways,you made a right decision and I accept apologyDzoni 17:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

(1) The administrator who blocked you doesn't appear to have had any interactions with you before (at least on your Talk page). (2) I trust the judgement of the admins who have blocked you before for 3rr, etc. One thing you can be sure of: we have plenty of admins who will block you without attempting to cobble together a reason to block you, so please don't assume a conspiracy. Syrthiss 17:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

deleting talk pages of users who have left the project[edit]

Is this done or no? I always understood that users who were leaving could blank their talk pages and have their user pages deleted, but that talk page histories were generally preserved for "historical interest." But I've seen lately that User_talk:CarlHewitt and User_talk:JedRothwell have been deleted, so perhaps I'm mistaken. This doesn't seem to be covered in the deletion policy. –Joke 18:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if a page is deleted, its history is still extant for admins to view. Syrthiss 18:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Blank the page and protect it, but do not delete it. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Zoe, just blank the page but never delete the user talk page. Only delete the userpage and personal subpages but the talk part has some valued history of the users. The only exception is cases of stalking like what sadly happened to User:Gator1. Other than that, don't. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that they should never be deleted, and actually I don't know why we don't say the same thing of everything in user space, for that matter. Some of this stuff contains a useful record of past events. Friday (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It's kind of a gray area. Some admins prefer to delete the pages, particularly when there are personal attacks or other inflammatory content on the page or in the history, and some just blank them or blank them and protect them so that all users are able to see the history. Cases like this have been brought to the administrators' noticeboard before and when there is a lot of participation in the discussion, the page is usually restored and blanked (in my possibly faulty perception). However, some longtime admins and Jimbo have deleted user talk pages. I think a good policy would be to blank them in most cases, with or without protecting them, and delete them only when necessary, especially considering that pages deleted before the database crash on June 8, 2004 cannot be viewed or restored by admins. -- Kjkolb 02:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Zoe on this one: blank and protect, but don't delete. However, be aware that there is precedent from up high for the deletion of talk pages, although I personally disagree with that. Snoutwood (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
That was once, it was an extenuating circumstance, and it won't be repeated very often. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

who do you call[edit] report personal attacks? I see them by the score as I read Wikipedia, but usually I shrug and remember a free press is a nice for those who own one. But it eventually does get tiresome reading the leavings of people so confident of their own rightness they attack the sanity of others instead of responding to the subject at hand. "Have you considered seeing a psychiatrist?" wrote User:John Smith's Notice.NPA 20:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You report them to WP:PAIN, the Personal Attack Intervention Noticeboard. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 20:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sony Betamax Case[edit]

This article:

contains this text:

"Blackmun's Rape

Justice Harry Blackmun dissented, and, joined by Justices, raped Sony Corporation's Pamela Njaie, saying afterwards, "We didn't mean to.. We all just had hard-ons and we needed to ejaculate Somewhere!"

I hope someone can fix this. J.

Fixed . Antandrus (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

* spam[edit]

Re these and presumably many more edits, would a meta-admin please consider putting on the spam blacklist? Femto 12:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I tossed that url up on the meta "to be added" yesterday...but I guess it hasn't been added yet. Syrthiss 12:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Also note that they keep changing the sub-domain. Have you requested to blacklist the base address? It should be safe (that is, would not affect a whole webhost); no googlehits for, and is an empty page. Femto 12:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Well I only listed pointy-chested-blondes.XXX (whatever it was), but the blacklist folks typically put *.XXX anyhow. Its pretty common that they change the subdomain. Syrthiss 13:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been blocking IPs that edit like this for 48 hours on sight. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 12:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The IPs that edit like this are open proxies should be reported on WP:OP to be blocked indefinately. Naconkantari 15:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Reporting Philwelch[edit]

Philwelch is moving around my comments on this board, and refuses to stop, this behavior here is exactly what cause the first 3RR:

19:56, 18 May 2006 Philwelch (→Blocked user using talk page as attack page - fixing fmt--just as Travb's responses shouldn't intersperse with mine, mine shouldn't intereperse with his)

(cur) (last) 19:53, 18 May 2006 Philwelch m (Reverted edits by Travb (talk) to last version by Philwelch)

(cur) (last) 19:53, 18 May 2006 Travb (please do not move around my comments, I am attempting to add back your comments after you deleted/moved mine along with Jkelly Once again, you initiated this, just as the 3RR.)

(cur) (last) 19:53, 18 May 2006 Philwelch (→Blocked user using talk page as attack page)

(cur) (last) 19:52, 18 May 2006 Philwelch (→Blocked user using talk page as attack page - rearrange)

(cur) (last) 19:49, 18 May 2006 Philwelch (rv--Travb is deleting my comments, I am not deleting his, I am rearranging them.)

(cur) (last) 19:47, 18 May 2006 Philwelch (→Blocked user using talk page as attack page)

(cur) (last) 19:46, 18 May 2006 Travb (Phil, do not delete my comments--or I will start another 3RR)

The previous revert war:

In which I allowed Philwelch to delete my graph, despite the revert war he started, and the ignored {{inuse}} tag

Once again, I am going to let Philwelch "win" and Jareth can come along and forgive Philwelch because no controversy still exists.Travb 20:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's standard practice on talk pages not to intersperse your replies with the original post, as it gets confusing. In the edit on top there, I'm actually rearranging *my own reply* to conform to this rule. It's also standard practice to post replies in chronological order—i.e. not to post your reply before an earlier reply, which is what you were doing. The formatting was getting confusing and I was fixing it. Furthermore, you removed my comments—I never removed yours. Once again, your obsession with me and compulsive need to pick a fight is somewhat disturbing. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 20:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, the graph you were working on on the NSA page is right here so you can work on it without (a) interfering with other edits to a topical and heavily-edited article and (b) subjecting readers to what is now a disorganized work-in-process. I moved your graph there in order to help resolve our dispute. I have seen no such productive problem-solving from you, although I hope this changes. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 20:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
(After edit conflict) Phil's certainly correct here (btw, Travb, for future reference, if you meant this as a specific 3RR complaint and not a general admin conduct complaint, you ought to have noted it instead at WP:AN3); remember also that 3RR blocks are imposed to prevent disruption, not to "punish" perpetrators, and Phil's reverts seem to be neither disruptive nor improper. By continuing to clutter AN and AN/I, you make it ever harder for those of us who have found the treatment afforded you by some others to have been, at times, undeservedly harsh, to defend some of your actions and certainly to impute good faith to them. You might do well to stay cool and focus on behaviors that concern you and that also harm the encyclopedia. A debate over what WP's policy w/r/to fair use ought to be (even if the debate stems simply from your wanting to use certain images on your talk page) or over how poll data ought to be represented at NSA call database is useful; relatively petty carping about hypertechnicalities, especially where your interpretation is likely inconsistent with that for which a consensus exists, is not. Joe 20:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry Phil, I am going to report you to the page for verbal abuse, dispite reported calls for you to stop, you continue to say such things as: "our obsession with me and compulsive need to pick a fight is somewhat disturbing."
You began moving around my comments, just as you started a revert war on the other page.
Please site the rule which you are stating above. I remember getting chastized for moving other users comments around. Is it really the best policy, in the middle of a heated debate, to start arbitrally moving another users words around? Add your comments, but add them under mine. using ":".
You began this entire argument. I cannot emphasize this enough.
Do not move my comments around again. Travb 20:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's standard practice. It's something I and many Wikipedians before me have agreed on, and it's something you learn from experience. Wikipedia isn't run according to precise rules and regulations that govern every small aspect of what we do here. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 20:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've had two other editors (one here, one on your talk page) come out to say that my refactoring is perfectly acceptable, while your actions here are counterproductive. Is that enough for you to stop? — Phil Welch (t) (c) 20:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no dog in this fight, so all I can say is this:

Nobody cares!. Get back to creating an encyclopedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
In the words of the great philosopher -- Meat Loaf -- "I couldn't have said it better myself". The JPS talk to me 18:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Backlog on WP:PAIN[edit]

  • The page says it is to "get administrator attention quickly," yet there have been issues there for 3 days now that no admins have addressed yet. On Wikipedia, I would think quickly means at most a few hours, not days. Paul Cyr 05:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps it is because your argument has no merit. -- Gnetwerker 05:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I guess you didn't notice the other user reports on there. So none of those arguements have merit and admins won't remove issues with no merit? Seems to me you are just trying to create problems. But what I find funny is that you had said before "I am tired of dealing with this user" and yet you seem to be following my edits. Get lost Gnetwerker, stop following me around making snide comments. Or are you up for another ArbCom ruling cautioning you against being rude? Paul Cyr 06:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Malber, who did in fact address your complaint, that Gnetwerker did not make personal attacks requiring immediate admin intervention. By claiming that admins oignored your complaint when Malber took the time to look into it, you do him a disservice. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. I consider it fairly self-evident that your complaint here relates to the fact that your other complaint on WP:PAIN was not dealt with the way you wanted.
  2. No, Malber is not an administrator, but non-admins may deal with any 'administrative' task except those requiring administrative tools. Admins are not anything particularly special, they just have some extra buttons.
  3. If an admin declines to block someone on WP:PAIN, they won't necessarily announce it, especially if someone (even a non-admin) has adequately addressed the case. If no-one posts to disagree with the first person to reply, then that almost certainly indicates agreement.
  4. If you really want the voice of an administrator, here it is. Malber's analysis is correct.
  5. Your own comments are far from civil: for instance, saying that Malber has "been accused of making personal attacks yourself", then giving a diff which showed a user quoting an NPA warning by Malber, presenting it as if the quoter was issuing an NPA warning. That misrepresentation of the facts is then followed up by a healthy dose of well-poisoning with "I recommend admins taking this user's comments with a grain of salt". For your own good, I would recommend that you drop this. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. Or maybe the fact that I did not get an administrator response on an administrator notice board. Would I be making my comments if I hadn't posted on PAIN? Obviously not. However not only were my notices not addressed by an administrator, no one else’s have been for four days now. That only compounds my point. Especially since I have brought this to your attention and other people's complaints are still waiting to be addressed. To the point of Sophia resorting to shouting! Is user has restored the material [5] AGAIN! Help! not notice enough? My notice was never addressed by an administrator and I was simply saying "hey! look at all of us waiting for administrators!" Your blatant accusation that I am just doing this because I am not happy with the handling (or lack thereof) is just bad faith and incorrect. In short, the first line of the page says This page is intended to get administrator attention quickly when dealing with personal attacks. If no administrators comment on issues lasting days you actually think the page is being properly monitored?
  2. Pot meet kettle. Below you say that I was misrepresenting the facts (which I will address) yet you say By claiming that admins ignored your complaint when Malber took the time to look into it, you do him a disservice. Hmm... post on admin notice board, user comments, poster saying admins ignored him does said user disservice. Explain to me how that doesn't imply said user is an admin. At the very least show me how it could be reasonably interpreted that Malber wasn't an admin. non-admins may deal with any 'administrative' task except those requiring administrative tools. Really? Show me the Wikipedia policy that says non-admins may make rulings on admin notice boards, not comments, rulings. Show me the policy.
  3. Do you actually expect me to believe that? That's just faulty logic plain and simple. If an admin removed the notices that would be an indication. But four days of users saying "is anyone reading this? help!" is hardly admins agreeing with comments. At the very least they would remove the notices or say something.
  4. Now, now, did you really think that would be satisfactory after I asked Malber to justify his remarks? You haven't even shown any indication that you've even read the notice. So basically you are agree with a user that doesn't provide justification. In any case, the reason why I've been asking for justification is simple. Just for kicks (not really), in your own words, define ad hominem, because I have a strong suspicion you have no idea what it is.
  5. And I will apologize for that, I read it over too quickly and though Malber was being warned, not quoted. But please, don't try to intimidate me with that "for your own good" crap.
I expect all the other user' issues on WP:PAIN to be addressed before or immediately after your reply to me, otherwise I would love to see how many words you have to write to even begin to show no hypocrisy. Paul Cyr 06:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's see - taking the recent ones, H8 wasn't addressed because it was a throwaway account that had already been discarded, but just to please you I blocked it anyway. Gnetwerker had already been dealt with by Malber, EnthusiastFRANCE archived the personal attack warnings rather than removing them (he does not wish to have a talk page) and is trying to move on, so no administrative action would be productive, and RyanFreisling asked a difficult question in a perfectly civil way. Now that's over with, you don't bring up anything new. Non-admins may always offer comments (no-one makes 'rulings' around here, except the Arbcom), this is a generally accepted principle everywhere, and, if that doesn't satisfy you, has been formally accepted at WP:AIV . And it's very simple - if no admin posts, that means "no action necessary". If a non-admin posts, and no-one posts to disagree, that means "we agree". This is a wiki - "I agree +1 editcount" isn't as commonly seen around here as on Internet forums. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This is ridiculous. How do you expect me to reach a consensus with you if you are going to pick and choose which points of mine you are going to address? You addressed most of my first point but not my points raised by Sophia's complaint. I can't see how you even attempted to address my third point, and you completely ignored my fourth point which is the cause for this debate. In addition to your comment of "If a non-admin posts, and no-one posts to disagree, that means "we agree"." Completely supports my point. I was the last responder to Malber. So since no one disagreed with my insisting he provide some justification for his views, according to your statement the admins agree that he didn't provide a good justification.
  • Non-admins may always offer comments (no-one makes 'rulings' around here, except the Arbcom), this is a generally accepted principle everywhere, and, if that doesn't satisfy you, has been formally accepted at WP:AIV [60] .. If it's been "formerly accepted", why is there no policy on it? At the very least there would be a guideline no?
  • In any case, back to the point at hand, no one has even offered a measly sentence to try to explain how Gnetwerker's comments were not personal attacks. The fact that you have refused to offer an explanation that you even know what an ad hominem is even when you could have copy-pasted from Wikitionary makes me doubt your sincerity in trying to offer a balanced view. I handed that one to you and you still didn't bother to address it.
  • I don't find it objectionable if someone disagrees with my views. However on every level of non-fallacious arguing and just plain honesty, picking and choosing points to address is indecent. Paul Cyr 05:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • EDIT: oh, just so you know, Sophia has been waiting a week now for a response. Either she is being ignored or no one is bothering to maintain the page by removing out-dated comments (I was the one who removed a bunch yesturday.) "self-evident that your complaint here relates to the fact that your other complaint on WP:PAIN was not dealt with the way you wanted" my ass.

Given Samuel's abandonment of this discussion and Alistair's removement of my complaint from WP:PAIN without respect to the discussion here, I have to conclude that an end-run-around has been made in bad-faith to the dispute resolution process. No one from my opposing side has given a single response with justification and free of cherry picking. In summation I feel the chain of events are as follows:

  1. Gnetwerker made personal attacks against me.
  2. I asked Gnetwerker to stop multiple times.
  3. Gnetwerk continued making personal attacks.
  4. I brought the attacks to the attention of WP:PAIN.
  5. The user Malber commented that they were not personal attacks.
  6. I asked him to explain his views because he wasn't providing any justification, he did not.
  7. After a few days without any action being taken, I felt the page was being disregarded and brought it to the attention here.
  8. After the above discussions, Samuel's comments appear to be an ignoratio elenchi which were full of unexplained and bad-faith remarks and cherry picking.
  9. Without respect to the discussion here, Alistair removed the comments from WP:PAIN.
  10. Since I am not going to repost the complaint on WP:PAIN and no serious attempt has been made to resolve the issue, I am going to request mediation. Paul Cyr 02:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
You missed something out of that chain of events. After Gnetwerker's first edit to Windows Aero, you responded by reverting his edit with the comment rv fanboyism AlistairMcMillan 22:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I responded to your accusation Alistair to which you ignored. Don't bring stuff that you are not willing to discuss. BTW, there is nothing incivil or offensive about what I said. Paul Cyr 03:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You are complaining that Gnetwerker attacked you by accusing you of being a "Microsoft fanboy". You don't think it is relevant that you had just previously described one of his edits as "fanboyism"? In your initial post to WP:PAIN you quoted Wiktionary: 'a personal attack as any comment about the commenter inorder to discredit them'. You don't consider describing Gnetwerker's edit as "fanboyism" an attempt to discredit it?AlistairMcMillan 15:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop cherry picking, you still haven't addressed the fact that I previously addressed your point to which you ignored and that now, only after you brought it up again, are you seemingly willing to continue discussing it.
Alistair, with all due civility, please read up on an ism is. WP:NPA says that saying someone is acting like something is not a personal attack. You seem to be cherry picking once again by ignoring that I already addressed why I made that comment and how the situation changed afterwards. Paul Cyr 01:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

out of process deletion of userboxes[edit]

Template:User stolenfishjoke was deleted with absolutly no recourse given to appeal the decsion, this unilateral userbox edit warring must stop--ConcernedObo 17:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It looked like an attack on Cyde. Joelito (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Above user ConcernedObo has been indefblocked, strongly suspect its the same user who has been vandalizing Cyde's pages (see RFCU) Syrthiss 17:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

God forbid we shouldn't be allowed to delete vandalism so long as the vandalism is prefaced with User. --Cyde↔Weys 21:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably going to go insane after I say this, but in this case the deletion was justified as it was true vandalism. JohnnyBGood Flag of Mexico.svg t c 21:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

To whoever is deleting prod's today[edit]

Category:Proposed deletion as of 15 May 2006 had 106 articles after it was checked by one of the prod patrollers (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Proposed Deletion Patrolling/tasks but it now has 107 articles. This means there's at least one article in there that has been re-prodded. Just a heads-up. Mangojuicetalk 20:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Never mind! I think I found it: Wikitopianism. Technically, Wompy deprodded it and added a speedy tag, but I'm sure no one will mind. Actually, I'm sure no one will mind, as the author of that article gave me that impression on my talk page. Cheers! You should be good to go. Mangojuicetalk 20:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Issac Dick[edit]

Inappropriate username? (If you don't "get it", read it aloud after reading his user page.)

Reported by: Atlant 00:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Worse, the user jumped straight into GFDL issues at Jimbo's talk page. (Meantime, a Google search of "Issac Dick" turns up no obvious links to anything other than slang terminology.) RadioKirk talk to me 00:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked it. Superm401 - Talk 02:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


Just out of curiosity is this allowed? I quote:

The result of the debate was speedy keep the content. As comments overwhelmingly addressed the content of the box rather the status which it occupies, I'm closing this as a subst the content and delete the actual template. No actual content is lost in the process, and the removal of said code to a user's page places it beyond the bailiwick of TfD and CSD. Mackensen (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That seems like the admin is just interpreting the vote in a way he likes, but I'm not entirely familiar with policy in this matter, so I'm asking here. +Hexagon1 (talk) Flag of Australia.svg 10:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

xfD discussions are not votes, and admins are not required to give a damn about the tally (I make a point of never knowing how many users "voted" one way or another when closing these sorts of discussions). Mackensen closed it with a solution that, he thought (based on how he read the discussion), would satisfy all participants. This was entirely appropriate behaviour on his part.
Of course, the magic word "delete" appeared and so, regardless of the practical effect of the TfD close, we now have a swarm of userbox fans on DRV saying "you're deleting our userbox even though we had a majority of votes to keep!". And people say AfD is bad! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
20+ people voted keep, 12 of whom said in no uncertain terms that they were talking about the template itself. In the ensuing discussion on WP:DRVU, I added up the votes from the TFD. 12 people said unambiguously keep, meaning keep the template itself. 6 people said unambiguously delete the template itself. 11 said keep and didn't specify what they meant by "keep". This is a real problem we have here. If anti-userbox administrators are just going to delete userboxes, in clear defiance of a supermajority or they are going to speedy userboxes they don't like for no particular reason, why are we even having a discussion? They're doing the same thing whether the vote is keep or delete. Regardless of your opinion on userboxes, out of process deletions are dead wrong and need to stop. To delete userboxes out of process or, in this case, flying in the face of overwhelming consensus, is arguably an abuse of administrative powers. BigDT 12:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
One thing I should add here, since not everyone reads DRV and elsewhere, User:Mackensen said on WP:AN/I, "I'm halting all further administrative action on my part regarding userboxes" and agreed on WP:MACK with a statement of mine about out-of-process deletions ending as a part of the policy discussion, so as far as I'm concerned, there is no longer an administrative issue to be dealt with - it's not in danger of happening again, so there's no incident to be dealt with. BigDT 12:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
It is in danger of happening again since, as Tony said, it was perfectly consistent with the practices of many xfD closers. I'd rather not see a "but he didn't count votes!" issue blow up ever again, even if on a subpage divorced from the userbox issue. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
This close was in line with current closing practice on xFD; needless to say, all closes are subject to review. I like it for its solomonic quality, keeping the content (which is perfectly acceptable for a user page) and disposing of the problematic template. --Tony Sidaway 18:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
But that's the problem - this "current closing practice" is inventing a new policy that doesn't exist and is reading into the votes something that isn't there. Rather than assuming good faith, the administrators are assuming that everyone voting is a mindless robot who will vote keep arbitrarilly on every userbox. BigDT 00:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
As one of several admins who have been known to spend far too many hours of our lives closing xfD discussions, I take exception to your characterisation. Perhaps you'd like to review all my closings in the past six months, on AfD and elsewhere, and provide me a list of cases where I've acted in bad faith or violated policy and accepted community norms? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
So what you are saying is if the admin closeing it thinks it should be deleted then it doesn't matter whether or not the consensus was to delete? ILovePlankton (TCUL) 19:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Missing Protestor[edit]

The article Missing Protestor was deleted by user:Will Beback. I cannot fid it in the 'history' page to revert it. No discussion has ever took place with regrads to content, the article has not been listed in Speedy Deletion, it never had an AfD, it has been unillaterally removed by this user in such a way as I cannot revert the vandalism. This blanking is an act of vandailism because user:Will Beback disagrees with my edits in the article AIDS and has taken it upon themselves to revert my contributions. --AmazingRacist 17:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Article was deleted after being prod'ed. I've blocked the above user for their username. Jkelly 17:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article have had a tag placed on it for five days? It does seem to have been deleted out of process.

Will Beback deleted it as a hoax. The only sources were some silly blogs. --Tony Sidaway 12:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit, I've never heard of Independent Media Center being described as a 'silly blog before'

Request for someone to review my actions[edit]

I blocked Omniplex yesterday for 3RR on a help page, and I'd just like someone to check it over and see if I acted correctly.

Here are the four reverts:

  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff
  4. diff

Points to consider:

  • Template:H:f Help says that people are entitled to copy the master help page at any time.
  • It also says "don't edit this copy" with respect to the copied help page here.
  • The user claims to have been reverting vandalism, but I feel that it is definitely not reverting simple vandalism (which is the only thing the 3RR excludes other than self-reverts), and may not be vandalism reverting at all.

Opinions, please. Stifle (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely a dispute over content, that certainly wasn't vandalism by any definition. Good block. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I've collected the evidence at How_to_use_Cite.php_references, because it involves four pages. Check the first diff, it's IMO no rv at all, it integrated the included page. -- Omniplex 00:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
It's an odd case. There were four 'removals of one or more words' (the most restrictive definition of 'revert'), but Omniplex was following standard procedure in editing the meta page and copying it down... the other user was incorrectly editing the local page directly without updating the meta page. Omniplex did repeatedly cite the proper procedure to follow... and the template does say that the main meta page may be copied down 'at any time'. Given the conflicting instructions and technicality (I've had admins tell me they didn't violate 3RR when the first was a 'new edit' like the above) I'd probably have given it a pass. Wouldn't say you acted incorrectly though. --CBDunkerson 14:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


Another proposal for script addition 18:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


Currently, Year 11s in the United Kingdom are doing their GCSE examinations. I'm one of them. The problem is that with Wikipedia, I (and I'm sure many others) can't bring myself to revise. Would it be possible to close down Wikipedia for a week or so to let me revise? If not, then I emplore people to remind me that I should be revising, should they see me editing. Thank you and kind regards, --Celestianpower háblame 07:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You can always block (and try not to unblock) yourself if you need to stay away completely. --Vildricianus 08:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Nope - that's not allowed per the blocking policy. --Celestianpower háblame 09:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Gosh man, you're making me feel so old! :( (I was in the "guinea pig year" for GCSEs). Anyway, here's an idea - vandalise my user page and I'll block you for a week :P --kingboyk 10:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it is allowed if you have a static IP. --bainer (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Weird, I never knew you Brits said "revise" instead of "review". Anyway, use Template:Exams. —Keenan Pepper 08:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL! I never knew the Americans used "review" not reise" :P. {{Exams}} wouldn't help - I just can't stay away :P. --Celestianpower háblame 09:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
That's it, enough editing for now, CP, go straight to your room (do not pass Go, do not collect £100) and get revising! Oh and the very best of luck in the exams :) --Alf melmac 10:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
It's £200 in the UK monopoly. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The price of inflation these days (sheesh) --Alf melmac 12:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There's something you can add in your monobook which actually enforces a wikibreak, I guess that might work nicely for you :) --JoanneB 10:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Better solution: modify your local hosts.txt file and forward * to That should stop you from even seeing Wikipedia. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't work for me. is my local copy of Wikipedia. --Carnildo 06:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Futureobservatory's edits[edit]

I've been reverting some of User:Futureobservatory's edits, which are large swaths of text he claims are his own work (,,, multiple others), from He has been asked multiple times to provide proof of who he is, but he has not responded. User:Flammifer even started an RFC, but that failed to get his attention. I just messaged Futureobservatory that if he continues to copy text into articles, he will be banned. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 16:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If he persists, it should be noted that an email address and phone number appear on as well as on the site hosted by the matching ip. A quick phone call or note could determine if he is in fact the wikipedian in question. --Charlie( @CIRL | talk | email ) 15:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Mel Etitis[edit]

This looks like a misfiled 3RR. Taking it to the right subpage --Tony Sidaway 23:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


I suspect that this is a problem that's not going to be easily soluble; help and advice would be appreciated.

I discovered that Eiorgiomugini (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) had unilaterally moved Chinese classic texts to Chinese Classical Texts, and made a string of substantial changes (all without edit summaries or other explanartions, most misleadingly marked minor). After correcting all this, I checked his other edits, as his English was very poor, and I suspected that he might have created similar problems elsewhere. Sure enough, i found a few pages with poor English (to which I added {{copyedit}} templates, an unsourced/uncited change to another article, and a dab page in very non-MoS style.

Eiorgiomugini immediately reverted my changes, removing the templates, etc. After some attempt to explain to him that this wasn't acceptable, I realised that he was just goijng to remove the templates, etc., come what may (his English is too poor for him to see the problems, but he seems not to believe or understand this). I applied a 15-minute block in order to get him to cool down, and asked him, when the block expired, to discuss the issues. instead he immediately reverted everything again. I applied a one-hour block, and made the same request.

It's pretty obvious, though, that this won't get through to him. Although I'm not involved at most of the articles in question, I'm reluctant to apply a longer block — and in any case I don't think that blocking is the solution. If there's anything else that I could do (or should have done differently), I'd be glad to get advice. If anyone else thinks that they might get through to him where I've failed, I'd be glad of the help. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this largely a comprehension problem? Do we know what languages the user is fluent in? Jkelly 16:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Chinese, I think. My impression is that he's familiar with the Chinese Wikipedia, and is simply trying to apply its conventions and customs here. The trouble is that he seems unwilling or unable to understand that they might be different. He certainly seems more familiar with Wikipedia than his short time here would suggest. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The user's English is strong enough to make nasty personal attacks in edit summaries I wonder if someone from Category:Chinese Wikipedians would be willing to start some mentorship here. Jkelly 18:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
What about Category:User zh-N? --Telex 18:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
While I agree that some of his contributions have been unuseful, you must remember yourself to never block when you are involved, to only use the admin rollback in the case of vandalism, and to stay within the 3RR. Stifle (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, please. Mel is only involved insofar as trying to get the User to understand what the problem is. This is not a content dispute, and Mel is perfectly in the right to block as needed. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Zoe. Mel was not "involved" in the sense of being in a content dispute. I doubt if the article is one he has a strong POV about, and it wasn't a case of his having a longstanding grudge against a user because of past disagreements. Admins do block for disruption when they're involved in trying to stop the disruption. AnnH 10:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Zoe and AnnH — that's how I saw it. Others didn't and I was blocked for 24 hours (worryingly, User:Sasquatch saw fit to leave what looks like a sneering message about this at Eiorgiomugini's Talk page The problem with Eiorgiomugini remains. Other editors at Chinese classic texts have seen his edit and reverted, but he's not giving up; he also still clearly believes (perhaps encouraged by Sasquatch) that he's in the right concerning the copyedit templates. I'm going to try explaining the issues to him again, but I don't know how much success I'll have. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


I created [[Template:Economic systems (sidebar) for use on Mixed economy after a lot of fighting over what if any template should go there: socialism, progressism, liberalism. It seemed actual economies had no template. Only templates for ideologies about economies existed. The problem that I am here about is that an anon insists on adding ideologies to the "actual economies" template. Can someone check the situation out and do whatever is called for? WAS 4.250 20:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The user has been warned for 3rr rule but has not been blocked. Please try to engage him through discussions on the talk page. The robot edit summary has me a bit worried. I reverted to an earlier version to test something. Please do not continue reverting yourself or you will probably be blocked for 3RR. Joelito (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for attention at WP:TFD[edit]

Could an experienced editor look at dealing with the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:ISLEAPYEAR nomination and the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Shortcut/ deletion? I wouldn't trust myself with these (an neither for the crapload of userboxes currently on the page either, but that is another thing completely). Circeus 01:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Messhermit[edit]

This arbitration case is closed.

Messhermit is banned for one year from editing articles which relate to the conflict between Peru and Ecuador. Messhermit and Andres C. are placed on Wikipedia:Probation.

Full details of the final decision are at the case page at the above link.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 02:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Acharya S[edit]

The conclusion of the ArbCom case (ZAROVE) has removed one of the principal figures in the struggle over page content there. However edit warring has continued, and almost everyone involved can be said to be partisan and on the line of infraction of policy. I have handed out one 3RR block recently of 24 hours, and have just blocked an IP number editor User: (signs as el Lobo) for talk page comments saying I'm biased by Christian beliefs. (I have never discussed religion on WP and don't intend to start now.) Another participant User:Rpsugar is technically unblocked (but is mailing me saying not).

The page itself seems about as good as it may be, given the paucity of first-rate sources. There is a fair amount of off-site commentary about the dispute. Charles Matthews 11:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The continuous slow-motion revert warring is rather wearing, however. Looking at the history of Acharya S (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the users A.J.A. (talk · contribs) and ^^James^^ (talk · contribs) in particular seem bent on reverting each other until the ice caps melt and the oceans flood out Wikipedia's servers.
I was involved in a brief attempt to clean up the article about three weeks ago, so I don't have 'clean hands' to do admin-type things here. Warnings to editors about their conduct, where appropriate, might help. I fear that another ArbCom case may be necessary. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, that sounds entirely premature to me. Has there been an attempt to RfC or RfM over the content? Al 18:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I would like to quickly note that I have little choice but to revert AJA if he refuses to participate on the talk page. ^^James^^ 18:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, you do have one other choice, which is to file a WP:3RR violation report so as to get them blocked for a day or so. However, you should not do this unless you can go in with clean hands. Al 18:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I would like to ask why Charles Matthews felt a weeks block was justifed for failing to AGF with him and yet felt someone calling two other editors "vandals" did not require any comment? This editor has shown bad faith on other occasions as james notes above and also I would also ask whether it is appropriate for Charles Matthews to place the ban himself as being an involved admin he should recuse himself, log the incident here, and seek outside assistance. Sophia 18:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

An IP number editor trolling, after warning? I think this is a block out of hand. There is some chance of getting a compromise version accepted. This provocative stuff on the talk page is just obstructing things. (Anyone with the stomach can go through the dozen archives and note the pretty much daily posts from el Lobo. These have not helped at all.)

By the way, both sides in this have attacked the 'referee'. Charles Matthews 19:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Please address directly the points I made above. Sophia 19:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

OK then. I don't feel that my one recent edit to Acharya S, attempting to broker a compromise, puts me in a false position if I then enforce policy. It is standard practice to regard non-logged in editors with less tolerance than those editing here under a user name. If the complaint is that I have not blocked User:A.J.A. for infractions under 3RR, or for the v-word, then I would say that I want his input on the compromise version. I'm not obliged to block anyone, by the way. Discretion is the whole issue in admin action.

Since there is a huge amount of past history and back-story to this page, I doubt whether an admin coming fresh to it would quickly get it all. Brokering an end to the constant edit warring is substantially more useful in this context, than point-scoring and box-ticking exercises. I would defend the approach taken, as likely to lead to results. Charles Matthews 20:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking into the page since last year, and Charles have been extremely neutral in keeping peace between the warring parties. I have full confidence in his mediation. Apparently, the pro-acharya group also had the same confidence when their opponent ZAROVE was being sent to Arbitration. The whole article is a quagmire ... whoever tries to bring any sanity gets pummeled by both parties, and a whole website is out there lambasting any editor not liked by the subject. Similarly, before he was banned, ZAROVE filled page after page of gibberish into the talk page, making any fruitful discussion impossible. I think Charles have been more than fair in handling the page, and has not shown any bias in editing the page. Therefore SOPHIA's comment on Charles being an "involved" admin is misdirected. He is involved in mediation, not active in taking sides, and his placement of 3RR bans is therefore entirely within policy. Thanks. --Ragib 20:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I was refering to the fact that he was the object of the supposed insult and therefore is directly involved. It is never a good idea for the insulted party to act unilaterally as it is possible they have responded emotively. A.J.A. has made it plain that he will not work with the other editors on this page. How is banning them, unless it is permanent, going to help? If this is the objective then it should be made plain and this can then be discussed. Sophia 21:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I said a few days ago that I was calling the discussion to order. That I intend to do. I want to get comments on what is wrong with the current article version, and stop the warring. I'm not particularly worried about having my actions scrutinised. I never said 'insult': it was a classic ad hominem argument that I had acted in a biased way. As such it was both fallacious and contrary to basic policy. I'm surprised anyone should think that making full public disclosure of what I think about the situation would actually help, in one of the most intractable disputes in en-WP. Charles Matthews 21:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Charles, you just blocked someone for accusing you of being biased. Isn't that more than just a bit ironic? In fact, isn't it a direct violation of WP:BLOCK?
At this point, your claims of neutrality are no longer credible. The best thing you can do is move on and let others take over. I suggest that you remove the block, recuse yourself, and pass the hot potato. We'll all be better off when the reasonable perception of admin bias is removed, don't do you think? Al 21:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Slight shortage of admins who might get involved.Geni 22:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone familiar with the page, edited continuously now since April 2005 at an average of two edits per day, would conclude that I am 'trying to gain advantage in a content dispute'; if that is what you meant about WP:BLOCK. I am neutral, but I will invoke WP:IAR if I get wikilawyered about this. If I was that worried about the procedural side, I would have backed down months ago; and got on with something more rewarding. I'm grateful for the vote of confidence of User:Ragib, who is well briefed. And I agree with User:Geni, also. Charles Matthews 22:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the page and with the incident, and yet it does look like you're violating WP:BLOCK by using admin powers against someone who accused you of bias (which, ironically, makes their accusations look true). As for invoking WP:IAR, that would be a gross abuse.
Fact is, you should have backed down long ago, just as you said. We can't undo the past, but you can still back down now and avoid causing harm in the future. If so many admins agree, as you claim, then your involvement is unnecessary. Just recuse yourself and let them take over. This will remove any appearance of impropriety. Al 08:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the issue as I see it. On the 15th Charles banned me for reverting AJA 4 times in 27 hours, depsite the fact that AJA openly refused to discuss his continuous reverts. He also gave a general warning. AJA ignored the warning and continued to revert without discussion, at one point making 5 reverts in 30 hours. Charles made no comment. Yesterday, AJA accused other editors of bad faith and called them vandals. El Lobo asked Charles if his personal beliefs were influencing his apparent selective use of admin powers described above. Charles responded by removing both messages (but leaving AJA's accusation of bad faith), and blocking El Lobo for a week for "implying bad faith". He made no comment regarding AJAs more blatant personal attacks. ^^James^^ 08:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that does seem biased. Given the amount of power admins have and the general lack of recourse available when an admin does something wrong, it seems particularly harmful for admins to block people who question their neutrality.
Thank you for clarifying some details. You've changed my mind. Initially, I suspected that the block might be sound but Charles was the wrong person to make it. Now it looks like the whole thing is Charles' error.
Once again, I request that he remove the block and recuse himself. He is clearly not unbiased here. Al 08:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

'Recuse' is the wrong word here. I'll gladly take the page off my watchlist, where it has been since a couple of hours after its creation, any time I feel I'm the wrong person for the (completely thankless) job.

I was offline for nearly all Thursday and half of Friday, which is why I wasn't tracking edits to the article. That's it. The 'el Lobo' edits could have been blocked many times in the past, for disruptive intent, soapboxing and so on. Have a look and see how few are actually discussing the page content, with a view to resolving the issues. However, they rarely stepped over the line, into obvious policy violation.

Also have a look at how the actual article content has been gradually brought towards NPOV, and better conformity with the guidelines on biographies of living people. I honestly think my stewardship, if I could call it that, has been of benefit to the article. I'm quite happy to have other admins operate there: I got User:Oleg Alexandrov involved in the past, to protect the page, when things were really bad. I accept no claim of bias against me. I think User:^^James^^ has a partisan but rational approach to the content, and I consider that most of the points he has raised in the past have been met. I don't see that he has much to war for, on the article as it now stands. I think most of User:A.J.A.'s concerns have been met, with the inclusion of an account of critical reviews (these should be there, the question has only been in what way). I suppose he still may think the page too 'promotional' in tone. I don't want that, either, and I hope he will specify what he sees as necessary changes. Charles Matthews 09:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Charles, I choose my words carefully, so when I chose "recuse", I did so quite consciously. According to, to recuse is to "to disqualify (oneself) as judge in a particular case; broadly : to remove (oneself) from participation to avoid a conflict of interest".
I'm saying that there is an apparent conflict of interest here, which is why you should remove yourself. As others have pointed out, there is the clear and reasonable perception of unequal treatment of participants. I'm not asking you to drop the article from your watch list. However, if you're going to participate in its ongoing construction, I think you need to decide whether your role will be that of editor or admin, and stick to it.
If you're an editor, you can't wave your sysop bit around; and if you're an admin, you can't act in any way that suggests you care who wins out in the content dispute. Right now, there is at least the appearance of admin rights being used to support editorial goals, and that is bad for everyone. The cure is simple, and I've suggested it repeatedly. It surprises me that you're so resistant to it.
The relevant cliche is "if you love somebody, let them go". I urge you to show your love for Acharya S by letting go. Al 15:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe you when you say that you have no bias on the article, but I do think some of your actions appear unequal. You blocked '^^James^^' for edit warring when he reverted four times in a little over 24 hours. That's alright... he just missed a technical 3RR violation, but we do also block for edit warring in general and he'd done so on prior days (and indeed again since the block expired) as well. But... you didn't block 'A.J.A.' - who was also guilty of edit warring that and previous days (and indeed has also continued to do so). Likewise you removed the comment by 'El Lobo' which implied that you were being biased and blocked him for the personal attack, but at the same time only removed 'A.J.A.' calling '^^James^^' and 'El Lobo' "vandals" and "trolls" without blocking her for the personal attack. Now, there may well be reasons for a judgement call that the two blocked individuals have ignored more prior warnings or been more consistently disruptive or whatever, but that is always going to be a subjective assessment and in any case is not going to be apparent to sympathetic partisans or even someone looking in from outside. When there is a dispute and you make a judgement call that 'A will get a warning' but 'B will be blocked' everyone who agrees with 'B' is inevitably going to suspect bias... and the closer the actions of 'A' and 'B' to each other the louder the howls about unfairness will be. As such I'd suggest: don't make judgement calls in such cases. Even if personal views don't color the assessment it will absolutely be perceived that way and generate further disruption. Warn 'em both or block 'em both unless there is some absolutely clear non-subjective difference (e.g. both edit warred, but one violated 3RR and the other did not). --CBDunkerson 11:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Equally bad editing styles deserve equal treatment. I can see what Charles Mattews is trying to do and do not want him to think I'm wikilawyering - it's just that in tricky situations the opposing sides will grab onto any incident of supposed unfair treatment to distract from the business at hand. Sophia 12:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest people update themselves at Talk:Acharya S: el Lobo circumventing the block with a dynamic IP, and going on at length about my supposed bad faith. Well, I would say this proves my point (ironically and naturally enough, el Lobo feels the block proves el Lobo's point). Take your pick. I have asked another admin to deal with all that, of course. Charles Matthews 15:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

All that shows is that he was provoked by apparent mistreatment. To harm people, then complain when they react to it negatively, is unfair and amounts to nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy. To use the archetypical example by Desmond Morris, you can't prove that green-haired people are violent by pre-emptively beating them up, then pointing out how they use violence in self-defense. Al 15:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Suit yourself. User:Jitse Niesen has blocked the IP used. Charles Matthews 16:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Enough is enough. I've notified A.J.A. and ^^James^^ that I will block them if either of them reverts the article again. Participating in a month-long revert war is disruptive and unproductive. I'm hoping that both of them will be encouraged to sit down, discuss, and edit productively—because they've been given no choice. If someone wants to call me a rouge admin, so be it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact I consider threatening me with a ban for someone else's actions highly abusive. A.J.A. 20:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Er, there seems to be some confusion here. To be clear, I would only block the party that reverted the article. I have no intention of holding one party responsible for the other's behaviour. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Improper Username[edit]

I understand that this user's username, User:Zaybot, is not allowed under our rules, since s/he's apparently not a bot. I am not sure what the remedy is - so I am simply submitting this issue to the sysops' attentions. I have not warned him about it. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

A quick note, pointing out that "bot" is best left to actual bots, and pointing the user to WP:CHU would be fine. I'll take care of it. Essjay (TalkConnect) 14:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit needed on protected template[edit]

Just need an admin to make a quick change to {{tlp}}. Λυδαcιτγ(TheJabberwock) 14:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of userpages?[edit]

I have listed at WP:MFD here a userpage by a user with no edits except to it. I think this is an interesting test case for precedent, and would urge people to stop by and comment. Chick Bowen 16:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Unquestionably MySpace-style self-promotion, especially given that she created this some 2.5 months ago and hasn't made an edit since. She's been advised of what Wikipedia is not and, apparently, hasn't been around to see it. Absent her involvement in remedying the situation, I would support the deletion. RadioKirk talk to me 17:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


Despite multiple warnings and previous blocks, Unisouth continues to blank articles, upload copyrighted images that he does not own (claiming them to be his own work), removing "adverse" comments from his Talk page, and other such vandalism. -- ForestH2 17:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio images deleted (I got one, someone else got the other). RadioKirk talk to me 18:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandal swarm[edit]

I've been targeted by the nice folks from XYTMND because of my involvement with an AfD of AlmightyLOL earlier today; thanks to lots of folks keeping an eye on it, the vandals have been getting reverted quickly, but this suggests I'm going to be targeted for a while. Any chance of semi-protection for a while? It's getting annoying. Tony Fox 02:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Your user page has been semi-protected. Please let me know when you would like it removed. Naconkantari 02:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Much appreciated. Tony Fox 02:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Urine/Piss Feces/Shit[edit]

Fomz (talkcontribs) has decided to move a number of articles to make them more vulgar instead of using the correct (medical) terms. Unfortunately, I don't have the mop so I'm posting here to see if an admin could help. Thanks --Charlie( @CIRL | talk | email ) 02:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. JoshuaZ 02:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, actually; the repairing user forgot to close the opening comment within Feces and Firefox rendered the page blank. Also, I've given the user a short block to prevent immediate recurrences. RadioKirk talk to me 02:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! --Charlie( @CIRL | talk | email ) 03:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Easter egg linkspammer[edit]

All of Stonic's edits consist of adding links to an easter eggs site to various video game articles. They have been warned previously, and some of the spam was reverted, but they have since done it again. There are way too many to practically revert manually.--Drat (Talk) 03:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 day. — xaosflux Talk 04:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. --Cyde↔Weys 04:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Jhowcs edits and uploads[edit]

If someone would look into User:Jhowcs (User_talk:Jhowcs) edits and image uploads. People on the Brazil article keep warning this user and he keeps uploading all his images as I, the creator of this work, as they pretty sure are not (note the pattern of Copyright problems a week ago). For example a recent image Image:Bh12.jpg was one of those claims of his creations while it was a copyvio. feydey 16:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ive caught a bunch, but this user gives me the impression his image searches have been in some Brasilian language with which I'm unfamiliar. There are more to go. RadioKirk talk to me 21:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Minimum age for wikipedia?[edit]

Is there a minimum age for wikipedia? I'm a bit fuzzy on the subject, but I thought there was a minimum age required by law (COPPA)? I'm not sure if Wikipedia falls under this however. I ask because User:Bugman94 admits on his user page to being only 12. I don't know what should be done if anything. Could someone look into this? Thanks a bunch --Charlie( @CIRL | talk) 01:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no minimum age to edit Wikipedia. Raul654 01:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Not minimum age to edit, but minimum age to create an account. He could have given his real name, as well as email address during the signup process. A few FTC links about COPPA: I just wanted to make sure that Wikipedia is has its bases covered. --Charlie( @CIRL | talk) 01:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
What about people not in America? --Mark Neelstin (Dark Mark) 01:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no minimum age for anything. Wikipedia is the "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", so no matter who you are, as long as you follow the policies, you can edit. Prodego talk 01:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't refuting the part that anyone can edit, just anyone can create an account and give their personal information. Although it would help if I read the text of COPPA better and saw "does not include any nonprofit entity that would otherwise be exempt from coverage under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45)." Wikipedia is under the Wikimedia Foundation which is non-profit right? So I don't think we have to worry about this. --Charlie( @CIRL | talk) 01:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we are exempt because we are a nonprofit (although I saw no clause 5 in the FTC act), but COPPA is pretty clear on the matter: (1) IN GENERAL.—It is unlawful for an operator of a website or online service directed to children, or any operator that has actual knowledge that it is collecting personal information from a child, to collect personal information from a child in a manner that violates the regulations prescribed under subsection - The only things we ask are for a username, password, and an optional email address. Thus, we do not knowingly collect information from children. Raul654 02:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Awesome, I'm glad. Thanks for your help Raul, Mark and Prodego! --Charlie( @CIRL | talk) 02:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I think there should be a maximum age of 22 years. — Knowledge Seeker 02:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'll have to edit as much as I can in the next 11 months, just in case I become ineligible at that point via Knowledge Seeker's rule proposal. ;o) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think there should be a minimum age of 21 years. It seems to me that the younger users tend to either (1) use Wikipedia as their message board, sulking around pages like this, (2) vandalize pages randomly until they're blocked, or (3) write articles that only teenagers care about (e.g., non-notable bands or anime characters.) I find it disappointing that many of these younger users tend to become administrators simply because they're good at popularity contests. The older users never get praised because they aren't "cool" enough, I guess.-- 02:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
A minimum age of 21?! NWIH. There are many <21 editors here (like me) who are constructive and non-vandals. Also see User:Sango123, a very active vandalism reverter who is only 14. I can only hope that this is a joke proposal. ~Chris {t|c|e|@} 23:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
A minimum of 21 and a maximum of 22... this is starting to sound like the wikipedia triple crown where editors can work for a year and then either are bred or turned into glue :o) --Charlie( @CIRL | talk) 02:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
If this were true, we'd have a lot less vandals. Given the choice of a year of hard work and a lifetime of breeding, or a year of goofing around and a lifetime of being an adhesive, I think I know what most people would choose. :o) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
We're not going to geld any users, are we? I'd like to opt out of that. Joe 02:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
We'd have to rename the place Logan's Wiki. --bainer (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I NEW someone was going to mention that!!!Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 06:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
If only Willy were 29... Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This would be a sad thing (an age limitation on wikipedia) some of our best administrators are not exactly "old" perse. I really respect the diversity that we represent. Kukini 23:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Ilyanep is 14 and he is a great 'crat. Also I myself may get banned then.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Napster Links (copied from village pump news section)[edit]

Napster has an ad on its site recommending people place Napster Links on Wikipedia. These are links to songs that only play after (free) user registration. Napster imposes a limit of 5 plays and requires a paid subscription for further plays, or to download the song. The purpose of the links is obviously advertising. Thus, they seem to clearly violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I've sent them an email asking that they take the ad down. Either way, I think people should remove these links on sight. Anyone disagree? Superm401 - Talk 02:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is an option to include an affiliate ID in the link so people can get 5% of resulting sign-ups purchases and a commission on sign-ups (corrected Superm401 - Talk 17:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)). This provides motivation for deliberate spammers. Superm401 - Talk 02:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
If it gets bad we should add them to the blacklist. BrokenSegue 02:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Good thinking. I had forgotten about that. We should only use it if necessary, though. Superm401 - Talk 02:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Preemptive blacklisting sounds good to me. --Carnildo 03:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
That's okay with me, but people can always work around technical rules (proxies etc.) so social solutions are better. I'll let everyone know if/when Napster responds to my email; their removing the ad would definitely help the most. Superm401 - Talk 17:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
...they have an ad up asking people to spam us for them? Sheesh. Shimgray | talk | 18:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but not just us. They also recommend people spam Myspace, other blogs, and through email and chat. You can see the ad for yourself. It's still running as of now. Superm401 - Talk 22:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
That's nuts - it goes to show how a company can degenerate. They were purchased by a larger corporation, no? It might be useful to focus communications on the larger entity. This is just plain bad media relations. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 21:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe they're a public company. I still haven't received a response, despite them saying they would probably send one within 48 hours. I sent a followup email to another (less appropriate) address. Superm401 - Talk 04:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
They have an advertisement asking people to spam Wikipedia? ASKING people? To SPAM WIKIPEDIA? Well, I'm certainly not using their site. I encourage you to do the same. Meh, somebody do an indefinite IP block on Napster staff – Gurch 17:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I condone Napster for this ridculousness, I also see it as flattery of possibly the highest kind for Wikipedia. --Osbus 00:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean "condemn". ;) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Nope. I did however, mean because instead of although. --Osbus 21:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I just requested that this part of Napster's site be added to the spam blacklist. --bainer (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants to actually see it, here's the link: (click on "Ways to use napsterlinks.") The say "wiki" not "wikipedia", but this may have been recently changed. Mangojuicetalk 03:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
When I saw it this afternoon it was "Wikipedia." There response to our complaint is to make it more general and only refer to us indirectly? To be blunt, the vast majority of people think of Wikipedia when they think of a Wiki anyways. *snort*JoshuaZ 04:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The ad someone mentioned earlier is still out there ( and there probably are other ads. I don't know if Superm401 has had a response back yet. --bainer (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It still says "Wikipedia". And even if they aren't explicitly talking about Wikipedia, encouraing wiki spamming is still wrong. Placing them on the blacklist sounds like a great idea. --Cyde Weys 04:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

They don't refer to Wikipedia on the site above- that banner that's been linked to has been taken down. It now says "wiki-based websites." I still support a spam blacklist addition- not only for Wikipedia, but for all other wikis that use the SpamBlacklist addition, and don't deserve the spamming. Ral315 (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Was just about to do it myself when I noticed Raul654 beat me to it. Essjay (TalkConnect) 07:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
It has not been taken down. The text always said wiki, not Wikipedia. However, the ad (with Wikipedia), is still showing occasionally. I haven't seen the banner version recently, but playing a track results in an ad as well; I saw it yesterday there. Superm401 - Talk 13:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Did anyone get a response by email? -- Kjkolb 06:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Apparently yes, discussion is still ongoin on Wikipedia:Village pump (news). JoshuaZ 02:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Brewing edit war at Kosovo[edit]

Just wanted to give people a heads up that there is a brewing edit war (again) at Kosovo over national issues that could escalate unless headed off and unfortunately I have to get going soon or I'd do it myself. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Several of the parties involved have been in previous edit wars and unfortunately have something of a record of inflammatory POV-pushing. I've warned a number of users and given out a couple of short blocks for tag-team edit-warring. Hopefully it'll encourage them to be more cautious about making deliberately contentious edits. Having said that, since I've received a message in response saying "ChrisO IS ABUSING HIS POWERS, HE'S THE HITLER OF WIKIPEDIA !!!!!! HE'S WORSE THAN HITLER, HE'S GOT GOEBBELS PROPANGADA SCHEMING ABILITIES!!!!" I have my doubts... (Does this mean I can claim my Rouge Admin title?). -- ChrisO 23:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*cough*"rouge"?*cough* ;) RadioKirk talk to me 23:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Now tell him that his Amulet of Yendor is in the post. :-P --GraemeL (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL! Anyway, either there's a running joke of which I'm not aware, or no one knows any more how to spell "rogue". :) RadioKirk talk to me 23:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at Wikipedia:Rouge admin. Wear the badge with pride! :D -- ChrisO 23:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Aha! Thank you. Is there a similar page for "tounge"? ;) RadioKirk talk to me 23:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm absolutely not going to speculate on what actions would qualify one as a "tounge admin"... But returning ever-so-briefly to the matter in hand, this seems to have progressed to outright sockpuppetry, though I can't immediately shorten the list of suspects to fewer than two. I've filed a RCU, someone might want to check there's no recurrence in the meantime. Alai 00:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Certainly some sock- and/or meatpuppetry is likely, given the users and their edits. Beyond keeping out that which is not WP:RS, and your RCU request, I'm short of suggestions at the moment. RadioKirk talk to me 00:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm assuming tag-teaming, perhaps rising to meat-puppetry between the two long-standing accounts, and sockery by one of them: it's just not at all clear which. I suppose a block of the anon and the one-edit account might not be amiss in any case. Alai 00:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

An efficient way to stop rever warring I would encourage you to observe the time C-c-c-c, Bormalagurski and Krytan are active, and the documents they are active in (i.e. revert). Furthermore they are from the same country, and a recent investigation by an admin revealed significant similarities between the first two. This could be another indication that these alleged users could be actually one user. The abovementioned users are being involved in rever wars, and are disrespectful of Wikipedia rules, something they proved in the near past. Additionally, they have been blocked several times, sometimes even offending administrators that carried out that action. Furthermore, some of the "users" are recruiting meatpuppets to wage their revert war. Taking any action would be appreciated, for the sake of stopping revert-warriors and users that are sworn to work against Wikipedia. Best regards, ilir_pz 23:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Little help?[edit]

It would be great if someone (or several someones) could help me clear out the backlog at Category:Images with no copyright tag and Category:Images with unknown copyright status. (It would also be great if someone could explain to me why we have two separate categories for this.) Thanks! Angr (tc) 09:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

They are two seperate cat's because one is for images with no tag, and the other is for editors who are unsure of the copyright status. Will try and help out a bit. --lightdarkness (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
But adding {{subst:nld}} to an image adds a tag saying "This image does not have information on its copyright status" but puts it into Category:Images with unknown copyright status, so that category is also for images with no tag. Angr (tc) 14:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm doing a few now. Proto||type 14:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Angr (tc) 14:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The two are slightly different: Category:Images with no copyright tag is for images that simply don't have a tag: they may have license information in some other form, such as a statement of "I release this under the GFDL". Category:Images with unknown copyright status is for images where someone has actively determined that there is not enough information to apply a license tag to the image. Most, but not all, of the images in the first category belong in the second. --Carnildo 02:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


Balkan articles being Balkan articles, we're predictably enough in the midst of another round of charming edit-warring using broken English and unsourced statements. One side wants us to believe that Serbia and Montenegro is consigned to history instantly, while another is fixated on claiming electoral fraud. A neutral eye and willingness to keep things on the level would be appreciated, particularly because this is a high-profile article at present. I've worked on the article too much contentwise to serve as a 100% above-board referee, so I'm reluctant to push 3RR myself. The Tom 23:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Napster Update[edit]

I've posted an update to #Napster Links (copied from village pump news section) at Village pump news. In short, they said they've stopped but they haven't; I reminded them. Please post only at VP. Superm401 - Talk 02:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Nathanrdotcom blocked for persistently flaunting a stupidly large and garish signature[edit]

Enough is enough. I have blocked Nathanrdotcom for twelve hours for "Persistently flaunting a stupidly large signature with multiple image inclusions". --Tony Sidaway 04:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the block should be removed as soon as he removes the images from his sig (which he can demonstrate by posting to his talk page). --Cyde Weys 04:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an unnecessary escalation. I ask that you reconsider. There are better ways to handle this than blocking Nathan. -- Samir 04:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you think you could do something about that monstrosity of a signature? --Tony Sidaway 05:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the image. But I think your behaviour and your current tone is less than civil -- Samir धर्म (the scope) 06:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
This was a massive, massive abuse of power. Thankfully, Tawker overrode the block; however, Mr. Sidaway, blocking someone just because you don't like them is not a valid reason. Please, next time consider acting like a true Wikipedian instead of flaunting your stupidly large and garish power in front of others by attacking innocents (note for the sarcasm deprived; I'm not making any personal attacks. I'm just trying to outline that if you block someone because you don't like them... well. You know.) Mopper Speak! 04:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
IANAA, but I concur entirely in MOP's comments. Joe 04:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Sadly Nathan does not come out of this looking too good, but frankly his stubborness is trivial, while Tony's overreaction is worrying. I don't see anything here that warrants a block. Gwernol 05:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The blocks are becoming a bit too agressive ... and blocking someone who has a signature with 3 small flags in them (as seen in User talk:Nathanrdotcom) should not happen. Personally I don't find it too garish ... I've seen worse. Or was it some other signature from Nathan? In any case, the sig looks fine to me, and as long as the user is not breaking up anything, I don't see a reason to block him for that. Thanks. --Ragib 05:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh I "don't come out of this looking too good", do I? Two admins ganging up on me and bullying me into changing my sig and I'm the guilty party? I thought as much. Ragib: I never used more than three images in my sig. Nathan 05:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
-Ril- (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) was blocked for having a confusing signature... Alphax τεχ 05:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd also like to add that interestingly enough, this is a pretty big violation of