Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive45

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

Noticeboard archives


User:Myrtone86 blocked for 48 hours for continuing to use disruptive signature and other incivility[edit]

New section as the old one looks stale. I have blocked Myrtone86 (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for a) continuing to use a disruptive signature (an email to me confirms that he currently has no intention of changing it) and b) paranoid incivility and trolling over a period of some days, e.g:

  • here, where he removes Tony's explanation for his block with the edit summary "remove personal attack by user that possibly "talks with an American accent," never trust the Americans",
  • here where he appears to be trying to rally defence, claiming he is being "scapegoated" (for what, I can't imagine).
  • He has also been opposing RfAs for no reason - while he claims to be opposing users which don't say they are multilingual, after opposing Samir, and having it pointed out to him that Samir speaks three languages, he refused to change his vote. [1]
  • He has been making good-faith contributions to article space, but many are highly dubious [2].

Going back through his other recent contributions will find similarly dubious edits. Hopefully he might straighten out if the Wikibreak he claims to be taking is actually enforced. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a "used up the communities patience is a good reason for this paticular block. It's all the little things. --mboverload@ 09:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If the user doesn't change his signature, then perhaps it's time to start thinking about disabling raw signatures. robchurch | talk 03:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Disabling raw signatures over one user? Chuck(contrib) 19:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you realise what his sig is doing to the spam-bots that prowl this page for email addresses? :) ---J.S (t|c) 16:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Breaking them? That seems about the only positive thing about his signature game. Although maybe not, the bogus addresses are just going to be tried to be used and gum things up. Funny though. ++Lar: t/c 23:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer Government: NationStates[edit]

The May 14th activity at this (Jennifer Government: NationStates) article seems fishy, but unless this sysop knew the user requesting the edit was banned and helped him intentionally in a manner that harmed the wiki (not just the article, but the safety/security/operation of the wiki itself, the the whole thing is dumb. There is no mechcanism in place which can prevent a banned user from getting a new ISP and starting a new account. Tht being the case, what's to be gained by the banned user by going through the sysop? Unless sysop powers were needed (and given) towards a 'nefarious' end, then this penalty is excessive. Even so, a time-limited demotion is better. This admin shouldd be restored automatically after X period of time. If not, then ban the admin too. If it's so bad that an indef/permanent desysopping is warranted, the a banning is warranted to. If not, then a time-certain restoration of NSLE to admin is in order. 01:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, everyone, I've previously discussed this extensively with Jimbo and undertsand the actions of the ArbCom. I'll contnue to be in discussion over this with Jimbo, but for the meantime please just treat this as a blip in the road, and please, for my sake, drop the matter. Cheers, NSLE (T+C) at 02:49 UTC (2006-06-11)
Just for the record, I have personally asked NSLE to make a comprehensive public statement about this matter, and as far as I know he is still thinking about whether or not to do so. I hope that he will. The decision about whether or not to go public with the details is his, and one of the reasons the ArbCom kept their statement short and sweet is out of respect for NSLE's own choice so far not to make a public statement. If he wants to tell people about it, he can. :) He's a very good guy, I like him very much, and his record as an admin has been good, other than what the evidence in this case strongly suggests (sockpuppeting). -- 00:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC) (It is suspected this edit is actually from User:Jimbo Wales Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC))


I'm sorry this is probably not the best place for this, but wiki-en has grown too complicated for me to understand the procedures.

Are we accepting song lyrics now?? Because i found at least two: I Sign a Little Player or Two and José and his Amazing Technicolor Overcoat. Cheers, muriel@pt 16:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Song lyrics are copyrighted, and posting them is a copyright violation. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Unless they are so old that they are out of copyright or are public domain for some other reason. However, it is unlikely that putting the entire lyrics for a song in an article would be appropriate. -- Kjkolb 03:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete Image File History?[edit]

Image:UEIN Crest.png

Something simple. Could you please delete all the earlier revisions in the file history section of this image? Please do not delete the most current revision that is present! Spikey 22:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that for you. Could you explain why you would like this done first? Prodego talk 20:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The artist and copyright holder both no longer want the older image used or the potential for the current image to be reverted to its former state. They believe it doesn't appropriately represent the artistic vision they were striving for. Any help you can provide is appreciated. Spikey 22:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Prodego talk 15:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! Spikey 17:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we should be granting that kind of request for a reason as week as this. History delete was intended as a way to remove personal information and/or possible libal. In fact, if anyone else has edited the image, it would violate there copyright as well, wouldn't it? (GFDL requires all editors to be given credit for there work, that's what the history if for). This sorta undermines the history function... ---J.S (t|c) 15:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The image is tagged as {{logo}}, and we shouldn't have old revisions of fair use images anyway. --Rory096 19:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Shultz IV/PIHNN[edit]

Became aware of this page due to a short IRC conversation in the #wikipedia-en channel, but was unable to make the user understand that a forked piece of biased, unresearched content like this doesn't belong on this project, in any namespace. robchurch | talk 02:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Killed it with fire. To hell heck with this skirting the boundaries of WP:CSD, this is clearly not something which belongs anywhere in Wikipedia, and doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell a hot place anyway. It's at uncyclopedia:hell (place)#Other Notables now in Hell now, if anyone really wants to see it. --bainer (talk) 05:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. robchurch | talk 11:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User Martial Law is BACK, but ....[edit]

I'm back, but my sig is fouled up. Is that normal for returning users ? All I get when I sig. is the IP, not the designated sig. I'm on a satellite/wireless rig. 03:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That's because you're not logged in... Sasquatch t|c 03:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
<guinness-ad>Brilliant!</guinness-ad> --Cyde↔Weys 03:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Tried logging in. Will not remain logged in. 03:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ensure that cookies are enabled in your browser. If they are, try deleting existing cookies relating to Wikipedia. robchurch | talk 11:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ohhhhh this explains the odd message on my talk page! :) ---J.S (t|c) 15:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalbot load-sharing[edit]

AntiVandalBot (talk · contribs) and Tawkerbot2 (talk · contribs) are now load-sharing. They are both running simultaneously and trading off in a fashion such that, in the long run, each handles 50% of vandalism cases. The load-sharing mechanism is "top secret", but you should be able to figure it out if you really apply yourself (haha). If one of the bots goes down, the channel operators on IRC have been briefed in how to tell the remaining bot to handle everything. --Cyde↔Weys 03:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Load balancing anti-vandal bots? What next? Automated workload-sharing recent changes patrolling? robchurch | talk 13:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that's an awesome idea. I can't wait to see it live. As it is currently we have a fair number of users doing recent changes patrolling, but I can't imagine how much duplication of effort is involved. By the way, Vandalbot has been upgraded further so that it supports any number of clients. We have a maximum of three right now - Jude is running one. --Cyde↔Weys 23:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
When is that coming in!!! Sasquatch t|c 00:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Disputed tag is removed from Dhimmi article[edit]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disputed_tag_is_removed_from_Dhimmi_article. This was a duplicate entry. --Tony Sidaway 13:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


Gzlfb (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been around for a few months and is proving to be a troublesome user. He has, as far as I can see, made very few productive edits, and instead has spent his time trolling around Wikipedia, adding external links to sites or articles which demean Wikipedia - for example [3] and [4]. He has also been creating numerous cross-namespace redirects to his userpage (which have all now been deleted), such as Gölök Zoltán Leenderdt Franco Buday, Gölök Z. L. F. Buday and Gölök (B.J.) Buday. On top of this, he's been using his personal website(s) to bypass the spam blacklist, to redirect to websites such as WikipediaWatch and Scroogle [5]. The two websites that I have spotted he has been using to bypass the blacklist have now been added to the blacklist themselves. He's also been making personal attacks, [6] and is generally uncivil [7]. I am wondering if an indef block would be appropriate in this case – if he continues to edit, chances are he'll create more websites which bypass the spam blacklist, and will continue with his trolling. Thoughts? Thanks, — FireFox 14:35, 13 June '06

Just for some local color. I've spent some considerable energy trying to reason with this user. He seems determined to be disruptive and uncivil and persistently resorts to personal attacks at any perceived slight. I haven't seen evidence that he's willing to work within the framework of Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. At the least he needs to be watched as his editing can be quite offensive and certainly disruptive. I might suggest starting with a medium-length block (1 week? 2 weeks) to see if that helps him cool off a little. Gwernol 19:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I have also had discussions with this user, mostly over the verifibility policy. He does appear to think that information should remain in until it's a "properly proven errors", and seems to take removal of uncited (or unencyclopediac) material as a personal affront. His own autobiographic article was deleted which, at the end, had about 32 redirects pointing to it from various titles/mispellings. He has also created articles for his father Zoltán Buday and grandfather László Buday. I did trim the former article, removing things like a long list of name misspellings. The page Talk:Zoltán Buday is a reasonable summary of his general interaction, and you can see on the talk page the long list of (mostly irrelevant) external links he inserted as a response to a reminder of the verifibility policy. My own feeling is that he does not yet understand what wikipedia is not, and is treating it somewhat like a free web host. I don't think blocking is necessary at this point, and may just inflame the situation, but it would be useful if the articles in questions were trimmed and he was pointed to policy by other editors, as I think if the same people keep telling him, he may think it's personal, and not because of wikipolicy. Regards, MartinRe 10:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


User: is reinstating NPOV text in Corpus Christi Elementary School that another editor removed. See This may be the same user as User: (blocked at least once) and User:Googleyii I suggest a block. TruthbringerToronto 00:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


User:TheVirtualToolshed appears to have started their account for the sole purpose of advertising using their Userpage. Ran a helpme template, and it was suggested that I report this here as a spam-only account. Luna Santin 05:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
You could nominate their user page on MfD as well. 14:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Not necessary. Spam = vandalism. I think it's deletable on sight. I'll hold off for a bit though to allow more experienced admins to tell me I'm dead wrong, if that's indeed the case. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Uhm folks, you do realize he asked what the policy was for how his userpage could be used and hadn't reverted the blanking after talking about it? Spam sucks, but this might have just been someone clueless. Shell babelfish 18:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Substing {{deleted page}}[edit]

Should I be substing {{deleted page}}? One good reason to do it would be that articles containing these 16 characters are flooding Special:Shortpages and making that super-useful tool a lot less useful... - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not usually substed, no. This is because it might hypothetically be useful to be able to use Whatlinkshere to work something out. It's not critical, though, I guess. -Splash - tk 15:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't subst it either, it could be usefull to be able to centrally update it, if we change policy. — xaosflux Talk 16:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It shouldn't be substed, because if it is, it increases the article count at Special:Statistics. Titoxd(?!?) 23:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It already has a category in it, thus you wouldn't need to resort to Whatlinkshere. Generally I substitute it when I remember to. --Cyde↔Weys 17:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure which is the more pressing concern in substing - the use of resources in transcluding or the use of disk space - but for the sake of freeing up Special:Shortpages, I would like to run through with AWB and subst everything. Is a discussion on this page sufficient - or do I need to make sure people are ok with it elsewhere? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, seeing as there is no consensus here, I'd bring up at the pump and create a poll. Seems like a good idea. Maybe an alternitive could be a long comment tag to pull it out of the short-pages list. That's not unheard of in computing. (something like this: <!-- This is a buffer, do not delete. NNNNNNNNNNNNNN (etc)--> perhaps?) ---J.S (t|c) 19:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
There's already discussion on Template talk:deletedpage that suggested the same thing. You guys might want to review that. --Rory096 19:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

AFD for Chirotalk.[edit]

The AfD for Chirotalk has been open for 7 days. Consensus is clear... can we get an admin to review and close this please? ---J.S (t|c) 15:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Closed. Joelito (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu banned from editing heavy metal articles[edit]

I've reviewed Leyasu's recent edits and he's still edit warring even while blocked. This cannot go on.

This is the formal ban notice. Each time he edit wars on a new heavy metal-related article, the article will be added to the ban list and he will be blocked. [8]

If when he comes back from his three month block he still cannot do anything useful, I may suggest that we just go for a complete ban. --Tony Sidaway 15:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

what about hard rock?Geni 22:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Simishag's posts under Kobe Bryant[edit]

I request one of the admins please look into them objectively. The key word here is objective. First off, he continuously falsely accused me of being user Bucsrsafe when it was found the guy is not even in my continent, and this speculation led to unfair blocks on me for weeks. Now, because he is upset I am only posting the truth and making the Kobe Bryant article and others amazing (please check the kobe bryant history, I added a lot of great info there about the past), Simishag attacks me here ON THE ARTICLE ISTELF. Please check it out:


I've never done anything this bad, actually attack other users on the articles themselves. I would like to ask someone keep a close watch on this user and make sure some justice is served here. I think is his ip. Hganesan 23:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan

Some of Simi's criticisms of Hganesan, who has disrupted several NBA-related articles (at the very least, the harms caused by his POV-pushing and revert-warring have outweighed the benefits to the project from his substantive contributions), are valid; Hg is altogether correct, though, that Simi too has engaged in personal attacks, and his disruption of Kobe Bryant, illustrated by the diffs Hg adduces, is in contravention of WP:POINT and, more importantly, common sense. Neither of the two users seems inclined to partake of the collaborative aspect of the project, but at least in this instance Hg appears to be the wronged party; more to the point, Simi appears to have disrupted the project by inserting attacks against another editor and the latter's POV into mainspace. I left him a note to the effect that his conduct isn't helpful and that he might seek to make his arguments in other ways, those that eschew personal attacks and disruption and focus on improving the project and fostering a collegial atmosphere. Joe 03:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
You are correct. I apologize for my actions. I was attempting to be as non-disruptive as possible; there was already an edit war ongoing. My comments were intended as parody, but I realize this is not appropriate. I do object to the claim of "personal attacks." I don't believe I said anything that wasn't both true and easily verifiable.
I will accept whatever punishment the admins deem necessary. I hope, however, that this will at least shed a little more light on what I and other NBA-page editors have had to deal with over the last month. Where do we go from here on that issue? Simishag 03:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

NSLE desysopped[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has been made aware of very strong (but necessarily privileged) evidence that NSLE (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) abused his sysop privileges in unprotecting an article which he then used a sockpuppet to edit, and we believe that these actions were done under the direction of a permanently-banned user.

Despite repeated pleas over many weeks from the Committee for some benign reasoning of the evidence, no such satisfactory explanation was forthcoming. Thus, NSLE's administrative privileges are hereby revoked. He may not reapply for them without first obtaining the Committee's approval. The Committee would particularly like to thank Greg Maxwell and Kelly Martin for their efforts in dealing with this situation.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I attest to the veracity of the above and concur. Raul654 18:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Concur Fred Bauder 21:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Concur ➥the Epopt 21:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Concur. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Realizing that Checkuser results etc. are confidential, could you direct interested parties to the record in the log that led to this ArbCom action? What page(s) was unprotected/edited? The more transparency in this case, the better, wherever feasible. Thanks, Xoloz 20:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Xoloz give us more info, NSLE was one of our better admins, and I had no idea what is taking place Jaranda wat's sup 20:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I, too, think transparency to be a good thing and concur in Xoloz' request (I've not always been a fan of NSLE's admin activities, but I'm inclined also to concur in Jaranda's assessment of his efforts, FWIW). Joe 20:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to contact the arbitration committee privately, this information is confidential for a good reason. In the interests of disclosure, I do know the details of the case, but I will not reveal them unless the Committee does so itself.--Sean Black 21:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Good man. Snoutwood (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I saw this case come past, but missed the vital sockpuppet clue, so I left it as is. Apart from the sockpuppet (I have no checkuser), I can confirm that the above is correct. Kim Bruning 20:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Same here. I can't confirm the sock, but the rest (unprotecting an article in a quid pro quo exchange) is damningly proven publicly. I don't know if the arbcom wants the specific evidence made public so I will defer to them, but rest assured, dig hard enough and it won't be too difficult to find. Johnleemk | Talk 21:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, practically anything more said here would be a dead giveaway, and would be quite damning for NSLE. So I'm clamming my lips shut too. One last thing I can say: It was technically not his fault. Kim Bruning (after triplechecking that I really didn't give anything away with even that) 21:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
So question then... If it wasn't really NSLE's fault, then why the desysophood? Wouldn't a "Geez, NSLE, you messed that one up. Don't do it again." be in order? Or were his privileges revoked because of the lack of explanation? I'm a little confused. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 21:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if this is giving too much away, but this is only technically the fault of the banned user who used NSLE as his meatpuppet. How to interpret this I leave to you, but clearly someone has to be consciously acting as a meatpuppet. Johnleemk | Talk 21:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, Kim's comment did not add to the clarity here. I'll state the obvious by mentioning that there is some activity around the infamous Daniel Brandt in NSLE's protection log, but I see nothing improper in my superficial analysis. Xoloz 21:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Gee, some of the replies here make it seem like nobody believes we will trust the correctness of Kat's statement, that her veracity must be independently testified to. I trust ya implicitly Kat :-). NoSeptember 21:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of trust. The idea that someone can be desysopped in camera isn't thrilling, I think, and a precedent needs to be set to make anything that can be public, public. Xoloz 21:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Why do you need to know? He knows why, the Committee know why. That's more than sufficient. Titilation and curiosity is not the basis for chosing the appropriate mode of action.
James F. (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't need to know -- but generally, public disclosure of information promotes fairness and fellowship. Secrecy, contriwise, promotes speculation and rumor. The truth is good, and should be spread. The fact that I need to remind you, James F., of these axioms, coupled with your apparent assumption that my interest in disclosure is merely for the purposes of "titilation," does nothing to increase my confidence. Xoloz 02:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Me too, but I think the problem is that the same could have been said for NSLE as well. Martin 21:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. I was as surprised as you are when I saw the evidence. Johnleemk | Talk 21:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
In this instance we have endorsements from several respected editors/admins/arbitrators who are familiar with the evidence, so this is not a matter of trusting a single individual's judgement or veracity. -Will Beback 21:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, it is more about curiosity than anything else. On a different note, I hope NSLE does return as an admin eventually, admittedly I am not familiar with anything to do with this case, but I am familiar with his previous work. Martin 21:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to say "never", but after an act like this I think it would take a lot to assuage serious concerns about NSLE's trustworthiness. --Tony Sidaway 23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

So much for clamming. Those meddeling kids will blab anyway. (or worse, investigate on their own). :-P I'm really not saying another word, because in the end I think it's unnescesarily hurtful to NSLE. But if you insist on doublechecking, I can't stop the curious wikipedian spirit, so by all means, do so! When you come back here, just leave out the clues, and just go "confirm" or "deny" on this page. (that, and that way you won't leave spoilers for other curious folks too :-P ) Kim Bruning 21:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sadly I agree with this after I found out what happened privately in IRC and with research, it's a big shame and im sickened to my stomach that this has to happen. Jaranda wat's sup 21:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have better things to do with my time than deal with this kind of puzzle so I'm going for the dirrect aproach:

Is there any significant risk of further problems relating to whatever it is? yes/no.Geni 22:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Most likely. That's honestly the best answer I can give. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 22:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Well as long as those in the know are ready to deal with them I'll go back to trying to figure out internation, US and UK copyright law.Geni 22:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If the ArbCom members think it's to the advantage of the project to make this public, they'll presumably do so. It's presumably very difficult to become an arbcom member, so I think we should trust the people we've chosen, if they feel it's better to keep it confidential. After all, checkuser results aren't made public either, but only very trustworthy Wikipedians are granted checkuser privileges. I'd feel more comfortable if we could drop the speculation, hints, and half hints. I know nothing about this case. I don't want to know, unless NSLE or the committee chooses to make it public. I found him a conscientious admin. I'm sure it's horrible to be de-sysopped, so I'd like to give him as much support and sympathy as possible, while still respecting the integrity of the members of the ArbCom. AnnH 22:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It'd be really nice of everyone "in the know" weren't being so coy. We can almost hear your giggles. Really, either say nothing or say everything. Don't drop hints, just tell us or say "concur". Stop being children. --Golbez 22:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes granddad ;-). Concur. Kim Bruning 22:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC) (good wording)
Trust me on this -I am not giggling. I've just decided to remove someone's admin rights for fucks sake. We had to say he's lost his admin rights, we had to say we concur so you know the decision was taken by all of us. We are being coy because we think that's the best cause of action not because we want to titllate. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Theresa, you were not one of the people being coy, my comment was not directed towards you. My comment was mainly directed towards Kim, who oddly remained coy in his response. Very annoying. --Golbez 00:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry i got annoyed with you. I agree Kim's responses haven't been helpful. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I know what this is about (unless there was some other page unprotection involving NSLE and a banned user), but am not sure why it amounts to a desysoping. Nor do I understand the need for secrecy. The unprotection doesn't seem to have been unreasonable... is it the action on behalf of a banned user which is objectionable? That certainly could cause problems... but I don't see where it did any harm in this case. If a banned user asked me to correct a factual error, which I could verify to be an error, I would probably do it. Why not? Obviously that's not a direct parallel as the change here was not an unambiguous improvement... but nor was it in any way obviously harmful. Just a fairly generic edit which people might asthetically agree or disagree with like any other. For the record, I don't know much about NSLE except for vaguely recalling a couple sysop actions which I disagreed with (easier to remember those than others) - so my comments are not motivated by any sort of personal connection. I think alot of us have an instinctive aversion to 'secret trials' with 'secret evidence', but even knowing the details I'm not sure what was driving this desysoping. The idea of 'exchanging favors' with a banned user absolutely could be a very bad thing... I just don't see where it actually was in this case. Very dangerous / questionable ground to stray out onto, but what actual harm was done? --CBDunkerson 23:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It amounts to a desysopping because it was a very grave abuse of admin powers in the service of a banned user. --Tony Sidaway 23:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
C'mon Tony, that's hyperbole. If it had been a "very grave abuse of admin powers" you would think someone would have reversed it... rather than this 'horiffic' admin action standing unchallenged to this day. The 'in service of a banned user' part seems to be the actual complaint and I can see cause for concern there, but don't make false claims about the actual action itself having been harmful or abusive. It was a perfectly routine and reasonable unprotect that nobody objected to until they found out that 'the banned user' had requested it. The upshot seems to be - 'don't do things asked for by banned users even if they cause no apparent harm to Wikipedia'. Or perhaps just, 'do not offend the PTB'. --CBDunkerson 23:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Very vague - which article, which banned user? It would be more serious if it were a featured article than a stub, etc. --Telex 23:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Ask the Arbitration Commmittee if you have a reason to know. --Tony Sidaway 23:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm guessing that means if you have to ask, you don't need to know ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
No, it means what it says, no more and no less. --Tony Sidaway 23:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is, if a banned user contacts you and asks you to make a change to a protected article (or allow one to be made), and you happen to think the banned user's request is reasonable, the correct thing to do is bring it here and ask the community how they think you should proceed. Our actions must be transparent as well. BD2412 T 23:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Our actions must be transparent, but the Arbcom can make backroom decisions? --Golbez 23:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I greatly respect everyone who has concurred with this, including you, and my respect is in no way lessened or dented. I'm just annoyed at the teasing we've gotten, mostly by those who were not the original ones to concur. My comment above, however, was aimed at BD, not at the Arbcom - I wanted to wake him up to the comment he was making. --Golbez 00:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying that ArbCom should make decisions in secret, but admin activities must be in the open irrespective of what we ask of ArbCom. BD2412 T 03:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, not a hotbed for intrigue and secrecy. If someone made a mistake, then let everyone know about it so as to not make the same mistake while writing this encyclopedia. --Telex 23:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Let me help you out "NSLE abused his sysop privileges in unprotecting an article which he then used a sockpuppet to edit, and we believe that these actions were done under the direction of a permanently-banned user". Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
So what? If it improved the quality of the encyclopedia, then good for him. --Telex 00:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Laughs. We know stuff about this case that you do not. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed - why don't we change that? Sharing (knowledge) is good. --Telex 00:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Other members of the AC have advised secrecy in this case for potentially important reasons. So sorry but you will just have to trust our judgement in this case. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not want to know, for reasons that it is not wise to spill beans so that we get more of this type of editing by proxy. Banned users are banned for a reason, and if we reward them in this way, it becomes a game to try and find an admin who wants to help. In that case, why ban them in the first place. For that reason, I think it is very wise that they do not provide the details. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Just one non-admin's opinion: I don't think revealing the details would be all that constructive. It's not going to resolve the matter or magically make anything better. Given that the info could hurt Wikipedia if it got out, it isn't worth satisfying curiosity. — Nathan (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Those who know what went on hinting that there is something that could potentially cause great damage to the project or is of an extremely embarrassing or humiliating nature is not helping things. This may lead to wild, unfounded rumors and conspiracy theories. I don't think that anything else needs to be said about the confidential aspects. With a project like Wikipedia, I think that disclosure is usually the least harmful way to go. In extreme cases where something needs to be kept confidential, don't encourage speculation. They did do the right thing in giving a general idea of what happened, otherwise speculation would be much worse. Still, I suspect that it may become a widely known "secret". Too many people already know, interest is very high and in my experience the vast majority of people are incapable of keeping secrets, especially when the truth getting out won't be harmful to them personally. -- Kjkolb 02:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Yep, making those kinds of insinuations doesn't help. I haven't, personally, been able to find any evidence of meatpuppeting, but I'm not familiar with the edit patterns of all banned users, so it's quite possible that I missed the meatpuppet edits. Or I may simply be stupid. I have faith in more than one (actually more than ten) of the users who state that there was wrongdoing, and so I have no problem with accepting that. In any case, I think some of the replies here have been unhelpful in terms of calming the situation. -- Pakaran 04:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I think all this discussion is not helping any. I know people want to know, but people's privacy is sometimes more important than transparency. (After all, if the process is transparent, the charges and evidence don't have to be). There's no need to air NSLE's dirty underwear for all to see, and even the variety of "clues" that have already been given away are probably too much because they just encourage gossip and rumor. What has happened has happened. Those of us who don't know will simply have to live with that fact. --Bachrach44 02:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Repeating what I've said below, thanks for your support, everyone, I've previously discussed this extensively with Jimbo and understand the actions of the ArbCom. I'll continue to be in discussion over this with Jimbo, but for the meantime please just treat this as a blip in the road, and please, for my sake, drop the matter. Cheers, NSLE (T+C) at 02:50 UTC (2006-06-11)
A blip on the radar? A bump in the road? We mixing our idioms now? ;-) Good luck. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 03:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/BRSG - I would thank the user that gave a me hint but I don't know if he wants to be "outed". And apologies if this is not it, but it matches everything. --SPUI (T - C) 19:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume the complete and utter inability to keep a secret is meant to be a proof of There Is No Cabal? Has it occured to no one, to let simply NSLE resign from adminship for personal and refraining from teasing about the reasons? --Pjacobi 03:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I learned about this via the Signpost, and after reading through this entire section, I have to agree with Xoloz and Jaranda. After reading what was posted here, even though I had no previous knowledge of any of the parties or the article involved, it took me all of 2 minutes to discover the details via Google. And if I can do it, surely anyone reading this can, as well; therefore it seems to me in the interests of Wikipedia to simply air the facts in a fully transparent, NPOV, and dispassionate manner, rather than stimulate endless speculation. No, I won't do it myself, because there seems to be a near-consensus that it would be a bad idea, but I believe I can make a good argument that secrecy in this case actually increases the likelihood of harm to Wikipedia and recurrence of the problem. And more importantly, the immediate background of the issue (as opposed to whether NSLE's conduct warranted desysopping or milder censure) is something that should be discussed openly on Wikipedia (probably not here, but somewhere in the project namespace). But at this point it's not even possible to do that, since it would necessarily involve disclosing the background of the case. --MCB 05:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I wish that this could be archived. At this point, all that's going on is speculation and I think that's unfair to NSLE. Just archive this someone. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the blanking, as this is a serious issue that is being discussed, and to remove it smacks of censorship. If the ArbCom wishes to avoid this speculation, they can confirm the details. --SPUI (T - C) 14:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow this whole thing makes me uneasy... If NSLE wasn't an admin, would they be getting the same kind of protection? Also, do we realy want the ArbCom to act as a secret-cabal, even with good cause? Is one user's reputation worth the posible long-term damage that this can cause to the reputation to ArbCom? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know. I don't have the awnsers here. It just makes me uneasy. ---J.S (t|c) 15:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's fair to say that anyone else would get similar protection. For instance in the motion to restrict StrangerInParadise to a single account, he was eventually restricted and has evidently chosen the alternative account. The Committee is aware of the other account's name but has not disclosed it, for privacy reasons. StrangerInParadise's other account was not associated with other abuse. Neither account is an admin.
Editors at all levels of Wikipedia may occasionally handle confidential information and should make an effort not to disclose it without good reason. The Arbitration Comittee is no different. The administrators have been informed, and anybody who has a good reason to know what exactly happened can ask the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Except that, having read the background of the case via a Google search, I still do not see the need for confidentiality regarding the background and circumstances of the case. Yes, the case indirectly involves something that should remain confidential -- NSLE's identity and personal details -- but much more information about the case, specifically, the article and edits involved, the identity of the banned user involved, the specific conduct NSLE was accused of, the specific nature of the evidence, etc., could all be disclosed without compromising NSLE's privacy. However, ArbCom and others have clamped a complete veil of secrecy over the whole thing. It's not that I don't believe they came to the correct decision or that NSLE did not receive due process, it's that the secrecy has prevented any sort of discussion of the policy and process issues involved, or of how to prevent a similar threat to Wikipedia's integrity in the future. --MCB 16:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Not everything an organisation does--particularly one that handles confidential information--is done in broad daylight. What NSLE did, anyone with a sysop bit could do. There are strong policies against everything he did, and he still went ahead. He knew what he was doing. No sysop should ever do it. So he lost his bit. People have lost the bit for far, far less. --Tony Sidaway 16:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Tony (if that was directed as a reply to my remarks), as I said, I don't challenge the ArbCom's decision, and if I had sat as an arbitrator, I almost certainly would have come to the same conclusion. What I am criticizing is the veil of secrecy over the entirety of the facts of the case, when that is clearly unnecessary in order to protect NSLE's personal information. No one, to my mind, has made a case that open discussion of the background and facts of the case, the article and edits involved, the evidence, etc., would in any way compromise any confidential information. If you disagree, please feel free to make that justification, either here or by email. --MCB 16:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
You know, I'm as curious as anyone - but I trust the ArbCom, and I see no pressing need to add ritual humiliation to NSLEs woes. He'll tell us if he doesn't mind us kowing. Leave it be. Just zis Guy you know? 22:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This issue will come up again in a few month when NSLE decides to re-apply for adminship. Why should I, or the community, trust NSLE with the mop if we know nothing about why he lost it in the first place? If he was de-syoped, it because he was a danger to the community, right? Like I said... this makes me uneasy. ---J.S (t|c) 21:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • For that matter why shouldn't we trust him if he did: all I am aware of are the good contributions. Although, it wouldn't get to that because of the block on reapplying that ArbCom created. Ian13/talk 19:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

New England[edit]

When convenient, it would be great if someone could take a look at the vandalism going on at the New England article. One user has been deleting things from the article and inserting profanities from various different IP addresses and user names, also violating WP:3RR. Thanks. --AaronS 14:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeepers, things were really out of control there. (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) seems to have violated 12RR. I've just plonked him/her for a solid week, for continuously reverting everyone in sight, for disruption, and for personal attacks, mostly against User:Yanksox. I've also s-protected the article, as this is the third IP to go nuts on the page. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for catching this. It is getting to be impossible to figure out what needs attention on this page. Jkelly 04:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


Many users at WikiProject Television Stations are very upset at User:BenH over his unsourced and unverified (and, frankly) BS info. He also rewrites well written articles and makes them substandard. WP:BLOCK#Users_who_exhaust_the_community.27s_patience comes into play. Please block this guy forever. Thanks. --CFIF (talk to me) 20:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I can definately see how he's being uncooperative and yet he seems to have a really good grasp of wikisyntax, so its hard to think that this is out of ignorance. In the interest of assuming good faith, I'm going to try a 24 hour block to get his attention and see if that might get him talking. I'm amazed he's been here 6 months and never once used any talk page. Shell babelfish 22:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I also looked into this situation and support your action.--Alabamaboy 17:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sohh, its content and its related editors[edit]

The page in question is, a seemingly notable web forum for the hip-hop community. I don't believe the page is deserving of deletion, and so I'm not bringing it to AfD but there's no way for me to maintain this page on my own. The page is, as I'm sure you can tell, riddled with profanity, non-notability, fancruft, personal attacks and so on. I brought the page down to a managable copy source in this edit, but I recognize that this sort of mass deletion is unlikely to hold, especially in such a heavily edited page (10 edits/hour-ish?). IMO, the page should be semi-protected and restored to my version or a version similar to that. How should this be handled? Wes! &#149; Tc 02:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The article as of now is horrible ... it is completely nonsense, incoherent, and full of libelous comments. I've put it to AfD. --Ragib 04:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
AFD for it is over here.--Andeh 13:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Very odd[edit]

Anyone care to delete:

I have no idea what prompted this (and have asked, see [12]). In some absurd sense I suppose I'm involved, so shouldn't delete these myself, but really ... -- Rick Block (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Jkelly 04:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please delete[edit]

Can somebody please delete Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/class="standard-talk"? I don't know if this is a joke or what, but it needs to be gone. And, how is it possible that it was created by an IP? --GeorgeMoney T·C 15:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. I think the IP was able to create it because it's a talk page. The anon & new user restriction on creating new pages only applies to articles: talk pages are fair game, and rightly so. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian Wood "move"[edit]

Rst20xx copied the content of Brian Wood (illustrator) to Brian Wood instead of moving it, thereby losing the complete edit history... Not sure what to do here, but maybe an admin could just delete Brian Wood and then move the previous version of Brian Wood (illustrator) (the current one is a redirect) there. --Fritz S. (Talk) 16:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Now appears fixed. Ian13/talk 17:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding release of information about persons[edit]

I was contacted personally by a person in a position of public office that I had released information (to the wikipedia) about. My feeling at the time was that this information was insignificant. The person in question asked that I redact the information on the basis that the security detail (in this case, united states federal law enforcement) assigned to them felt it would compromise their security. I can imagine a way or two in which this could be the case, however remote.

So, I am wondering what the policy is on redacting information on public articles (this is not a "right to disappear" issue). It seems to me that it would be hard to entirely remove such information as we have mirrors, caches, etc. However, I am convinced that the person in question is correct.

Lastly, I feel confident that I can go and remove that information (from our local copy, which should eventually propagate to all those mirrors and caches) without arousing attention directed at it (thus invalidating the whole procedure of removing it anyways). ... aa:talk 19:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this information properly cited from reliable sources, if so I'm not sure what difference appearance on wikipedia has, if not then it shouldn't be here anyway? --pgk(talk) 19:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Pgk. Where the information is verifiable and notable, the prospective security risks, as a wholly unencyclopedic concern, ought not to militate against our removing it. Even WP:BLP (which is, of course, only a guideline and not policy) isn't intended to address situations in which physical harm may befall a subject, and so I think no further action on our part to be necessary (as avriette and Pgk intimate, though, one imagines that if the information is sourced, it will be otherwise publicly available; Wikipedia and its mirrors, to be sure, happen to be more readily reached via Internet searches, but if one who is intent on assaulting a given public official likely isn't going to be deterred by his/her having to sift through several pages of Google returns). Joe 02:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

please let me know if I'm not using this noticeboard properly[edit]

could someone please check user:M+a-k e h*im h-u-mble (remove spaces, dashes, symbols). if it turns out this user is not abusive or tricky, lemme know. thanks, CrackityKzz 21:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what your problem is with User:Makehimhumble. I see he's trying to make some point about Philadelphia transplant, but he only has 2 (vandalism) edits. If you want to report persistent vandalism, try WP:AIV, but the user seems to have stopped. Try talking to him on user talk if you are having a dispute. SCHZMO 21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
my oops. I didn't notice that what s/he did was quickly undone. thanks for your attention. CrackityKzz 23:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User discovered vandalising a ton of pages[edit]

I reported this on long-term abuse, but I think it needs to be considered that this user is blocked from any further editing until this is sorted out. The user has expressed on their talk page they don't care about wikipedia policy and will do what they want. The user has a very long history of over-linking pages. Essentially going in and linking every word he can find and marking every single edit he makes as minor. User:Eep² is the user, Special:Contributions/Eep² are his contribs. I've been going through trying to clean it up, but honestly its probably going to take a team of at least a dozen to go through and clean this up. This is an example of what he did on one article and I've found this on many many more articles as I've gone through his contribs [13] --Crossmr 00:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Neighborhoods and projects in Detroit, Michigan[edit]

User:CNC is doing some odd things with this page and, despite a couple of messages on his/her talk page, continues unabated. FWIW, the article as it is is pretty shoddy. I believe it was created by consolidating a whole host of really awful little stubs. But a few of the articles were left as standalone articles with links to them on this page. But CNS is copying the unwikified text of these articles and pasting it into the article. I don't think it really qualifies as vandalism per se, but it is certainly not improving the article. If there's anyone with more tact in dealing with non-communicative editors, I'd appreciate some help here. olderwiser 01:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

CNC is at it again. I notice that s/he was also reported for 3RR as well.[14] CNC is needlesly duplicating poorly written content across multiple articles. Some of it is an unwikified copy and paste of other articles, and some of it appears to be copyvios from external sites. Repeated requests to engage in discussion about the edits have been completely ignored. I'm not sure at what point this rises to the level of being blockable or if there are other avenues to consider. olderwiser 16:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked the account until we get a commitment that they will stop pasting content unfreely-licensed content into articles and discuss changes on Talk pages. Jkelly 18:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Some updates, and discussion about the best set of options is in progress on MediaWiki talk:Ipboptions, comments on that page are always welcome! — xaosflux Talk 13:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Username "crazy mofo"[edit]

Isn't this username against what a user name is? "Mofo" is in reference to mother fucker and ought to be changed, shoulddn't it? (or user blocked)

Jean-Paul 14:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Talk to me!

It doesn't strike me as offensive as is. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 15:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It is not a question of whether it offends a given admin or not. The question is WP:U, which says:
  • Names that are recognised as (in html comment: racial/ethnic/national/religious/ideologic/homophobic/generic) slurs or insults
  • Names that refer to or imply sexual acts or genitalia, including slang, innuendo, and double entendre
  • Names that refer to or allude to reproductive or excretory functions of the body
This username is all of those things, and probably more besides. It should be blocked. -Splash - tk 15:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it only offends the policy by the narrowest interpretation. I think it's fine. Exploding Boy 15:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If we ban this name, we should also ban any names including the terms crud and poo. --AaronS 15:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
And why not? What need is there, among all the words in all the languages in the world, and all the non-words in non-languages and all the non-words that aren't even not in languages, to use those that offend people? Look around you at those referred to as "established editors", those likely to make a good impression, and the admins (in case they are disjoint from the others...). Do any of them have a username along those lines? -Splash - tk 17:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
"(1) nobody necessarily needs to have such a username; (2) "good" editors don't have those kinds of usernames; (3) therefore, you are justified in restricting people from having such usernames." Fine, then. Nobody should be allowed to be called Zolorlororororplax, either. --AaronS 18:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Excellent, I needed some inspiration for my new sockpuppet. Zolorlororororplax 17:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. "Crud" and "poo" are different (though "poo" might be acceptable in some cases---Mikeypoo, or similar). Exploding Boy 17:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with it. "Crazy Mofo" is an example of a phrase where the meaning of the phrase is different from the sums of the meanings of the parts. --Carnildo 17:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the name is fine. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

fwiw, I see no issues with the name. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Did you mean User:Crazymofo? There is no User:Crazy mofo so far as I can tell. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
There's a User:Crazy mofo and User:Crazymofo, but no User:Crazy Mofo. :P Anyway, the names don't seem particularly offensive. — TheKMantalk 19:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The username is fine, law firms use it, for example, - Merzbow 23:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
That said, this name seems fine. -- Jared Hunt 21:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly confusing user name[edit]

I just ran across a relatively new user, DrLeebot (talkcontribs). As I understand the user name policy, this name might be misleading since the user isn't actually a bot. Since I don't have any practical experience in dealing with questionable user names, I haven't contacted the user about this issue. Someone who has more experience in this area may or may not want to ask him to change his user name. --TantalumTelluride 19:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Leebot could very well be their last name. Chuck(contrib) 19:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It probably is his (or her) last name. The name could still be confusing, though. But like I said, I don't know what the precedent is for enforcing the user-name policy. --TantalumTelluride 19:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Essentially there has to be a consensus that the username violates the policy for it to be changed against their will. Best of course in all cases is to ask them first very politely to consider the policy and how their name might be a problem. In this case if it was DrLeeBOT I could see a problem, but as it is I don't, so no need to even ask them to change it. - Taxman Talk 21:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I concur. I considered this myself seeing the user's name before, but dismissed it. It's pretty clear that it's not a bot. I don't really think there's a problem, though I certainly understand your position. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 21:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. That's exactly what I wanted to know. I didn't know how strict "the community" might be on this issue. The wording of the policy leaves plenty of room for interpretation, so I thought I should ask here before even suggesting that the user change his or her name. Thanks again. --TantalumTelluride 21:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd be more concerned by the fact that an account with less than a page of contributions has not only found AFD, but decided to vote in it, then with the confusing nature of the name-- 15:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
That's not surprising, since pages nominated for deletion have prominent links to their respective AfD subpages. I'd be more concerned about an unregistered anon who has already found the admins' noticeboard, knows how to use Special:Contributions, and is familiar with the deletion process. ;-) --TantalumTelluride 16:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Unless of course the user doesn't mind, I don't think there is a big reason why he should be renamed. -- Jared Hunt 21:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks on Admins[edit] (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is currently placing unsigned messages on at least three admin talk pages at the same time. SatuSuro 01:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • 2006-06-17 01:05:55 Tony Sidaway blocked " (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (Infantile troll)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaosflux (talkcontribs)
Only 3 hours? Tony's in a nice mood today... Sasquatch t|c 18:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that's my normal block period for nuisances:

You'll see a lot of indefinite blocks on my block log, but those are arbitration enforcements, banned editors, socks, etc. Bona fide editors rarely merit longer than a few hours. --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Username: Not Diablo[edit]

Username may have been intended to attack administrator Mailer Diablo.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 17:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have been around a few weeks without doing anything objectionable. If you're concerned, why not ask at User talk:Not Diablo? User seems to be responsive, use Talk pages, etc. Jkelly 18:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that people are getting too overreactive here. Diablo is a popular word and the admin in question's name is Mailer Diablo. If this "attack" user was named "Not Mailer Diablo" then it would be a obvious attack, but it isn't. Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 21:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, Diablo is a common name, so unless the user is making attacks against Mailer Diablo, I see no reason to believe it has anything to do with them. The Ungovernable Force 06:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User: Turdbitch[edit]

Violation of the username policy and has started to vandalise. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 00:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Exploding Boy 00:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

material deleted from my user talk page[edit]

user: HappyCamper deleted a message to me on my user talk:Rick Norwood page. I have no idea why he did it. There may be an innocent explanation. But I do not like the idea of someone deleting material from my user talk page without discussing it with me. Here is the record of the message and the deletion:

(cur) (last) 23:25, 17 June 2006 HappyCamper m (Reverted edits by Michael D. Wolok (talk) to last version by Beneaththelandslide) (cur) (last) 23:02, 17 June 2006 Michael D. Wolok

I appreciate any help you can give.

Rick Norwood 00:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think HappyCamper reverted the page because the user who added it is spamming tons of talk pages with the same message. -- Kjkolb 00:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that appears to be the case. HC simply reverted spam. He did not delete anything, and he was providing a service. If you would like the info restored, simply revert it yourself. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This is baloney. I was not spamming anybody. I was trying to find one advocate who knew the subject matter, agreed with my position, and had the time to help me. I was also trying to get more responsible, intelligent Wikipedians involved in the article, and the issue at hand. I do not know why I should not be allowed to find a sympathetic advocate or mediator. I have been trying to get an advocate and mediation for over a month. I emailed the Wikipedia foundation, posted my request on notice boards all to no avail. My time is valuable. I get the feeling like this is some kind of game, and I don't have time for playing games. There should be someone at Wikipedia who would help editors like me find a suitable advocate. I don't know who Lethe is or why he has so much power. But it is clear he is violating Wikipedia policy. Michael D. Wolok 07:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC) (talk · contribs)[edit]

This AOL user is attempting to merge an article with another without a concensus, and in disregard for the fact that the article is an umbrella article for 3 other military operations. They have resorted to personal attacks against me [16] calling me a "non-entity". --zero faults |sockpuppets| 02:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • no, I just don't respond to users who are supposed to be indefintly blocked from editing, and certianly not when they're using strawmen-- 02:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • also, this isn't a chat room, this is a noticeboard, please refrain from abusing this venue to air personal grievances-- 02:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please ban this AOL Anon, they have now violated WP:OWN with this statement (I don't respond to the indefintly blocked, anyone else on the entire planet, they can revert it, you can't) Also anyone can see I am not blocked. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 02:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • As I've already stated, this is not a chat room, and you are abusing this space, either way, had your strawman not attempted to compromise the integrity of an antivandalism-bot, I'd have had no reason to become invloved at all, that said, you're stuck with me until such time as someone takes you off my hands-- 02:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
You (User: have been blocked for 3 hours for violation of WP:NPA. Naconkantari 02:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Now they are using AOL socks to avoid the 3RR rule. [17] The new IP is User: Can we get a semi-protection status on the article please to stop anon users from editing it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 02:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • you should talk, using socks, that's quite funny, in an ironic sort of way, or at least it would be if it wasn't so sad-- 02:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken on who I am, so I will just ignore you from now on. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 02:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • you seem to have misunderstood this all rather badly, my only concern is that you, or any other person you may or may not be, not attempt to disrupt the normal operations of either of the antivandalism bots, beyond that I really don't care what you do-- 02:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The antivandalism bots are not perfect and may be reverted. Naconkantari 02:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it actually wasn't trying to revert it, rather it was trying to argue that it was a biased POV pusher and needed to be blocked for it's right wing pov pushing, taking a bit of liberty with the paraphrasing, but you get the jist of it, as i said, the user I'm refering to now, was a strawman trying to disrupt antivandalism activities, to draw admin attention to the article in question, just as I diffuse the situation, in sweeps zero to draw yet more attention to the article-- 03:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
If you'd like to start from the same branching point that I did, then you probably want to start here, but frankly it's a non-issue at this point, so it's probably best if everyone just moves on, myself included-- 03:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and he called me a vandal, how cute-- 03:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, so....[edit]

So I stumbled upon this today: User_talk:Srose/Love. It is a dedicated talk page intended to be used by two otherwise upstanding users, Yanksox and Srose, for the sole purpose of repeatedly telling each other how much one loves the other (seriously: Quoth: I LOVE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!! Srose 16:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC) -- I LOVE YOU, TOOOOOOO! Yanksox 16:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC) - and it manages to get worse), and carying on inane small talk not dissimilar to a chat room (in terms of frequency and meaningfulness of posts). The type of activity here is best suited to IRC or IM or whatever kids use these days (hello, telephones?), and has no place in a discussion forum meant for encyclopedia editors. Mind you, Wikipedians have (somehow) carried out more useless and rediculous conversations in the past (to say the least), but to have a page dedicated to such drivel seems over the top, and although harmless and in the userspace, it simply doesn't belong here and violates the spirit of our talk page guidlines. I was going to MfD it and warn the users, but on the inside I am an unsentimental old man with a hardened little grinch heart with no patience for such poppycock, so I'll see if others aggree first before dashing their puppy love forum on the jaged rocks of wikipolicy like so many discarded Hollywood hookers. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

So it is a violation of Wikipedia:no terms of endearment? --TeaDrinker 03:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I was serious - it (the page) doesn't belong. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Per guidelines, If you want to communicate privately, try using e-mail. Per policy, If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. I would talk with Srose stating this is not the proper medium, and kindly request the user to mark the page with {{db-owner}}. Hopefully they will understand. -- ReyBrujo 03:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Could someone please protect the article Slovenians? In the last few weeks, two users are constantly edit warring there. --Eleassar my talk 09:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. There is absolutely no discussion going on about acceptable sources for population figures, which is what the edit warring is about. --ajn (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Lethe continues to violate all these Wikipedia policies or rules[edit]

Lethe is an administrator yet violates all these Wikipedia policies and rules. Is there anything that can be done about this? He is extremely patronizing. He never apologizes for his his mistakes. Time and again he wrongly accuses me of writing something patently false, that later turns out to be an undisputed truth. He reverts everything I add in its entirety. If another adds the exact same thing, he does not revert it.

To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.

So, when you can reasonably assume that something is a well-intentioned error, correct it without just reverting it or labeling it as vandalism.

Especially, remember to be patient with newcomers, who will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's culture and rules. Correcting a newly added sentence that you know to be wrong is also much better than simply deleting it.

You should not act like their mistake was deliberate. Correct, but don't scold.

Avoidance The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place.

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to.

Michael D. Wolok 17:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't use = to create a separation like that it creates subsections. --Crossmr 17:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence to these accusations? Naconkantari 18:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This editor seems to be somewhat confused. From the low volume and quality of his edits [18] and the high number of blocks he has nevertheless attracted [19] I expect that he has come to harbor a grudge against administrators. --Tony Sidaway 22:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what Michael is spefically referring to, but I'm not surprised he's being reverted for edits like these (I myself reverted him twice when he was inserting commentary into that article). He would be better off trying to understand the policy of verifiability instead of spamming everyone in sight looking for an "advocate". --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Blintz (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log)

I seek another opinion of this user, who has been warned a few times that comments like those in this AfD, on his talk page (review the whole page at that point, its short, and shows evidence of multiple warnings) and on mine (review the thread at that point) are bordering on incivility. I'm inclined to give a either another warning, or a short block but want to make sure I'm not too closely involved and missing something. I let it sit for a day to return myself fully to calm... Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 21:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

My advice, walk away. pschemp | talk 22:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Please check his work on Fabulous.. I will reach the 3RR in one two moves. ackoz Flag of the Czech Republic.svg 22:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

One or two moves? Wikipedia isn't a boardgame. Although that would be an awesome merchandising idea. Anyway, he hasn't re-reverted yet... but his insertion of this picture not only borders on vandalism, but feels eerily familiar. I've warned him about it anyway, but does anyone remember this kind of editing? Could it be a sockpuppet? --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
His next move was to remove the db tag I added to the image. ackoz Flag of the Czech Republic.svg 23:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Also check Image:NotFabulous.JPG ackoz Flag of the Czech Republic.svg 23:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I deleted both pics and will make sure Fabulous (the redirect) doesn't get messed around with. Sasquatch t|c 00:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Willy Nilly[edit]

May have a point. There were no contribs, and there was no warning. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Obscuring standard layout[edit]

I came across a user who is using absolutely-positined <div>s to "replace" the title on his user and talk pages. I think it's a cool hack, but I think it's ultimately a bad idea. I believe users should have relatively wide latitude in how they decorate their user pages, but I think that obscuring the title or any part of the standard layout is a bad idea (I have no problem with the little tabs people use to indicate their online status or such). Normally if I saw someone hacking their user page in this manner, I would edit it and leave him a note, but in this case it's a well-established editor. I requested he change it, but he politely declined. Am I overreacting to a minor issue? This case is relatively innocuous, though if others engage in this practice, it could be confusing (and I can think of some malicious uses for this sort of hack). What do others think? — Knowledge Seeker 05:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that that hack doesn't work on non-standard skins, but if Moe doesn't mind that, I don't see a problem. Don't understand the "standard layout" issue, anyone who finds there way to a user talk page is unlikely to be confused by a pretty title, nor can I think of any "malicious uses". Also, this isn't an admin matter and would be better situated at the village pump. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit protected page: Template:Unsigned2[edit]

As it has been done for Template:Unsigned, the appended comment that gets substituted to every usage of this template, and there are many even in a single talk page, should be deleted. The comment is unnecessary and excessive. —Centrxtalk 05:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Matter closed: A kind, gentle administrator has responded to my frenzied cries for help and corrected the problem. —Centrxtalk 06:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


I was blocked on English Wikipedia en:User:Brasoveanul, even if no evidences have been provided. I requested a CheckUser and that proves that I was blocked illegal. I request to be unblocked now. The Admin that blocked me didn't provide any evidences and he will not be able to provide any. They harrast me. And they blocked my page. --Brasoveanul

It's very true that now all the Romanian editors will be blocked soon. These russian admins have begun to block all romanians, e.g. en:User:Constantzeanu. --Brasoveanul

A CheckIP will demonstrate that I'm innocent. Please help. --Brasoveanul

Apparently, you are a sock account of banned user User:Bonaparte, [20]--MONGO 10:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, but that is not an evidence. I asked for the evidences and I asked the CheckUser. Jayg said it's not the case. Please, reconsider. I feel like this is a campaign against romanians. See User:Greier, he was also blocked as sock of apparently Bonaparte 4 days ago indefinitely, then he was unblocked. Many mistakes happens. --Brasoveanul 10:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Result of the CheckUser: "The evidence is inconclusive" [21] Jayjg (talk) --Brasoveanul
Brasoveanul is certainly a sockpuppet of Bonaparte. The clearest evidence of this are the constant accusations of Anti-Romanianism and his prejudice against User:Mikkalai. I can dig for diffs if anyone feels it necessary. --Tēlex 10:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
No. You and Khoikhoi you just want to block innocent people. You said this to a lot of other romanians so far. --Brasoveanul

CheckUser is by no means the only indication of a sockpuppet, and who says Bonaparte is now one person, or ever was? Of course, now you've invoked the law of the Cabal, I guess the jig's up. Seriously, we're trying to do something productive and fighting a lot of prejudice and incompetence and general malinformedness from the media (who else?) and you're fucking about pushing your nationalistic little disputes all over our web site. Go and vandalise some other little web site, or better yet, a bus stop or something. robchurch | talk 11:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh my ...If I will block you and you didn't made anything wrong and I say that you're one of the former blocked user, tell me how do you feel? Just great, I suppose! Ok, let me blocked you for being a sock. It's good that way? No. I don't think so. So better don't try to make personal attacks on me or other users. Who said fucking? Why fucking? Control yourself. --Brasoveanul

Good lord...and these people are allowed to edit? Your overreaction and poor behaviour in the face of a reasonable assertion is what's causing people to disagree with you. Stop with the straw arguments, start explaining why your past behaviour was not disruptive or otherwise in violation of basic policies and common sense, and start people along the road to realising their mistake, if it exists. robchurch | talk 12:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My overreaction you say? If one get's permmanent blocked even if he's innocent how should he feels or talk? Just feel great I suppose after your mind. You're wrong. --Brasoveanul
First I have to see all the facts that I'm accused of and to be shown the evidences. If there are not, and I know for sure there aren't (unless they are fabricated) I should be immediately unblocked.--Brasoveanul See also here:
Result of the CheckUser: "The evidence is inconclusive" [22] Jayjg (talk) --Brasoveanul
I say we block that IP address for block evasion. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 12:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I should be able to defend myself. --Brasoveanul

See the results:

Result of the CheckUser: "The evidence is inconclusive" [23] Jayjg (talk) --Brasoveanul
There's no prerequisite for you to have to be able to defend yourself on WP:AN. Defend yourself on your talk page. As you are evading your block, it is block evasion, regardless of what you're evading your block for. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 12:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I posted on META WIKIPEDIA, they told me to post it here: --Brasoveanul

Have you attempted the dispute resolution process? If you wish, you can request a CheckUser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser (try logging out to edit the page). Please understand that the Meta-Wiki does not oversee Wikipedia, and there is little we can do to help you with your problem. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 12:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Bonaparte's other sockpuppet User:Excaliburo did the same thing when he was caught [24]. Bonaparte, what you are doing is called WP:TROLLING.--Tēlex 12:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You only quoted half of what Jayjg said.

The evidence is inconclusive, but if the edit pattern is the same then you don't need CheckUser. Jayjg (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If the edit pattern is the same you don't need CheckUser. I have blocked that IP address for block evasion. Give up. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 12:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit war on Serbs of Croatia[edit]

This page was under edit war previously, then I protected it and requested discussion, no discussion ensued, I then unprotected the page and promised to block next person to make undiscussed revert, and I just did that as you can see here. But, the only problem is that I feel manipulated by User:Luka Jačov, as you can see from the former link, and I'm not sure the edit war will end here. And protecting of the page didn't help. As being new and underexpirienced administrator, I request help from mode experienced ones. What is to be done? Protect the page? Make WP:RfAr? Block everybody for a week and get drunk? Feel free to unblock the users I just blocked if you feel I shouldn't have done it. --Dijxtra 15:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support the blockings, and I'd suggest longer blockings (a week or more) if they return after 24 hours and continue revert-warring. I'm currently having to put up with complaints because I protected Bormalagurski's user page - see above - because he can't be trusted not to fill it with abuse of other nationalities and nationalist sloganeering. Bormalagurski is one of the people Dijxtra has just blocked. There are far too many people from the former Yugoslavia who seem to see Wikipedia as a chance to continue the wars of the 1990s by other means, and it needs to be made absolutely clear to them that this is not acceptable. There does seem to be some reasonable editing of Serbs of Croatia going on, so I think the solution of blocking the revert-warriors is the right one. --ajn (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I support Dijxtra's hard work on improving wikipedia, but I feel like that this time, he has been manipulated by User:Luka Jačov.

The text we are edit-waring about is this:

According to the Croatian census 2001 [25], most Serbs of Croatia declared that they speak Croatian. The opinion on the diaspora population has not been polled and the data for them is unavailable.

Luka Jačov is insisting that census data on language is irrelevant to Serbs of Croatia#Language because it will "confuse readers".

Let's make detailed chronology of edit war on.


First, I must remind you that Dijxtra's rule was introdiced primarily because of Jacov's behaviour. Jacov was also responsile for blocking the article in the first place, see Talk:Serbs of Croatia#accuracy disputed (Luka Jačov deleting references)

After the page has been unlocked, Jacov started reverting changes without even trying to discuss it:

  • 04:43, 24 May 2006 Jacov reverted the article with comment "no time 2 disscuss"
  • 09:09, 24 May 2006 Jacov reverted the article with comment "I ll discuss it later"
  • 12:25, 26 May 2006 I warned him that he must discuss his changes

I called Dijxtra and this led to this new rule by Dijxtra.

  • 16:36, 26 May 2006 Dijxtra warns Next person that makes undiscussed revert will be blocked for 24 hours

  • 08:10, 8 June 2006 Luka Jačov explaines the change he is about to make with words "What they declare is merely political preference and this will only make confusion among readers."
  • 08:14, 8 June 2006 Luka Jačov changes the text and deletes part including valid reference to census results

  • 10:15, 8 June 2006 Zmaj returnes the referenced text, but removes some irrelevant bits
  • 10:15, 8 June 2006 Zmaj explaines the change he made

  • 12:57, 8 June 2006 Luka Jačov deletes disputed text
  • 12:57, 8 June 2006 Luka Jačov explaines its change with words "It is not cause we are talking about what they speak not what they declare."

  • 18:06, 9 June 2006