Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive55

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

Noticeboard archives


User:CFIF an inappropriate username that could be confused with CFIF-FM[edit]

Hello. I found someone with an inappropriate username User:CFIF. He makes all sorts of broadcast media related edits and may be confused with radio station CFIF-FM. I hope I did the right thing by reporting this. Syolent Mauve 15:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • No confusion. User is probably a fan of the station or the like and uses its call letters as a username. No harm in this that I can see. ЯEDVERS 15:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I just thought that it may imply that his postings are sanctioned by the station, which may cause problems. Syolent Mauve 16:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I note user:CFIF has never worked on the article for CFIF-FM. The connection seems tenuous at best. In the future, you could also contact the user before reporting the incident. But welcome to Wikipedia nonetheless. :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 18:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Never heard of the station 'til now. Never been to that part of Canada before, probably never will. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW, my username is just a random jumble of letters I thought of that sounded sort of catchy :). --CFIF (talk to me) 19:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Chodorkovskiy (talk · contribs)[edit]

User states explicitly that the name is that of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a very famous Russian political prisoner currently in jail. How do we feel about this username? Shall we ask the user to apply for a WP:CHU? - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically we could have him change his username (under the names of well-known living... people' clause of WP:U), but I don't really see the point. The spelling is unconventional (while the user brags about his username being #1 in google, it is only #1 out of ~400 hits), and it looks like there had been no complaints about his usernames in the past (the user has been editing since January). Do you have any particular reasons, besides the ones you've already voiced, to ask him to have the name changed?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
No. It's unseemly, but otherwise, no. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Robert Steele[edit]

User talk:Robert Steele here deletes a link to a commercial competitor and here offers money to subvert wikipedia. WAS 4.250 04:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This is unacceptable behavior. Would anyone object if I indef blocked him and let the foundation take care of this? JoshuaZ 04:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Uh, he's offering money -- not a lot of money, at that -- to people to write articles about areas that interest him. Emphases mine:
I got explicit approval for hiring a professional Wiki editor to get this page out of its slump, and to lead a team that can over time discourage trolls, morons, self-promoters, and bureaucrats intent on concealing the truthful history of ineptness in OSINT. While I was told to post to the WikiList first, I believe that those of your who have volunteered here already deserve a first shot. I am thinking in terms of $250 increments, and over time this could become a weekly amount as we move beyond this page to create or contribute to ten Wiki pages on the ten High-Level threats to humanity (Poverty, Infectuous Disease, Environmental Degradation, Inter-State Conflict, Civil War, Genocide, Other Atrocities, Proliferation, Terrorism, and Transnational Crime. It is clearly understood that I have to identify or post secondary works, and then work with the professional editor to get them properly integrated.
And the "subversion" in that 'graf is what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 06:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Well "got explicit approval for hiring a professional Wiki editor to get this page out of its slump, and to lead a team that can over time discourage trolls, morons, self-promoters, and bureaucrats intent on concealing the truthful history of ineptness in OSINT" and "Wiki policy will accept vendors creating a single paragraph and URL link to their home page, and abusive vendors like LEXIS-NEXIS will be cut back to that." This sounds like someone who thinks he knows The Truth and is willing to pay people to promote it. Taken together with the removal of his competitor's link (and the accompanying edit summary) I have trouble seeing how this could possibly be a good thing. JoshuaZ 06:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Repeating the words of the quote and saying, in effect, "it's obvious!" is, shall we say, less than convincing -- as does ignoring the highlighted portions explicitly acknowledging Wikipedia standards that must be met, which last time I looked were nothing about The Truth, but verifiability. So, mind pointing the actual "subversion", the phrases that don't require projection? --Calton | Talk 07:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Judge him by his behavior: [1], [2], [3]. WAS 4.250 07:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That second link is a month old, and the post above allegedly under discussion, well, isn't.
Judge him by his behavior No, you asked us to judge him by his words -- words somewhat more recent than a month old. Were you going to actually say why, or are you going to change the subject again? Maybe we can judge him by his spelling? His haircut? Or you could, you know, actually articulate an answer to the question asked. --Calton | Talk 10:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, please don't insert newer comments above older ones (ie mine). If you wish to refer to a comment by another user that someone has already replied to, please do so below the original reply. ViridaeTalk 10:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
That's what indenting is for, and I WAS directly replying to a comment, which why I, you know, put it directly under the comment I was replying to. Not difficult. --Calton | Talk 23:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
That second link is VERY disturbing. ViridaeTalk 07:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
On second thoughts, they all are. ViridaeTalk 07:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Considerng the point of the not-month-old posting above is, in effect, a mea culpa for earlier stuff -- and given that the timeflow in this universe is in one direction only and stuff that happens after other stuff is generally considered to supercede the earlier stuff -- why is that a priori a problem or applicable? --Calton | Talk 10:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you please explain yourself using english not missused latin. (Mea culpa translates to my own fault). ViridaeTalk 10:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, ":Considering the point of the not-month-old posting above is, in effect, a it's my fault, I was wrong for earlier stuff..."
There you go. Or are going to pretend you don't understand that, too? --Calton | Talk 23:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I see no point in continuing this conversation. I do not want to be involved in arguing, I was only commenting on three links that were posted. ViridaeTalk 05:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This isn't that complicated, the user has a massive POV calling Lexis-Nexis an abusive vendor and he would rather have their article reduced together with 'the comment bureaucrats intent on concealing the truthful history of ineptness in OSINT makes it sound to me like he is essentially paying people to POV push. Between that and his earlier comments, we should ask Jimbo what is going on here. JoshuaZ 12:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

His continuing edits are: [4] [5]. If Wikipedia is for sale, I think we can get a better price. WAS 4.250 22:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Makes me remember Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. WAS 4.250 22:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't that complicated True. The word for that is "projection". Once again, what is it in the words that he actually used makes it "subversion"? -- and try to do it without the mindreading this time.
Oh, and I've reposted the Steele posting that WAS 4.250 deleted until such time that WAS 4.250 can actually explain why it's a Bad Thing. --Calton | Talk 23:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The reason seems to me to be clear. It may be due to poor phrasing, but it looks very much like Steele wants to pay people to push his POV. JoshuaZ 03:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Autobiography says "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." Steele has a very clear conflict of interest. Enough so that he himself needs not to edit the articles he is proposing to pay others to edit. Paying others to do what he himself is not allowed to do is not acceptable behavior. WAS 4.250 04:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, any time you two want to actually address the actual words used by Steele using their actual meanings -- instead of making up stuff and yelling BOOGEDY BOOGEDY BOOGEDY -- is fine by me.

This may or may not be a spectacularly bad idea and maybe it would set a bad precedent. But "AIEEE! MONSTERS UNDER THE BED! BOOGEDY BOOGEDY BOOGEDY!" is not really a convincing argument. --Calton | Talk 05:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the phrase that is most concerning (in addition to his history of problematic edits) is "discourage trolls, morons, self-promoters, and bureaucrats intent on concealing the truthful history of ineptness in OSINT." Now, that sounds strongly like the sort of thing users say when they think that their POV is the Truth. Do we need to spell this out anymore? JoshuaZ 05:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

He says "I now understand my mistakes earlier, especially the need for a third party to post any link or reference to me, however central I may be to OSINT. Not to worry. I talked about this page, the experience, and the broader future in depth with several Wiki leaders, and I believe we are all on the same page. I got explicit approval for hiring a professional Wiki editor to get this page out of its slump, and to lead a team that can over time discourage trolls, morons, self-promoters, and bureaucrats intent on concealing the truthful history of ineptness in OSINT." [6] saying he will "lead" in changing the OSINT page; something he believes himself "central" to and he sees his past mistake as editing himself rather than hiring others to make the edits he wishes to make (which includes links or references to him he says). The point of third parties is unbiased editing by people who lack a conflict of interest. People being lead and paid by someone with a conflict of intrest also have a conflict of interest. Further he has already edited the page in a way that was widely believed to be very self serving and he shows no indication that his leadership of paid editors would serve any purpose other than self interest. WAS 4.250 09:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, Jimbo just blocked another editor for similar problems until he could talk to them personally [7]. JoshuaZ 19:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo just made a deal with that other editor who was paid to write an article. Jimbo says:"He agreed not to edit Wikipedia articles when he is being paid to write by the subject of the article, and to help the companies he works with understand that it is probably not a great idea for them to edit their own articles as well. He will write articles and post them on his own site, under the GNU FDL, and to ask trusted prominent and independent Wikipedians to add the articles, on their own independent judgments of the merits of the articles." [8] because "Getting paid to add entries to Wikipedia by the subject of the entries is a serious serious no-no because of the obvious conflict-of-interest issues." [9] Steele has made another edit to the OSINT talk page moving in this direction but he's not quite there yet. Maybe an admin could talk to him to get him to agree to the same deal Jimbo agreed to with the other editor. Then we could assume good faith and wait for actual edits before making further judgements. Does that sound like a good idea? WAS 4.250 21:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest created by User:Eloquence 10 August 2006 in this regard. WAS 4.250 21:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:CFIF an inappropriate username that could be confused with CFIF-FM[edit]

Hello. I found someone with an inappropriate username User:CFIF. He makes all sorts of broadcast media related edits and may be confused with radio station CFIF-FM. I hope I did the right thing by reporting this. Syolent Mauve 15:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • No confusion. User is probably a fan of the station or the like and uses its call letters as a username. No harm in this that I can see. ЯEDVERS 15:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I just thought that it may imply that his postings are sanctioned by the station, which may cause problems. Syolent Mauve 16:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I note user:CFIF has never worked on the article for CFIF-FM. The connection seems tenuous at best. In the future, you could also contact the user before reporting the incident. But welcome to Wikipedia nonetheless. :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 18:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Never heard of the station 'til now. Never been to that part of Canada before, probably never will. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW, my username is just a random jumble of letters I thought of that sounded sort of catchy :). --CFIF (talk to me) 19:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Chodorkovskiy (talk · contribs)[edit]

User states explicitly that the name is that of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a very famous Russian political prisoner currently in jail. How do we feel about this username? Shall we ask the user to apply for a WP:CHU? - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically we could have him change his username (under the names of well-known living... people' clause of WP:U), but I don't really see the point. The spelling is unconventional (while the user brags about his username being #1 in google, it is only #1 out of ~400 hits), and it looks like there had been no complaints about his usernames in the past (the user has been editing since January). Do you have any particular reasons, besides the ones you've already voiced, to ask him to have the name changed?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
No. It's unseemly, but otherwise, no. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Sysrpl, pagemove and nonsense vandalism[edit]

Someone mind moving Catfish (freshwater) back to Catfish and deleting Catfish (saltwater)? Sysrpl (talkcontribs) seems to have been trying to foist a hoax page (read the content of the saltwater page). Some disambig pages need correction as well. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 19:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

King of hearts seems to have taken care of it. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 21:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

banned username? supermod[edit]

I noticed there's a user with a name supermod. Should this be a banned name? I'd say yes. St.isaac 07:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree. If I received a warning from supermod, I would definitely assume he was an admin. alphaChimp laudare 07:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
perhaps usersnames could be restricted so they could not end in "mod" St.isaac 07:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Then things like modern, modarna, mode etc wouldn't be allowed.--Andeh 12:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I said usernames could not end in "mod" St.isaac 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't find anything particularly bannable about the name. I wouldn't make any assumptions about warnings I had received from such a name - nor would I have done as a newbie - perhaps this is a cultural or generational bias.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Every online forum I have ever been in disallowed the use of mod or admin in the name. As a newbie it would be a correct assumption to assume that we wouldn't allow usernames that smell likes they have power they don't have. It's standard practice, and I don't see why we should allow someone that name or anything similiar. (comment by Mboverload)

"Super mod" is an administrative position on many Internet bulletin boards (including many modified phpBB boards), halfway between "moderator" and "administrator". Supermod doesn't appear to be making any attempts to act the part of a moderator, and no one seems to be getting confused, so I see no problem in letting this username stand. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So it's rather like adopting a user name of "administrator" or, more accurately, "semiadministrator", which would obviously not be allowed. It's a recognised title and is potentially misleading. Although, as with AYArktos, it wouldn't have meant much to me, I see that it would to other people, so I think it needs to be changed. Tyrenius 06:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Although for at least some of us the name has no significant connotations, I appreciate the arguments put forward that it has some meaning in some online forums and thus and on the basis the name has connotations for some (ie it suggests a definition or association), I support restrictions on this and similar usernames as per User:St.isaac --A Y Arktos\talk 23:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia expert/admin/programmer advice needed[edit]

A discussion is underway concerning the redesign of the sidebar which is displayed on every page of Wikipedia at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign. We need the advice of programmers and/or admins who are familiar with the guts of Wikipedia, and who can shed some light on the feasibility of the various aspects of this project. --Nexus Seven 00:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible bad user page move[edit]

User:ClintFord moved his user page to User:Schmendrick with the edit summary "My new nickname". ClintFord forwards to the new nickname, but at the new nickname, there is no "User contributions" so I'm wondering...did he move his user page to the mainspace? He's still editing as ClintFord and there's no creation listed in the user creation log. I can't tell what has occurred or not, can someone take a look? Metros232 05:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a bug. Unfortunately he didn't create the new user in the normal way so the Wikimedia software isn't behaving properly. I'm pretty sure that all he did was use the Move Page link to move his original user pages to his new user name. You can still track his User Contributions but you have to go the User:ClintFord page to get the link. As you say, it doesn't show up on the User:Schmendrick page presumably because the software thinks that this is a User page without a User. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is it possible for ordinary users to move user pages? Ben Aveling 07:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
He needs to be told to do it the right way. Thatcher131 (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to close this out, I contacted him and he has applied at WP:CHU. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Does this happen often enough to justify raising a suggested code change to the wiki? Regards, Ben Aveling 02:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
OrphanBot's logged three cases where a user has moved their talkpage without renaming their account, out of 13,000 userpages checked. --Carnildo 02:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I doubt it'll happen, but if we were to do such a thing, I'd like to see an inability for users to create userpages for non-existant users- more than a few times, I've seen people create pages at User:ExampleUser subpage instead of User:ExampleUser/subpage. Ral315 (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Mistakenly restored deleted edits[edit]

I mistakenly restored 3 deleted edits from Paul Stamatiou (dating from back in June). How can these be again deleted? (the page re-appeared, and is up for a prod, btw). Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom members, two Wikipedia developers, and a couple of other users have leet revision-deleting powers. Ask 'em and they shall fulfill. Hbdragon88 02:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, administrators can remove revisions (deleting them fully, as you mention above, is only for privacy violations). You just have to delete the entire page, and restore only the versions you wish to keep. I've deleted the first three revisions. Ral315 (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow that's news to me...I thought they could just generally be used, but now that I have read Wikipedia:Oversight, its use is very narrow and explicit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbdragon88 (talkcontribs)


An avid linkspammer.[10] Needs a ban.Yeago 02:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I warned him with {{spam3}}, as I counted at least five additions of that spam link. If does it again, do I follow logically with {{spam4}}, or does that jump up to {{spam5}} and a block? Hbdragon88 02:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
{{spam3}} gives warning of an impending block if they continue, so it is rather up to you. ViridaeTalk 04:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not an admin, so I'd have to request for it here. Hbdragon88 04:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Either an article, or my mind, is missing.[edit]

On, or about, July 31, 2006, i created an article entitled Connor Barrett. Here is the link that was also generated, and that I sent to a friend who had helped me. I then added the article to my list of articles on my user page, where it appeared in blue. Today it shows as red and I am perplexed, perturbed and possibly pissed. Can anyone here help or enlighten me? Carptrash 22:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted on 31 July 2006 by Stifle for being an article about a person that did not explain the notability of its subject. See Wikipedia:Notability. —Bkell (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Bkell. Several people spent a lot of time and effort on that article and while it was no polished jewel i was working on it - and i am rather offended that it would be deleted without my being informed. I see that it was nixxed by one calling him or her self "Stifle" and it is easy to see where that name comes from. I would like to see the article returned to wikipedia, i believe that it begins with a rather long list of Barrett's accomplishments, sculptor, musician, painter, graphic artist, poet, but if that's not enough, please let me know and i'll try and find some more. Carptrash 22:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Carptrash 22:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Biographies which do not demonstrate their relevance or significance will be speedily deleted, as yours was. I do not know what your article's exact contents were, but if the article was speedily deleted, I would assume it met the deletion criteria. --Emufarmers(T/C) 22:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The article was about a sculptor, only one of whose works, for a block of flats, is listed. Apparently he's also a poet, I assume, since a poem was included, though there was nothing to indicate that it was his poem. If you can make the argument that the article meets our guideline at WP:BIO, then you can take your case to Deletions for review. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
since this is obviously a good faith complaint, and since the article was speedied unceremoniously (no doubt also in good faith), I have restored it: If you want to delete it, put it through Afd. If you want it to be kept, provide references supporting the subject's notability. dab () 22:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I see User:Dbachmann has unilaterally undeleted it without going through DRV, claiming it isn't speedyable, even though there is nothing in the article which claims notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it was speedied unilaterlly, wasn't it? Seeing that lots of refereces are given, I can really see no justification for the speedying. Passes the Pokemon test with flying colours, I'd say. It can still be go on Afd, what's the harm in that? dab () 22:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Your undeletion said that it wasn't a candidate for speedying, which is obviously untrue, if you read the article. You also failed to discuss it with the deleting admin before unilaterally undeleting. You should have taken it to DRV. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason not to undelete a contested speedy- what's easily done can be easily undone. Friday (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course you don't. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this, but Stifle should have alerted Carptrash, using {{nn-warn}}. I have restored it, putting {{importance}}, and Zoe has put it on Afd now. I honestly don't see what is so upsetting about this, it's a disputed speedy, so put it on Afd, case closed. dab () 22:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am going to take a deep breath now. The real problem, from my perspective, is the lack of collegiality from admins who revert other admins without prior discussion. This is happening much too frequently. How does it hurt to talk to the deleting admin before undeleting? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Wheel war, in big bold letters at the top of the page: Contact the administrator if you disagree with one of his/her actions. Gain consensus before reverting the administrative actions of others.. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
To avoid undoing another admin when it's reasonable to do so would bog us down in needless bureaucracy. Perhaps centralized discussion of this issue would be handy, since it has been coming up a lot lately. Friday (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
If you are unwilling to follow the guideline, perhaps you should discuss changing it to "go ahead and revert any other admin's work that you want, after all, you know what's best for Wikipedia". User:Zoe|(talk) 23:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
My userpage makes my stance pretty clear. A revert, of an edit or an admin action, should not be done lightly. But to say it should never be done is insanity. Friday (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I really think you should take a deep breath, Zoe. I do not consider my action wheel-warring: I restored the article, once, and documented my action here for everyone to see. Stifler deleted a new article in passing (out of process, I might add, by not alerting its creator). I did not assume Stifler had an emotional involvement with his decision, and neither do I. This is just housekeeping stuff. I wouldn't ring up a janitor telling him he misplaced a broom, I'd just move it to the proper cupboard. "Go ahead" is indeed our first guideline, as long as you do it informedly, in good faith, politely and in the open. If Zoe thinks that this means she has to re-delete the article, I invite her to do that. dab () 23:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
A revert, of an edit or an admin action, should not be done lightly. But to say it should never be done is insanity. True. However, would you mind pointing to someone who has actually argued such a thing, oh, in the last two years or so? You appear to have left out a key phrase. --Calton | Talk 00:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but in this case and others, Zoe appears to think that any reversal of an admin action is automatically wrong. We should no more try to own our admin actions than we own our edits. Friday (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth... And you went ahead and did it anyways. So your leaving out the clause "...without notifying the blocking admin" -- which makes your original statement nonsense -- was done deliberately? Since no one actually has asserted or hinted at what you say is an opinion that should be opposed, I have to wonder who ou're arguing with other than yourself. --Calton | Talk 22:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
What the hell? Is there a reason you're not assuming good faith? I was referring to an incident in which I did notify Zoe that I'd undone one of her blocks. She got all bent out of shape because she insists that simply telling her is not enough- I'd need her permission to reverse one of her actions. Friday (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason you're not assuming good faith? Hmm, "Mr. Kettle? Mr. Pot on line 3. He say's you're black." So your characterization of other people's objections as meaning say it should never be done is good faith? Your claim that Zoe appears to think that any reversal of an admin action is automatically wrong is good faith? And you have the chutzpah to blather about other people not exercising good faith? Please, pull the other one. --Calton | Talk 04:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I am sensing a definite All wikipedians are created equal, but . . .... some are more equal than others thing here. If the article had not been deleted without notifying it's author then the same thing would not needed to have been done to an administrator. Yet the crime here seems to be that an administrator was overturned without due process and not Ms/Mr Average Wikipedian. Interesting. Carptrash 00:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Anybody can recreate a deleted article if they want to. There's no need to take it to Deletions for review. That is only necessary after an AfD if it is wished to keep the same content, which could otherwise be speedy deleted as recreated content. (If it is a speedy that is recreated it can't be deleted as recreated content, but can be deleted under the same original criterion, in this case A7.) So if Carptrash had a record of the content he could have uploaded it and recreated the article. Alternatively he could have asked dab to userfy the deleted content, and then Carptrash could have recreated the article immediately in that way. Dab short-circuited this by simply restoring the article. When admins were given the right to do unilateral speedy deletes, it was given out of necessity because of the increasing deletion workload, but was still given with some reservation. Admins can't regard their speedy deletions as sacrosanct, and must be prepared for them to be challenged, in which case, if necessary, AfD can be invoked in the normal manner. As it says on DRV: "if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack." Tyrenius 00:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

this perfectly summarizes my take on things and my approach here. thanks, dab () 08:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't take it as an attack. I do, however, take it as a lack of civility if my action is overturned without discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 15:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Zoe states that she take(s) it as a lack of civility if my action is overturned without discussion but another's work was deleted without discussion, even though Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion states it would also be considerate to notify the original author. I think we all need to reconsider that civility applies both ways. I agree with the comments of Tyrenius and dab, incivility by admins undeleting the article was not intended. The actions of the admin were within scope of guidelines and policy. User:Carptrash could not see what had gone on - he isn't an admin and the article had disappeared for an unknown reason - he couldn't see what happenned - and he brought the issue here - quite allowable, especially since he was seeking help or enlightenment. DRV is not needed under CSD. While notability originally might not have been apparent, it was not an egregiously not-notable biography - unlike the typical varieties like xyz goes to zz school and is kool. As has been pointed out above, more appropriate action (as well as notifying the editor), might have been to use the {{importance}} tag or something similar allowing a response. At Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles which expands on CSD7, it states that this this criterion is mainly intended to deal with vanity articles created by their subjects or by people personally known to them. I don't think the article when nominated obviously fell within that scope - even more reason to use the tag and/or discuss with the editor rather than nominating quickly for speedy deletion.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
If we conceive of the whole process as team work, rather than individual actions, then it falls into place more easily, with the aim — which must always be kept in mind — of creating an encyclopedia. A process, starting with the original stub, takes place and is worked out in several stages, regardless of which individual has enacted each particular stage. The different individual actions counterbalance and correct each other. Finally a result is obtained. Let's see the overall process as the important thing, either to excise material which is not suitable, or to include and improve material which is. Nobody is doubting any of the participants' good intentions, and this is the most important thing. Everybody is on the same side, so I recommend good will and tolerance all round. I have devised a user box in its beta stage, which I have on my user page and which anyone is welcome to use or suggest improvements to. I think it's important that admin actions are always open to review. Tyrenius 06:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
US Department of Justice Scales Of Justice.svgThis admin asks other admins to change his actions if they disagree, and will not wheel war.
Since when is it "a lack of civility" to revert someone? It's a wiki... that happens all the time and is supposed to. Yes, explanations of why a reversion was made are good things... which is why we have edit summaries, block/unblock summaries, delete/undelete summaries, et cetera. That's usually all the notification required. Since regular users can't see delete summaries, putting an explanation for a delete on their user talk page is a reasonable alternative. Not doing so is effectively the equivalent of not including an edit/delete summary... not very helpful, but also not a heinous crime. If the summary indicates the reverter didn't understand or overlooked something then go ahead and reverse again with a summary explanation of what they missed. Only if it there is clearly strong disagreement about how to handle the situation should we stop taking edit/admin actions and hold a discussion to develop a consensus. This is all fairly standard 'dispute resolution' stuff. If anything, admins should be better than most at calmly dealing with people reverting them. Only making edits/admin actions after strong disagreement has been established is 'uncivil'. It becomes edit/wheel warring when you take an action which there is no established consensus for and which you know one or more other people are going to strongly disagree with and wish to revert, whether that is the eigth action or the first. --CBD 12:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Please speedy close AfD[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by United States of America. As per the existing merge tags, I merged the article with American terrorism, so the AfD is irrelevant now. Travb (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You can close it yourself if you like. Super PowersTM are not required. Just zis Guy you know? 15:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A copyright question[edit]

For the copyright clueful: Image:Arclight.gif is tagged as fair use screenshot, used in Arclight (comics). Two issues: first, this is from the film not the comic, so the fair use is probably not valid in that article, yes? Second, it's not a screenshot, it'sa series of screenshots assembled into an animated gif by a YTMNDer, the image source is cited as the YTMND. Which I think makes it not actually a fair use screenshot at all. It's important because there are a number of these looping animated gifs on the project, including at More Cowbell. Just zis Guy you know? 08:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of this unnecessary animated gifs, (i.e. those that do not better illustrate something in the article) are a pain anyway - and make it harder to read the article. If it is used to illustrate the comic (being from the film), and it is noted that it is from the film, it could pass as fair use (I think) as long as it is needed to properly show the comic itself (which I fear may not be the case). The fact that it shows such a significant part of the original work (i.e. reasonable quality and multiple shots) which isn't really necessary anyway, I think it would be pushing the fair use boundaries, and could be considered a copyright infringement. Mind you I don't know much about the subject... Ian¹³/t 15:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Jtkiefer: community ban proposal[edit]

Merged with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jtkiefer --pgk(talk) 17:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User: MaindrianPace[edit]

MaindrianPace (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) continues to upload images without copyright information, despite two blocks for doing so before. In addition, he continues to remove tags added to his articles. PBP 20:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SPOV[edit]

I've been working with WP:GUS, and come across three more users that look awfully like the other ones (ie exact same userboxes). They are:


This user lifted a large amount of material from KISS (band) and put it on their user page under a promo for "The Sharpe Experience". I've removed the KISS material and asked them to remove the advert. They also created The Sharpe Experience discography, The Sharpe Experience and The Dean Street Sessions (album). All of them were KISS albums with the name changed. Will require watching. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Troy J. Rose[edit]

This is in the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Could someone take care of it. I've made several edits to remove copyvio and don't want to delete or remove the speedy. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the speedy tag since while the article isn't great, it seems like a viable starting point on a notable enough performer. Gwernol 00:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. It looked that way to me which is why I didn't get rid of it some time ago. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, it wasn't a speedy, as notability (of a degree) is asserted. After failing to find any supporting evidence for his notability, however, I've nominated the article for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy J. Rose). His IMDb bio is hysterical: "If there had to be one image for cool it would be him.". :) Middenface 01:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Final Warning Template Idea[edit]

Image:Skull and crossbones in white inside of a black square, similar to the old "Jolly Roger" or the label on a can of "Black Flag" bug spray. Message:This is your FINAL WARNING. Continue to vandalize/disrupt Wikipedia and you will be blocked, even banned.

Is this a good template idea ? Martial Law 03:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't this redundant with the {{test4}} template? – ClockworkSoul 03:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
We don't want the template to be too harsh; after all, the recipient is likely getting a 24-hour block, not a death sentence. Regarding the redundacy, I concur. It seems like adding an additional template would be like saying No seriously, we're not kidding; we're going to block you. No joke. Honestly. Hmm... perhaps that would be a good idea for a {{test4.5}}... -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thought that would fine tune the warning process. Martial Law 04:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand your intention; perhaps others will agree with you. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Can't see any additional utility over the current templates --pgk(talk) 07:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Pgk. Test4 already claims to be the final warning, so this would have to replace it. Giving another warning after the "final" warning would just weaken the warning. You should discuss any proposed changes to test4 on Template talk:test4. Quarl (talk) 2006-08-11 08:24Z
There's nothing that annoys me more than a {{test2}} under a {{test4}}, so no. If a warning is final, then it is final. Go poke admins at WP:AIV if they're not listening. Titoxd(?!?) 08:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I often write custom warnings because I think they are more effective, and you are welcome to word your own warnings as you wish, even with a template under your user space, as long as it's not used as a "second final warning". (You should only give "you will be blocked" warnings if you can enforce them, though...) Quarl (talk) 2006-08-11 08:35Z

I agree with Titoxd, if someone continues to vandalise after a test4, block them. No need for a little "Oh, I'm not sure" test2, unless the test4 was quite some time ago. This proposed warning is unnecessary. test4 says the same thing, with the same results. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Frequently anons will get test2's under old test4's, but they are also likely to be a diferant person behind the ip. — xaosflux Talk 02:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Questionable Image?[edit]

I'm not sure where to post this question, so it goes here ;) The image at doesn't seem to have a purpose? Am I missing something? CMacMillan 01:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It serves the purpose of illustrating National Socialist Movement (United States) quite well, even if the image's name is entirely stupid. I've restored the pd-self tag added by its creator, although whether Murple really took the photo is anyone's guess. Middenface 01:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks, I couldn't find its connection to an article. And yes, stupid title. CMacMillan
The name is an obvious gross insult to overweight people everywhere and requires people to be banned, arbcoms to be summoned, and all manner of effort to be expended in dealing with it. WAS 4.250 01:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
So you agree? Good. We can put it on the recommended deletion list with your name attached then. I'll get right on that. CMacMillan

Sneaky advertisement[edit]

User:NOFX99 has made only one edit, but it's of a most nefarious nature. It was linkspam (on the Penis enlargement article, which sees a lot of linkspam), with the edit summary "spelling." It's pretty much impossible for me to assume good faith here. I don't know if it's bad enough for a ban, but. . . it just sickened me, and I felt that it shouldn't go unnoticed. LWizard @ 04:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Ohnoitsjamie already warned him with {{bv}}, so the next time he does something like this he'll be blocked. Quarl (talk) 2006-08-12 22:50Z


Perm link. Wiarthurhu (talk · contribs) has been taking exception to all the delete votes in that afd. The comments have been reverted by another user, but it might bear watching - some of the comments were bordering on personal attacks. I have warned him to be civil but it might bear watching. ViridaeTalk 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: I posted this to the talk page initially by mistake (navigated to the page via my watchlist and didnt check to see if it was the talk or prject page. ViridaeTalk 04:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've also warned the same user today for a blatant WP:POINT infringement on Bully. He has a long history of issues with multiple editors and a current RfC. I concur that his behavior needs to be watched. Gwernol 04:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've removed the most egregious editorialising form the article and left a note. Just zis Guy you know? 12:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalism by permabaned user through anon.IPs[edit]

If anybody has got time plz look at the case of vandalism through closely related IPs [11].Holy|Warrior 13:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


Could someone please check the edits of this user. I think they may be pro BNP. -- 15:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • One wouldn't like to assign political allegiences to the anon 82. However, yes, he does have a long Wikipedia history of POV-pushing in articles about the deaths of black people (always accidental) and the deaths of white people (always at the hands of black people). So he certainly has a bee in his bonnet. I've been through his recent contributions and reverted a pile of strange edits, but I'll look closer now. I suspect a fair bit of stubbing of articles down to the known facts will be required - that's what was needed last year when he last appeared. ЯEDVERS 20:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


This user has been making repeated, unsubstantiated allegations that I am a "POV shill" who works for either WABC Radio or Mark Levin. He has deleted many of my edits to the evin article, accusing me of "not editing in good faith". I welcome an administrator to review my edit history and how I have tried to constructively contribute to the Levin article (including reverting vandalism, supporting inclusion of negative/anti information, and trying to start a discussion on including a relevance/notability threshhold for what external links are to be included in the article.) and determine if these accusations are warranted. He has also taken a note I left him on his user page, asking him to stay civil with me and work towards consensus, and posted it to the Levin talk page as if I had posted it there. From this point, he has continued to be belligerant, uncivil, and is basically holding the page hostage based on his lone, unwarranted accusations that I am a POV shill for WABC. I am here to contribute in a constructive manner and I think I am owed the courtesy of assuming good faith and ntot having flames and attacks thrown about on a article talk page. Shouldn't this be about the content of the article and not the poster?

You can find most of the discussion here: Talk:Mark_Levin and here: User_talk:FLeeLevin. This particular poster also seems to have a history of belligerance and incivility towards others who don't agree with this political leanings. See here: User_talk:Eleemosynary and also the types of comments he includes in his edit descriptions, here: .

I am certainly not the first user to be subjected to his belligerance and am asking that an administrator drop in and review the situation. FLeeLevin 13:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am going to try and make some order out of this war. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Your attempts to help mediate the dispute on the page are most appreciated, however the belligerance and assumptions of bad faith continue. He has effectively stated here: that he will be assuming bad faith on all of my future edits. If history repeats, he will use this as the basis for reverting everything I try to do to improve the article. I am officially requesting some for of administrator action at this point. I don't want to go the RfC route, however will do so if this continues.NYCTommy 20:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


people keep reverting the criticism section (censorship) -- 02:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock language[edit]

I know this is more of a Villiage Pump issue, but I just saw this [12]. It appears to be an autoblock written an another language. Is this a bug, or a new feature? 21:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Funky; bug I assume. Quarl (talk) 2006-08-12 22:46Z
Samir just showed me that. I was away almost all day yesterday and I did not block anybody yesterday nor today. I'm very confused right now; I hope my account hasn't been hacked. RadioKirk also noted that it doesn't show up in my log either. -→Buchanan-Hermit/?! 02:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Hacking is unlikely; the block is absent from the user's logs (which he just noted [blush]). RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The block is in your log [13], but it was made on August first. The autoblock was yesterday, not the real block . Prodego talk 03:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
So, pardon the confusion, why does an autoblock show up 11 days later in a different language? :D RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
...especially in a language that I can't speak and can't identify? ;) -→Buchanan-Hermit/?! 03:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Well the eleven days part isn't that odd, as long as the initial block is active, autoblocks can occur, and it was a month long block. I have no idea why it would be in another language, I suppose it must be some sort of weird bug. Prodego talk 03:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I just tested this and found that the autoblock text's language is dependent on the language setting of the blocked user. For example, I created User:NK Test and set its language to French. Then I triggered an autoblock from that account which caused the Ipblocklist entry to show up in French. Naconkantari 04:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, interesting. Thanks. -→Buchanan-Hermit/?! 04:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to announce my resignation[edit]

I have decided to retire from editing Wikipedia. There are several reasons for this, one of which is that I am still angry with myself for having been involved in a fairly recent sockpuppetry incident. I am particularily ashamed of the fact that some of the accounts that I created had usernames that attacked specific users. I would like to address all of those users now and apologise for what I did. Please do not think that I have anything personal against any of you. Why, if that’s the case, I choose names that deliberately attacked you, I am not even completely sure myself. The best answer that I can give is that I had seen vandals create similar names before and wanted the accounts I created to seem like “authentic” vandal accounts. Please also take into consideration the fact that I suffer from certain mental problems and at times have a difficulty acting with reason, but everything else aside, I was aware that what I was doing was wrong, and chose to do it anyway, and therefore I accept responsibility for my actions. This incident is not the only reason that I have decided to resign, though. Right now I am involved in a lot of academic-related activities and I feel that editing Wikipedia has been eating up too much of my time that I should have spent studying. I ask that an administrator please delete the user and talk pages for Edmonde Dantes and Conrad Devonshire. I have enjoyed contributing to Wikipedia, but unfortunately it is time for me to move on now. Thank you and farewell.--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 04:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted your two user pages. Have fun in the outside world :) Cowman109Talk 04:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel575's comments[edit]

Daniel575 has been making incivil comments at Talk:Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin. Such as set up by a bunch of heretical idiots and doesn't deserve any attention whatsoever. 05:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahrarara is Panairjdde[edit]

User:Panairjdde has returned now in the form of User:Ahrarara. He or she is stalking every single article from my contribs list right now and deleting AD anywhere and everywhere. Please stop or warn him or her. Thanks. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

He was blocked again, thanks, but note that he is currently wreaking havoc yet again with an edit warring anon, User:, on the very same articles stalked from my July contribs, multiple 3RRs here ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Loath I am to do it, I have blocked the entire 151.44. range for an hour -- which affects not only the editor formerly known as Panairjdde (TEFKAP) but some 65,000-odd other people. However, he has been stalking or edit-warring not only with Codex Sinaiticus, but at leat 2 other editors. I'm gambling on the fact that the users of an Italian ISP aren't interested in editting an English Wikipedia, & as long as no one complains, we can repeat this until TEFKAP gives up. (He has also used the 151.47. range -- but let's wait until we see what kind of trouble I've caused before blocking that one also.) I won't protest if another Admin reverts the block. -- llywrch 23:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Very funny[edit]

Very funny ok, you've had your laughs--AOL account 14:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Ok, it's not a joke, it just seems like one, my mistake--AOL account 14:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Jim Shapiro[edit]

Jim Shapiro All debate now consolidated at WP:DRV, these discussion sin the linked document at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 31/Shapiro 14:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)



He's been blocked for a week (second block), but I think an indefinite block may be required; he's vandalized hundreds of articles relating to religion, often in fairly subtle ways (PoV inserts and content deletions and modifications, removing images, etc.), and I've only managed to revert a quarter of his edits so far. (Going down the list, I managed to revert everything [sometimes with difficulty, due to later edits] down to 03:21, 29 July 2006, although that still leaves scores and scores of edits which someone will need to revert. --Emufarmers(T/C) 03:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

we don't indef block IPs unless they're open proxies. Sasquatch t|c 17:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

New summary bot - detecting backlogs / requests[edit]

I have recently created a bot-based summary to follow up on the RFA summary and AFD summary. This new function, which I have dubbed the Category Tracker, monitors a selection of administrative and editing related categories and identifies when they have an unusually high number of items in them compared to their long-term means, and hence are in need of some attention. The full tracking page covers a couple dozen different categories and gives statistics on their fluctuations. In addition, I also created a summary table (transcluded here) to give easy access to the most important or most backlogged categories.

There is also a configuration page which can be used to adjust which categories are monitored, where they are displayed, and how often they are updated.

I hope this proves useful. Dragons flight 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Keen! Good work. -- Infrogmation 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
This is lovely! Thanks. -- Natalya 20:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice work, now admins can now prioritize their tasks better.--Andeh 21:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Awesome work! --mboverload@ 00:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be counting many of the very large image speedy cats.--Peta 00:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a very nice summary, but the number of articles needing wikification is incorrect. There are 6,776 (sorted) articles in the category currently, but they are split up into subcategories by the month they were tagged, so only the ones that have not been sorted (123 at the moment) show up on the summary. Once the bot comes around, the 123 articles will be put in the August category. -- Kjkolb 09:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously this is wonderful work... and therefor please do alot more. :]
People have noted various issues above, but it would also be nice if this could incorporate AIV, RFI, RFAr, RFCU, all of the 'cleanup' categories, et cetera. What would really be nice would be some method of putting the data onto individual transcludable pages... so a person who wanted to keep an eye on just TfD, PER, and RFAr could transclude those three stats onto their user page... a possibly beneficial form of 'userbox' showing the topic, current backlog number, and color (red/yellow/green). Likewise a page could then be set up showing the status of all 'admin only' tasks. And if it could make toast too that'd be really grand. :]
Seriously, excellent work and very useful as it is. --CBD 11:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I really like it, and have it on my talk page. Maybe it should be at the top of AN like RfA summary is at BN? Yanksox 11:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Fantastic work, sincere thanks to Dragons flight for this great tool. I also think CBD's idea above about individual transcludable pages is excellent (not to mention the toast). If that could be done without too much effort well, brilliant. 11:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Very nice. -- Миборовский 17:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Brilliant!!! I've been using it for the past 4 days. Well done Dragons flight! -- Samir धर्म 10:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

On the brokenness of AfD[edit]

I know it's been said before, but AfD really does seem to be a remarkably bad way of dealing with controversial articles. I think it generally works fairly well in most cases but when we get a subject that attracts major controversy it seems to go off the rails. A case in point is the current AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (the third on this article!) which seems to be attracting POV-pushers from all over, from both sides. Some of the comments strongly suggest that vote-stacking by e-mail is going on. Many of the votes are plainly being driven by partisan POVs on the article, totally ignoring the notability criteria in favour of their own opinions on the subject matter. I've seen the same happen with other recent controversial AfDs, such as Turkish Kurdistan.

I really do wonder if we should seek to restrict voting on controversial AfDs to administrators, who should be more likely to act on the basis of Wikipedia policies and criteria rather than voting as a proxy for blatant POV-pushing. If there's an unusually large number of votes on an article, as indicated by Dragons flight's useful AFD summary - perhaps a threshold of 40 or so - it's a good indicator that the subject is particularly controversial, particularly likely to attract partisan voters and particularly susceptible to being decided on POV rather than encyclopedic grounds. Perhaps when this threshold is reached it might be a good idea to impose cloture and initiate a vote among admins rather than prolong the agony on AfD? What do you guys think? -- ChrisO 17:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Giving admins more editorial authority is probably not the way to go; not only would it be immensely unpopular, but it also wouldn't necessarily be helpful -- admins can have idiosyncratic ideas about policy, too. We need to encourage closing admins to discount these "votes" that do not take our policies into account. Jkelly 17:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. What the analysis reveals is not a flaw in the AfD process, but a flaw in the application of policies, particularly it would seem WP:NPOV, though I am sure a closer inspection would reveal WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR to be equally ill attended. More rigorous standards need to be expected and imposed on what is permissable as argument. As often, it is the discarding of policies — which have been stated as non-negotiable — that results in brokenness. Tyrenius 17:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, on this particular occasion, the initial nomination appears to have been a clear violation of WP:DEL by a user who was recently blocked for abusing AfD. See my comments at WP:AN/I#Abuse of AfD?. Getting back to the topic, though, I'm sure you're right that it would be controversial to give admins more editorial authority. Jkelly is certainly right that even admins can have idiosyncratic views on policy (I note that at least one admin has given a blatantly POV reason for voting in the AfD I mentioned). However, wouldn't it be even more controversial for a closing admin to decide - by himself - which votes were valid and which weren't? Perhaps a middle way would be for a group or panel of admins to determine which votes were for valid policy reasons and which weren't. I agree that we need to enforce permissible arguments but we would need to ensure that a single admin's interpretation of policy wouldn't dictate the outcome. -- ChrisO 17:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It shouldn't be controversial to discount "votes" that do not take into account policy, but that doesn't mean it cannot be in particular instances. It may well be a good idea to encourage AfD closing admins to engage in some extra discussion about controversial cases. Jkelly 18:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Extra discussions from the closing admin would tie up our closing admins (there are precious few as it is as closing AfDs gets you hell from both sides) in needless, long, neverending pointless discussions.

What we need to do is accept that our admins need greater discretion. That admins can close AfDs against the apparent consensus without being flayed alive for it. And that would mean close in either direction, and it would mean that we would need a rule about "not biting the closing admin" or the like. And, yes, it would mean that we would have to give a greater degree of latitude to admins like Tony Sidaway (no offence, Tony, you're just a convenient example :o), happy to close a debate with a caustic comment on how poor the quality of the debate was. Of course, in giving that discretion to our admins, we make it so that such caustic comments aren't required.

But the face-off that currently exists between rampant inclusionists and rampant deletionists means that we would never get consensus on giving admins that latitude. And we would remain fair game for the parade of personal attacks, droning-on comments and public pillorying that even otherwise sensible editors subject a closing admin to for... closing something. Even when we close within consensus. ЯEDVERS 19:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think deletion review already does give discretion to admins - at least, I've not noticed many recent overturnings of what I considered to be correct deletions (or keeps) as a result of considering the arguments and not just the numbers. I think we should be looking to ourselves as admins to show more boldness in closing discussions. Getting overturned at deletion review is not something to be worried about, as if you do get overturned the article gets undeleted or relisted and no harm is done. The only way to do harm via closing discussions is in not learning from overturns and repeatedly getting overturned for the same reason - and people who can't learn from mistakes often don't pass RfA. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, for this particular article, it was questionable behavior by several admins that forced the issue to arbitration. If the original dispute hadn't involved admins, a few short blocks would have resolved the issue. Because admins were involved, that wouldn't work, and the heavy machinery of Wikipedia arbitration had to be invoked. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid for the whole sad story. --John Nagle 19:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


We could really use more administrators monitoring the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion queue. Thanks. theProject 20:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, we could really use less users adding non-speedy or almost-but-not-quite speedies to the queue. I for one would like a nice "CSD-Ax: Pure Advertisement" criterion, as it seems that 90% of potential nominators think it already exists. And I'd also like the "DB-No reason given: see WP:CSD for a list of reasons" template to die, now, painfully. If people don't know the reason they want the article speedy deleted, then why are they asking me to guess for them? ЯEDVERS 20:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
If 90% of potential nominators think it already exists, then it does; it just hasn't been written down yet. Tom Harrison Talk 02:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It would be even better if when an article is tagged it went to subcategory as do attack pages for speedy deletion. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    That's an easy change to make. As long as they are listed in the main category, I don't expect any major objections to doing this. Vegaswikian 00:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    Inspired by you, I just made the blank DB notice more forceful. Dragons flight 00:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are plenty of cases where an article may not exactly fit one of the criteria, but is still clearly eligible for speedy deletion. Granted this template should be used sparingly, and only when the reason for deletion is overly obvious, but I think it is useful. --Hetar 19:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Giving no reasons is useless - it's saying "I think this should be deleted but I expect someone else to work it out why for me". People can give multiple reasons, of course - but remember that, if they have to argue for an article to be speedy deleted, then it isn't a speedy delete. And, if they nominate an article for deletion when it clear doesn't fit a criteria, they are asking the deleting admin to take on the risk. The admin has to justify the decision to the angry user. Tagging for PROD or AfD or clean-up and telling the user is harder work, but at least doing that doesn't just pass the responsibility down the line. ЯEDVERS 20:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
If you do NP patrol, and I do. You quickly realise how much crap comes in. An increasing amount of it is spamverts - or bios of the 'he's a CEO of a two-bit company' . (This will increase with the growing fame of wikipedia). If everything that that doesn't technically meet the CSD was sent to prod (which the spamvertsier just unprods) or afd, we'd be overwhelmed. Sooner or later, we'll have to accept admin 'shoot on sight' policies, or further limit article creation. --Doc 20:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I do NP patrol daily - and I'm also often the admin who sits alone for hours of each day clearing CAT:CSD. So, I agree with you: let's let admins shoot on sight. But, of course, the rules as they stand don't allow it. You must shoot-on-sight-and-answer-the-hate-mail.
Breaking the CSD criteria helps nobody. Editors get used to speedying articles without giving reasons (making admins do the hard work). Admins get used to deleting what they like and then get brought up short when they make a mistake. What we need are better and more comprehensive CSD, not a license to delete-what-we-like-so-long-as-no-one-complains-too-loud.
That latter option - which is what exists at the moment to a degree - confuses users and editors (and other admins) and muddies the water. Plus, we're busy not having a "CSD-A10: Spam" criterion because 90% of users think we already have it. Yet it is clearly listed at WP:CSD as a reason for not speedy deleting.
No, I'm sorry, Doc - I respect you as an editor and I respect your experience... but I think your views on this are counterproductive, shall we say, when we could be channeling energy in to making CSD better rather than stomping all over it. ЯEDVERS 20:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I modified {{db-reason}} to look like this [14], but Hetar reverted. I think putting a stronger request for reasons is a very good step in the right direction. An admin can still choose to act even without a reason, but the tagging users should be strongly encouraged to have one. Dragons flight 21:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Hetar, you need to think beyond your use of this template. I'm sure you do use this template sparingly. The problem is, it is being used hundreds of times a day by other people, who are scattering all over articlespace so that admins cannot tell if it is being used abusively, cluelessly, or ignorantly. You have the space in db-reason to make an argument for deletion if you need to (but I repeat again - if you need to make an argument for deletion, then it ain't a speedy). I'm going to revert to Dragon's version and I'd rather you built on that than just reverted again. Thanks. ЯEDVERS 18:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted pages to be merged[edit]

Some redirects were recently deleted that had histories that weren't merged into the (former) targets. In order to fix this, should I post to Wikipedia:Deletion review or Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves? Ardric47 18:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? Ardric47 21:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Report on lengthy litigation[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun was just closed. Briefly

  • Minun is banned 12 months
  • Minun is not allowed to use accounts for block circunventing
  • Minun is placed on personal attack and revert parole, and probation.

-- Drini 02:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've applied the 1 year block. --pgk(talk) 11:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for investigation[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for investigation

The area for reporting complex vandalism appears underused, undermanned, and looks like reports there could just as easily be left at WP:ANI. How would it sound to remove the complex vandalism reporting area and simply refer people to ANI for complex vandalism? Cowman109Talk 03:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

AN/I is way too cluttered as is now, since people forget it's a noticeboard and use it as a discussionboard. Splitting good. -- Drini 05:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Well unless I'm mistaken, an administrator hasn't responded to the complex vandalism reports area in a month... Cowman109Talk 05:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I did raise this here a while back, and no-one replied. Basically I think RFI serves a useful purpose and is worth keeping, but only if more admins pay attention to it. I helped set up RFI in its current form, and since then I've been the only admin to do a significant amount of dealing with reports to it for long periods of time (I've been completely away for last two weeks and on semi-wikibreak before that, hence the lack of action on that page for the last month). It would really help if more admins could watchlist RFI and deal with reports there; I'd be happy to assist anyone if they need help with that (ask me on my talk page, or the RFI talk page). On the other hand if admins continue to ignore reports on that page there isn't much point having it (I certainly can't keep up with it on my own all the time). Petros471 10:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Undo move[edit]

In order to conform with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Academic titles, I moved Dr. Robert Young to Robert Young (naturopath). Would it be possible for an admin to undo that move, so I could tag Dr. Robert Young with {{db-repost}}? (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Robert Young)? Thanks! -Medtopic 06:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Criterion G4 allows speedy deletion of already deleted content no matter where it is in wikipedia. I've therefore added a speedy deletion tag to Robert Young (naturopath) explaining the situation. Graham talk 11:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget to tag the redirect as well. Geogre 17:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, please, please help...[edit]

(Just to clarify, this is me)

Okay, this is going to be very long and complicated; not only that, but I am typing this without the internet and will have to copy and paste add links and such later. So please forgive and fragmentation you might see and bear with me: The problem is with this page. The page is, simply put, a vote that will show the general thoughts on letting anons edit. I, as an anons advocate, hover around the page and try and keep it fair. I do not own the page, but the person who made it has not been editing often, and I haven’t been able to ask permission of them to keep the peace. My opinion is that Wikipedia would not exist were it not for the anons. User:Hildanknight’s opinion is that you should be required to register. He follows the page even more than I, which is saying something. He has gone to the point of commenting on almost every single vote to allow anon editing, sometimes adding ‘no comment’ when he can’t think of anything to say. Needless to say, I was upset. So I tried to handle it nicely. I left a comment [15] on his talk page that simply said anons are Wikipedians to. It was at this point he decided to retire, then un-retire. For months I kept going back to that page, checking to see if he’d reply, but he did not. It was only after my internet connection had been cut and restored that I discoverd he had replied, needlessly harsh, I might add[16]. I added my reply [17], then waited. I was surprised to find that instead of reply on his talk page, as he normally does, he edited my userpage, stating that it was time to register, and I would soon know why he hated anons[18]. I then added a new message on his talk page [19], saying that I would stand for anons no matter what the cause. I then came up with an idea, inspired by his comment-I would keep track of the IP’s I had to use on AOL. Growing excited with the thought, I [20] told him of it. Yes, it was mean. I was angry. He reverted it. [21], calling me an 'annonomous vandal'.Now, the reason he doesn’t like IPs is that Singapore, as a whole, has one single IP address. I can see the problem, but that’s no reason to abuse me. After my idea popped up on his talk page, my userpage suddenly was vandalized [22] by the Singapore IP. Coincidence? I don’t think so.The edit was reverted [23] by Mr. Lefty. I thanked him, and moments later discovered that my talk page had been vandalized-again, by the Singapore IP. [24]I knew it was him. There is no question about it. Angry, I left him a message. [25]. Yes, I used a bad edit summary, but I was (and am) really peeved. He, of course, reverted me. [26], calling me a troll. As if that wasn't enough, he contacted an admin, and had him block me! [27] And then decided he wanted his talk page protected to I couldn't protest! [28] He told the admin that blocked me he deserved a barnstar, and requested my good IP be blocked! I have 2,500 constructive edits on that IP! Oh, was I mad. Before his page got protected, I blew up. [29]. The admin who was considering semi-protected promptly reverted and protected the page. [30]. So he thanked the admin and again requested my good IP be blocked. [31]. And to top it all off, one of his pals came along and told him I'm a moron and he should ignore me. [32]

That was confusing, was it not? Now, am I in the right in assuming that his page should not be protected and he should recieve a warning for his behavior? I'm not saying what I did was great, heck, I insulted him. But he got off free. I got blocked. Can somebody help here? -- 07:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I really could care less anymore. Hello! Sunday, August 13, 2006, 08:33 (UTC)

Conrad Devonshire[edit]

Conrad Devonshire (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

My former username was "Conrad Devonshire", but I have since changed it to Edmonde Dantes. This user may have created this account to imposter me, though as I officially retired last night, I'm not sure whether or not this name is acceptable. Even if it technically is, I recommend that this user create a new account because its block log shows the blocks I received as "Conrad Devonshire".--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 13:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, could an administrator please protect User:Edmonde Dantes?--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 13:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I can confirm that Conrad changed his name to Edmonde Dantes via WP:CHU (although I haven't looked up the diff). The current account should be blocked as an imposter. Thatcher131 (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like the imposter's blocked already. - Mailer Diablo 13:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

CopyrightedFreeUse template abuse[edit]


I was cleaning out the {{nosource}} category and noticed that many of its images are tagged with the abovementioned. I suspect that there may be actually a further widespread abuse of the tag out there, is this potential problem being mass-worked on? - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 17:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

When I come across the images in the Random Image search, i'll help clean some out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a very problematic set of images. Many images so tagged have been done on the assumption that something published somewhere is automatically free for any use. It is difficult to "mass work on"; the mechanism for deleting sourced ones if there is uncertainty is either Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images or Wikipedia:Copyright problems. A more efficient approach if one wants to do a a few hundred at a time is to simply remove the template from any image that doesn't give such a license at the source, and tag the image with {{nld}}. If one does that, however, many of the images will wind up with a spurious fair use template on them. Jkelly 17:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I also encountered a bunch of images with the norightsreserved tag. (and were definitely not free images) A fair use template at least is more realistic concerning those images. Garion96 (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The template, if I understand correctly, was to avoid the possible legal issue that it may be impossible for someone to release something to public domain, even if they wanted to. Thus, its to signify that it is not in the public domain, but close. With that said, copyright tag(any copyright tag) abuse is massive. {{GFDL-self}} and {{PD-self}} are abused like crazy (they don't have to provide a source then if they claim to have made it themselves). If you look at WP:PUI, you'll see whole groups of images people have put up because a person uploaded two dozen images from a website and tagged them all as PD-self or something. With that said, please make sure you visit WP:PUI occasionally to delete the images that have sat there for 14 days and are clearly bad. Kevin_b_er 04:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels again, persistent vandal?[edit]

A user, User:B&W Anime Fan appears to be an intractable vandal, having vandalized userpages [33] (I have since reverted his perverted edits) and other pages before. Recently, however, he seems to have favored (or is) the style of the longtime vandal Willy on Wheels, adding this image(a trademark of Willy on Wheels) to his own talk page, and leaving messages such as Eeeeeeeeeeeeverybody shake your body do the Wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilly. He hasn't yet begun leaving these messages on pages other than my userpage yet, and does currently have a 24-hour block currently applied to him, but I think this case merits some investigation. I'd really appreciate it if some administrators could help me out. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 19:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably yet another copycat. I'd just keep an eye on him. Deco 19:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
It's getting worse. As of this edit, he stated: POW! I just punched kungming in the face. (My username, of course is Kungming2) - this is getting really serious and I'm afraid B&W Anime Fan will continue to relentlessly vandalize my userpages after his 24-hour block expires. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 19:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Panic not. He is claiming to be WoW. That means, when his block expires and if he vandalises again, he will simply be blocked forever immediately. Ignore him, go back to productive editing and be happy to know that he has blown through all the WP:AGF and chances he will get. If he attacks you again without provocation, he'll be gone. But let's let him jump off that cliff, rather than pushing him off it. There's a nicer, warmer, justicy-feel when they do that. Happy editing! ЯEDVERS 19:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Deco, Redvers - administrator Goldom blocked him indefinitely for the various reasons, and esp. for further posting nonsense on his talk page. That's what I find so great about Wikipedia - it's such a supportive community! –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 20:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick[edit]

Heads up, the case was just closed. Basically

with other provisions in case of reincidences. Check Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick for the details. -- Drini 22:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyde indef blocked Nathanrdotcom[edit]

This is a discussion which has been archived. Please do not post anything more to it. Best, Mackensen (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Odd Glitch at Portal:Current events[edit]

I'm not sure if any admins know what's responsible for this, but there is a strange glitch that has begun to occur on the Portal:Current events/July 2006 and Portal:Current events/August 2006 pages. As you can see, as long as the glitch is there, beginning at the July 10 and August 10 sections, the edit, watch, and history links have become corrupted, thereby corrupting the entire page. I know this didn't occur last month and so I'm curious if any changes have been made that could have caused this. Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The page making this line is: Portal:Current events/DateHeader2, perhaps a syntax error. This should not require a sysop to fix. — xaosflux Talk 01:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that's it. That page hasn't been updated in over a month (and, for what it's worth, I was the one who created it). Also, the August 10 section looks perfectly fine at Portal:Current events and at Portal:Current events/2006 August 10. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
When I changed the header to only have the edit link [34] it fixed the page, I've reverted it back, but that does seems to point to the potential problem. There may also be an unmatched </div>. — xaosflux Talk 02:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the help (although I'm quite certain it's a glitch). Perhaps just leaving the edit link would suffice for now. -- tariqabjotu 13:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed; it's out of admin's hands. The bug has been reported elsewhere too and it looks like they're on their way to fixing it. -- tariqabjotu 13:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I probably need to be blocked, as I'm about to violate WP:3RR and not care[edit]

I am currently engaging in a sort of undesirable "edit war" that I don't intend to be any sort of war, except the 3RR rule should have kicked in long ago, and nothing is happening in response to the 3RR report. Another editor systematically deletes all the content I add, with no explanation, or covertly in combination with another edit. The material has been deleted six times so far - the first four deletes in a matter of a few hours.

I left a report at the 3RR noticeboard two days ago, and it has been unacknowledged. I guess the 3RR rule is either arbitrary, or doesn't matter, or no one cares. I don't believe I have a WP:POINT to make, other than that the WP:3RR rule doesn't mean squat if it's impossible to get it enforced. In the meantime I'm going to keep on reverting (though I expect I'll do so slowly, as all the reverting is such a waste a time) and I will probably deserve a 3RR block as well. Someone, please let me know when the 3RR rule will continue to be enforced, so I will know when to stop breaking it. Thanks Reswobslc 03:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is nothing more than a rant. You don't provide any information about the conflict itself or where it is. --mboverload@ 03:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is Temple (Mormonism)-- 03:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It is indeed a rant. It's probably a silly one at that, and definitely a hasty one, because I normally take the time to provide good links. The contributor I'm complaining about is seemly also doing good article edits elsewhere, and a block is now belated and possibly counterproductive. I needed to get some frustration out, and this was a non-destructive way to do it. All the information about "where the conflict is" is on the 3RR notice board (diff after diff and then I stopped posting additional diffs since nobody's listening anyway... section here. I haven't been blocked for 3RR either yet, so I guess I shouldn't complain. Reswobslc 04:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
You yourself say "The contributor I'm complaining about is seemly also doing good article edits elsewhere"; so maybe just maybe it is not that no one cares but that those who care believe you are both good wikipedians who will wise up without outside help to better uses of your time than reverting each other. WAS 4.250 20:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
If you are edit warring because you feel emotional about the subject, the best thing is to leave the article for a while and work on something else. Remember: Wikipedia needs you and there are many other articles to be started! (You could also try the random article button and improve whatever article comes first). Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 21:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles[edit]

I was hoping to get more comments about what to do about articles with the template {{unreferenced}}, since the category that it put articles into, Category:Articles lacking sources, has been deleted. This makes it very difficult to work on fixing unreferenced articles, since the only way to see which articles have the template is to click on "what links here". People tend to work on topics that they are interested or have knowledge in. Using what links here makes that difficult, especially since there are now 16,650 articles (1.28% of all articles) with the template. I suggest that the template put articles in a category again and that a project be started to work on articles without references. Failing that, I suggest that the template be removed from any article it is on by a robot, since without a category and an organized project, there is unlikely to be any significant work done on fixing unreferenced articles, let alone keeping the number of articles it is on from getting higher. Please give your opinion here. Thanks, Kjkolb 06:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems an odd deletion indeed, since the Whatlinkshere feature doesn't allow alphabetical browsing of the category. This should probably go to DRV. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Consensus for deletion was not clear since in the CfD discussion there were equally good arguments for keeping the category. I just started the DRV process on this. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 14. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please look at my revert job on Horseshoes[edit]

I happened to notice a couple of nonsense vandalism edits of the Horseshoes article. Being bold, I decided to try to revert it myself. Could someone please check to make sure I did it correctly. I added the {{subst:test-n|PageName}} template to the two users' Talk pages, User_talk:Cucci04 and User_talk:Mapleleafedge. Was there anything else I should have done? Thanks. JanesDaddy 21:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Everything looks good. You can do it yourself by comparing your version and the version you attempted to revert to by selecting the two version and clicking the "Compare selected versions" button on the history page. -- Natalya 23:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible problem with User:MarshBot[edit]

See diff].

Haven't looked into its contribs to see if this happened elsewhere, but I can't block it anyway (I'm not an admin). --SB_Johnny | talk 00:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I found a couple more like that in just the first page of contributions, so I've blocked it and left User:W.marsh a note. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --SB_Johnny | talk 01:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It should be taken care of now, and I've manually fixed all the edits (I think). I got stuck behind an autoblock or I'd have responded here sooner... --W.marsh 01:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Vandal army" wiki[edit]

Regarding this:, linked from the user page of User:VandalKiller666: is this a Wikipedia vandal recruiting site set up by the "Bobby Boulders" vandal? It might be worthwhile contacting the whois contact for, who appears to be Rob Kohr of

Note: Searching for "ISV vandalism" finds the following:, User_talk:Bobby_the_Godbuilder, User_talk:Gorgeous_George, and : see here for the diff. Unsurprisingly, the editor who made that edit came from an AOL proxy. -- The Anome 00:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC) is registered to Robert Kohr. Yanksox 01:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
"" added to spam blacklist. Naconkantari 02:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Profanity and Offensive Remarks by Teknosoul02[edit]

In response to a factual statement: "Rutgers is a virtually unknown school to people living in California, and probably has a similar reputation to UCR - this is consistent with the similar peer assessment score"

Teknosoul wrote: Lisren dips*it, you don't know what you're talking about. DON'T YOU EVER INSULT MY ALMA MATER. THIS HAS GONE TOO FAR, A$$HOLE.