Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive85

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Henley-in-Arden and User:Billleech[edit]

User:Billleech (see User talk:Billleech for some discussion) and an anonymous IP adress (possibly the same user: User:81.174.164.179) are continually aediting the entry of this article away from an encyclopedic version to a version they say has been approved by, variously, the "residents of Henley-in-Arden", and "Henley-in-Arden Town Improvement Committee (TIC)". He has rejected advice from a variety of people about the nature of wikipedia, and states bluntly that all entries about the town must be approved by the relevant council. He has now also stated that it is "inappropriate for someone who lives outside the town to try an impose their unapproved design on a community." and has reported me for vandalism (see User talk:81.174.164.179 for this claim.) This design has been approved by our community.As has been commented, the approved version reads like a tourist brochure and not an encyclopedic entry. He has now taken to labelling verious people's reversions back to the encyclopedic version as "vandalism". What can be done about this? I see he has now reverted it yet again.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with. User has been blocked for 3RR.--Docg 11:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

He is still continuing to edit as the anonymous user (see latest posts on User talk:81.174.164.179) where he claims to have raised a ticket in some unspecified place about my supposed vandalism. What can be done about this? If he has reported me somewhere, and it is not on wikipedia, what can be done in situations like this if any repercussions happen?  DDStretch  (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:TheGoogleUser:Raden[edit]

Please see the start of this discussion at User talk:HighInBC and User talk:Raden#Not working.

Do any of you with some technical knowledge have any suggestion as to how to fix this. Thanks. GDonato (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Questionable deletion...[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Philippine_Presidents_by_longevity --- While Wikipedia is "not a democracy", the article was deleted despite what seemed like a lack of consensus, because of what seems to be the deleting user's ability to invalidate other users' reasons to keep. Perhaps that is acceptable. --Remi 19:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend that you first communicate with the closing admin on his/her talk page, expressing your concerns about whether the closing accurately reflected consensus; and if that does not produce a satisfactory result, then list the article on Wikipedia:Deletion review, following the instructions on that page. --MCB 20:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Second opinions on WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE[edit]

I know this isn't the right place to ask, but I wanted a quick second opinion on an issue being discussed at the talk page for List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. Could anyone reading this (not admins per se, just anyone with an understanding of WP:NOT) have a look at these sections on the talk page?

Thanks. Carcharoth 21:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Babalooo blocked for legal threats[edit]

I want to know if I did the right thing here. Babalooo (talk · contribs) made a legal threat here: [1]. Now, it's obvious there's a language barrier here, but I still found it prudent to block him until such time as he explains that he is not actually threatening to go to court about this. The legal threat policy is not just about the intent used (maybe by 'law' he meant 'rules', etc), it's about the words used. Even if he didn't mean to make a legal threat, it can obviously be interpreted as such by others. I said I will release the block as soon as he makes clear he understands the legal threat policy and has no intent to take this further. So, did I do the right thing? --Golbez 22:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me whether the editor is using the words "laws" and "charges" to refer to outside law enforcement activities, or to on-wiki reporting (i.e., bringing something to ANI or filing an RfC or RfAr). I would have sought a clarification before blocking, but in any event the question can equally be asked now. Newyorkbrad 22:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
He gave clarification and I've unblocked. To me, it looked rather blatant. --Golbez 23:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Kkrouni (talk · contribs)[edit]

Resolved: Blocking admin is a checkuser, that's where the evidence is from, nothing more I could do even if for some reason I still believed that there was no sockpuppetry. -Amarkov moo! 05:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This user is asking for review of their block, and their contributions show (at least to me) nothing but the fact that they could have been a sockpuppet. Could someone explain what evidence of sockpuppetry there is? -Amarkov moo! 00:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

*Checks SSP and RFCU for existing cases on the puppeteer ((User:Cowboy Rocco))*. I got nothing. Those 2 places are the only places where I think evidence would exist (other than AIV). Perhaps I should check AIV's history for the time of the block. Funpika 01:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The issue I have isn't really even that, it's that the contributions show they didn't once edit the same page. I'm going to go check a few more things to see if I can show that a connection is unlikely, but either way, contributions give no reason to believe sockpuppetry. I'm gonna go cross-post this to ANI. -Amarkov moo! 05:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, some evidence against it. Kkrouni's editing shows a gap between 2:00 UTC and around 16:00 UTC, with no edits at all between 3:00 and 10:00; that must be nighttime for him. However, sir Cowboy has a significant number of edits around 5:00, seeming to indicate that he is not the same person. -Amarkov moo! 05:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Meh, on closer inspection, it turns out that it's an anomaly. So it's definitely a possibility. And the blocking admin says that there was checkuser evidence, so this is probably moot. -Amarkov moo! 05:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The IP evidence is a dead-on match, and the fact that Kkrouni uses the same colored-signature as all of Cowboy Rocco's other socks doesn't seem like a coincidence. Raul654 05:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Finnish mark -> Finnish markka copy/paste move[edit]

Someone copy and paste moved Finnish mark to Finnish markka. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Style, the move was correct. The only edits to Finnish mark were redirects, so it should be an easy fix for an admin. Thanks, Ingrid 02:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Golbez 02:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Lists of diseases of..."[edit]

I had spoken with the contributor about this a while back, but I'm interested in some different opinions. I'm glad to see some more information about phytopathology being added, but most of these lists are wikitabled copies from APSnet (e.g. List of pear diseases is more or less a copy of this APSnet page) , and APSnet is quite plain about their copyrights and conditions of use.

I asked around for opinions on IRC today, and the friendly folks there recommending bringing it up here. Here's my questions:

  1. Are these sorts of lists copyrightable?
  2. If they are, could we get permission from them to release this under GFDL?
  3. If they are copyrightable, and we can't get permission, do we (well, you, really) need to delete them all?
  4. In the meantime, should such lists not be created until permission/release is confirmed?

I guess I'm just concerned that we're going to have to delete all these things sooner or later, and that earlier article sections about pests and diseases might be getting mixed into these pages (and so will be lost if deletion needs doing). Any thoughts? --SB_Johnny|talk|books 19:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the question is this: Is there anything other than raw information? If the list is a list of all diseases which fit into specific objective conditions, in an objective order (such as alphabetically), then it seems to me that it's just raw data (just like I'm allowed to copy the scientific name of a taxon from some other place). If, however, not all of the conditions I've specified are true, then (in my opinion) there is something more than raw data, and that something more is copyrightable. Od Mishehu 21:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'd say that fits. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 10:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Copy/paste move[edit]

Can someone fix the copy/paste move Edward Speelers -> Edward Speleers? Cheers. QmunkE 12:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Banned User Gibraltarian[edit]

Permanently blocked user Gibraltarian has for the second time removed [2] the WikiProject Spain template from the Gibraltar talk page, despite the majority view on the talk page that it should stay. The talk page of the IP from which he has been known to operate (User talk:212.120.230.72) says that "If you are responding to vandalism from this IP and the IP is hitting these articles, their talk pages, or any protection or arbitration related articles (such as requests for protection and requests for arbitration), please block the IP for a short period or ask an administrator to do so." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 12:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think he might already have been blocked. He just removed the block message from his talk page. Sorry, please ignore. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 12:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
He was blocked back on the 13th. I've just blocked for another week. – Steel 12:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately he's using a dynamic proxy. I don't recommend blocking it for that length of time - it's the only ISP in Gibraltar (AFAIK), and blocking it causes significant collateral damage. Could you please change the block to 3 hours (long enough to discourage him without to unduly harming others). -- ChrisO 13:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone ever contacted this ISP and explained the problem to them? --Golbez 22:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes - see [3]. Nonetheless, I simply recommend applying WP:RBI to him every time he surfaces. (BTW, his IP ranges are 212.120.224.0/19 and 195.244.192.0/19; he more often operates out of the former, but both ranges contain some isolated legimate edits). TML 23:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

New kind of vandalism?[edit]

We have a young Wikipedia contributer named User:Shark kid, who has been adding a lot of material to many military articles. He seems to mean well, but he has no idea what is appropriate and what is not. I have been deleting his worst edits, but recently Wandalstouring raised the possibility that Shark kid is really undertaking a new and very troublesome form of vandalism. Here is what Wandalstouring wrote:

"Quite a lot of editors have expressed their concerns over his edits. Doing so many questionable edits (often rather obvious) on such a broad field within such a short time seems rather strange to me and is quite an unusual behaviour for a new editor. I suspect it is a new style of vandalism. The idea behind it is to add a personal expression that can easily be identified as different from the background text. The great thing in vandalism is how long does my expression survive in a highly frequented spot. The problem was that RCpatrol, and other IP editors do a rather effective cleanup, ... and creating a login that soon gets blocked is too much work. The question for a vandal was now: How can I keep my expression much longer online? Well, one solution would be writing stuff that almost makes sense in an encyclopedia... Let's hope I'm wrong because otherwise this is the beginning of a new level of attacks which are dangerous for this encyclopedia..."

Frankly, I don't have the expertise to tell whether Shark kid is just an overenthusiastic high-school-age military buff, or a new kind of vandal. It was suggested that I raise the problem here, for admins to consider —Aetheling 05:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still combing through Shark Kid's edits, but so far I'm not convinced this is a case of vandalism. That said, Shark Kid is violating WP:CITE and WP:NPOV, for which I've reverted his edits. Other editors can also revert Shark Kid's edits if he doesn't learn to follow WP guidelines and policies regarding these points. However, let's assume good faith and help this new editor learn how to make quality edits. Of course, if strong evidence of vandalism emerges, then that's another story. Best, --Alabamaboy 19:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Permanent banning of specific text from article?[edit]

As a student at Geneva College, I monitor its page frequently. Many times over the last few months, "Travis York" has been added to the notable alumni; he's the administrator for my dorm, but definitely isn't notable. His name has been added by different people (I know from talking with them), and by several different IP addresses. Today, when reverting it, I put on something saying "don't add Travis!" Is there anything that can be done to prevent this, say a tag that can be placed on talk pages saying "don't add non-notable people"? Thanks! Nyttend 13:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much only HTML comments. We certainly don't want to enforce such restrictions in software. Dcoetzee 13:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You're certainly welcome to leave the hidden message, and to put a message on the talk page. However, we have such messages on pages like March 20, and people persist in adding themselves or their girlfriends or their grandmothers. Monitoring and quick removal is probably the best way to go. Joyous! | Talk 13:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Nyttend, you could give your classmates a long list of things not to add to the article, but it won't stop the people who already know what edits they are about to make, and you'll only be giving the rest of them new ideas. Your best bet would be to request semi-protection for a few days/weeks/whatever, see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. — CharlotteWebb 13:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was asking for anything other than the simple hidden message; I guess I'll just have to keep monitoring it :-) Nyttend 21:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Administrators by country categories[edit]

I have nominated the following six administrator by country categories, Category:American Wikipedia administrators, Category:Australian Wikipedia administrators, Category:English Wikipedia administrators, Category:Canadian Wikipedia administrators, Category:Indian Wikipedia administrators, and Category:New Zealand Wikipedia administrators, for deletion at User categories for discussion#Administrators by country. Comments welcome. Picaroon (Talk) 23:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks on external websites[edit]

216.186.65.143 (talk · contribs), who seems to be the same as Omniposcent (talk · contribs), has been posting urls at Talk:Afrocentrism that point to webspages with personal attacks on an editor he disagrees with. I considered this a serious personal attack and blocked him for one week. He has now come back as 128.95.102.79 (talk · contribs) and continues to post urls, this time to this page, which contains a rant against wikipedia. I'm for indef blocking the IPs (both belong to educational institutions). What do you reckon? --Ezeu 00:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and I would suggest to have the admins at Meta add the sites to the spam blocklist. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd say a block, probably a few weeks at least, is warranted for the second, but I don't think indefinitely blocking is good idea. Why? Because, assuming the person posting from the educational institutions is a student, as opposed to a teacher/administrator, they aren't going to be there for more than a couple more years. I'd only increase the block on the first one, meanwhile, if it starts editing again. Picaroon (Talk) 00:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • rexcurry.net is already blacklisted. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Dennett BLP issue[edit]

The lead on the article about Daniel Dennett labels him as an "atheist advocate." Besides being poorly sourced (the user wanting to keep claim says that a essay lauding atheism is enough to call him an advocate), it has a pejorative ring to it (cf. the phrase "homosexual advocate" used by social conservative critics). Furthermore, this sort of written work by Dennett is a minuscule fraction of what he does: we might as well also call him a newspaper columnist because he's had one published. Simões (talk/contribs) 00:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the comment. Unless a credible source can be given stating that he is a "atheist advocate," that term shouldn't be used. I also find it telling that no where else in the article is this subject taken up. --Alabamaboy 00:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Jeff replaced it with a reworded version. Incidentally, I don't know what "atheist advocate" means, exactly (doesn't make much grammatical sense), but I've met Dan (and drunk the very good cider wine he makes) and he sure as hell advocates atheism. He would be amused that there's any controversy about this here, I suspect. Chick Bowen 04:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
"Verifiability not truth"... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Never suggested otherwise. Chick Bowen 06:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Request review of pagemove[edit]

Resolved

Hi. I moved Union Flag to Union Jack this evening, while working on the WP:RM backlog. There has been concern voiced at the talk page that my closing the discussion as a move was inappropriate, since 40% of commenters opposed the move. I am posting here to request that others have a look at Talk:Union Jack#Requested move and let me know whether I made a bad call. Thanks in advance. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, this was correct. The pedant in me says union flag, but the common name is undoubtedly union jack. Guy (Help!) 08:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It was a reasonable closing of the requested move debate, whether or not one agrees with the move. Sam Blacketer 10:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Roobit using his talk page as an anti-Baltics soapbox[edit]

Please take an immediate look at this: the user is establishing an Anti-Baltic 'committe' in Wikipedia and uses the site as a tool for his ugly anti-Estonia propaganda. An admin - User:Coelacan - merely asked Roobit to stop, but that was all. Please intervene, delete the revision of talk page and block user Roobit for unabashed hate speech and hate propaganda. 193.40.5.245 10:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The case WAS already reported but Coelacan claimed there was no problem. Note that the soapbox of Roobit contains such phrases as “Ethnonazi state of Estonia glorifies SS legionnaires”, “United States of America (...) continue to ignore resurgent official Nazi malfeasance in Estonia” etc.! How long can such blatant abuse of Wikipedia - SLANDER - continue? Roobit has done it numerous times before, see e.g. [4] How long will this shameful propaganda be allowed to continue? How many 'last warnings' is he going to be offered? 193.40.5.245 11:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I remind you my suggestion, that User:Coelacan has showed himself as a biased administrator here. See this case: User:Kuban kazak calls on his user page all Estonians 'fascist pigs', Coelacan merely 'warns' him but blocks the Estonian IP that later RESPOBDED to Kuban kazak's ugly statement. Of course, the IP user should not have did this, but he REACTED to the anti-estonian hate speech by Kazak. Is that WP:NPOV? As well as User:Roobit? 193.40.5.245 11:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Despite the obvious overreaction of 193.40.5.245, he is basically right. Roobit is using Wikipedia to promote lies, hatred and neo-nazi views. The quotes (and more now - he added enclosures) can now be found from his user page. I sincerely hope that administrators won't allow Wikipedia to become a gathering place for neo-nazis and tool to promote their views. Apparently Coelacan is not critical of those views, so I ask another administrator (or more then one) to get involved. DLX 16:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism: User:Koalawitch[edit]

This user created four bogus articles on animated films/TV programmes, Fearllax The Cat (film), The Floordoor, The TimerStoppers and Cosgrove Top Hospital. I've CSD'd the lot. They (presumably) also inserted links for them into two other articles using two separate IP addresses 59.101.60.25 [5], and 220.233.237.60 [6]. Must be worth keeping an eye on - sneaky because as they're based on existing films, they'll usually get past new page patrol. Note: the lyrics for the "Cosgrove Top Hospital" song are slightly surreal.

Edit: Oops, missed one: The Twist Adventures of Fearllax The Cat. EliminatorJR Talk 11:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Former administrators and adminship reinstatement[edit]

While I have no intention of going anywhere near the bureaucratic tarpit that is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, the case involving Betacommand which is currently underway has relevance to some of my own actions while I was an administrator – specifically, my use of an unapproved, automated bot to perform thousands of controversial, out of process deletions at high speed without approval (example, full list runs to around 20,000 items). The Arbitration Committee's decision (not yet final, but already an unopposed majority) to revoke Betacommand's administrative status is mostly irrelevant as I voluntarily resigned adminship in January; however, the part that states that a user desysopped in this way must go through RfA to regain adminship is relevant, as it is generally understood that administrators who resigned voluntarily are able to request immediate re-adminship at any time.

Putting this through ArbCom would be a waste of time and effort for everyone, however it seems very likely that if that did happen, it would be decided that I must reapply for adminship through RfA if I wanted it – especially taking other issues into account; my misleading use of another account wouldn't exactly help (my insistence that it was not a sockpuppet might even have been against policy, I'm not sure), nor would my 3-hour block for disruption. In order to avoid any possible dispute in the future, I think it's best if I voluntarily give up my right to request re-instatement of adminship without RfA. In practise, all this involves is adding a little "1" next to my name on Wikipedia:Former administrators, so I have done this. This message is intended only to let people know that this has happened and explain the reason for it; if there is some rule which prevents me from making the change I made, then by all means do whatever else is required – Gurch 15:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As part of that general understanding, there is a requirement of uncontroversial circumstances. Given subsequent developments, I would doubt that this is satisfied anyway, so there's not really anything to give up. --bainer (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I figured the bureaucreats or stewards or whoever you have to ask would decide for themselves if that was the case anyway, but as that decision would presumably only come to be if I actually asked (which I don't intend to do), and the Arbitration Committee seem to be the only people who can formally specify a user must re-request adminship through RfA (or at least the only ones who have made such a specification in the past), I'd clarify the situation myself so that nobody in the future decides to try and make a dispute out of it. If the bureaucrats/stewards have in fact already made up their mind on the matter, then that's fine too. (I assume by "subsequent developments" you're referring to Betacommand's RfAr... unless there's something I've missed?) Thanks – Gurch 18:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
One can only assume that the original rules of not needing Rfa was based upon the user acting in a way be-fitting and admin, even when they weren't officially one. It would be quite obviously rediculous to de-admin your self, run a muck, then get it back.--Dacium 23:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, quite; though I don't think I've really "run amok" at any point in my time here – Gurch 22:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU[edit]

Resolved: No more backlog, at this time. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems to have something of a whopping great big ugly dirty backlog. Is something broken, or have all the checkusers gone on holiday? Do we need more? Cheers, Moreschi Talk 06:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

In my eyes, it's been like this for a few weeks now. SirFozzie 06:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Didn't this also happen not to long ago due to data conversion problems? — MichaelLinnear 06:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It ebbs and flows. It's distinctly cheerless work. We've got enough people; it's just sometimes none of us wants to wade in the crap pit. I just cleaned out a mess of 'em, but I'd rather be dancing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU was created specifically so the checkers wouldn't be bothered with silly requests. Some checkers go through it anyway out of the goodness of their hearts. A backlog there is probably not any sort of actual problem - David Gerard 16:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User Subpage[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the right place, but I would like admin feedback on a subpage I created, in the wake of the CINEGroup kafuffle, especially if the admin has prior knowledge of the issue. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ispy1981/Suspected_aliases_of_CINEGroup

--Ispy1981 18:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not an admin and I don't know the story. The page looks harmless. I don't see why you care so much about this, but I also don't see the harm in it. YechielMan 07:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, first, thank you for the comment. I really don't care that much about the man himself. I just believe his actions are a blight on Wikipedia. I also wanted to show common patterns running through these aliases (I don't call them socks because quite a few are anon IPs.) Some of the info comes from another user,who had formulated a whole article in a sandbox entry, that was blanked by one of CINEGroup's aliases. He obviously believes Wikipedians are morons and will continue the behavior I've lined out regardless. I offer this as somewhat of a guideline to his behavior, for my self and others to mark the similarities when he returns.

--Ispy1981 01:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Reapersss x[edit]

Resolved

Reapersss x (talk · contribs) was an account created on, and only made one edit on December 12, 2006, which was vandalism to the Central Elgin Collegiate Institute article seen here. This followed my constant reverting of vandalism on that article, and other Thames Valley District School Board secondary school articles like Arthur Voaden Secondary School and West Elgin Secondary School. This behaviour occured throughout November and December 2006, most notably from other one-off vandalism accounts including:

Another one, Count Hindu (talk · contribs), was created afterward. This nonsense brings up the question of if there is sock-puppetry going on, due to the timing patterns and similar nature of the vandalism. I could do an investigation, but I have neither the energy or time. My main concern is Reapersss x, which I feel mocks my user-name, and I feel should be blocked for that, the unconstructive edit, and possible sock-puppetry amongst the chaos on the TVDSB articles in early December 2006. Thank you. -- Reaper X 23:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is it so hard to do checkusers? Seriously this seems to happen all the time and it always seems to be that a user gets banned, but no one ever checkusers even if there are other obvious accounts?--Dacium 23:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser data is preserved for a limited time. Only Speakingthetruth has edited recently enough for data to still be in the logs. Thatcher131 00:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I haven't learned about checkusers until now, but I will remember that for the future, maybe request checkuser data on Speakingthetruth. Nonetheless, we are straying from my main question: Would it be appropriate to block Reapersss x? -- Reaper X 01:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's not blatant enough to block without discussion, but I think you should take it to WP:RFCN or whatever replaces that page after it gets off MfD. CMummert · talk 20:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Community ban for Lovelight[edit]

I would like to ask that an uninvolved admin review a discussion going on at the Community sanction noticeboard concerning user Lovelight. There appears to be a concensus to ban, but it would be nice to have someone uninvolved to this point review the materials and carry out the action. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 17:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Lovelight until if/when arbitration occurs. The user (on the user talk page) shows interest in having ArbCom look at the case so we will continue with the dispute resolution process. If the committee rejects the case, then I will reblock as a ban. Teke 02:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Log in issue.[edit]

For some reason, I am unable to log on to be account here. When inputting my username and password it informs me that my password is incorrect even though I am inputting the correct password and have not changed it recently. When I click on the button to request a new password it informs me that there is no password on record, though I thought that was required for an account. The account is User:Niroht. I do recognize, however, that due to security issues I may have to start a new account, which I am willing to do if it is necessary, though I would like to avoid it. --149.152.63.107 21:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The password policy has recently been changed. If your password is the same as your username, you will have to request a new password. Naconkantari 22:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Zao xing yang[edit]

I've listed this on the BLP noticeboard, but I think this might require more immediate action. The entire article is unsourced, making multiple accusations of crimes, for a person who is, at best, only marginally notable. Corvus cornix 22:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured content[edit]

Currently has a Fair use image on it. Just a heads up. 64.178.96.168 23:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sensitive IP addresses[edit]

I put a note over at Wikipedia talk:Blocking IP addresses (actually it was Wikipedia talk:Sensitive IP addresses before it got merged), but that seems to be fairly low traffic, so I thought I'd mention it again here. SelketBot currently tags shared IP address pages with {{SharedIP}} or {{SharedIPEDU}} as appropriate. Would anyone find it useful to develop a template for the "sensitive" IPs on that list and have the bot tag their talk pages when they receive messages too? --Selket Talk 00:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The AIV helperbots already note if a sensitive address is reported to AIV, but I don't see what it'd hurt to have the IP's talk page tagged too. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd only really be concerned about duplicate labels (bot labelling of pages already labelled as being sensitive IP addresses). Marking the talk pages might be wise -- would keep more editors aware of what's going on. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Anon 88.110.129.24 making disruptive edits[edit]

Anon 88.110.129.24 has made disruptive edits to the FA Quatermass and the Pit by sectioning the lead section which is meant to act as a summary of the article. All the info he is sectioning is actually already in the body of the article. He also keeps reverting others edits to stop this, and taunts them with a reminder of the 3RR rule. LuciferMorgan 18:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be Light current (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), I presume. Antandrus (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser on the anon shows him to be User:OpenLoop Raul654 18:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Could those two be the same? His activity at the Reference Desk [7] is very LC-esque. Antandrus (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Ive looked at those edits, and they dont show any similarites to me. BTW how do you define LC esque? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.123.188 (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Light current's edits have long since fallen off the recent changes and out of checkuser. But using a bit of black magic, I was able to dig up some of LC's IPs, and confirm that they match the anon. Raul654 18:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoever he is he's done it again to Quatermass and the Pit. Angmering 23:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
This is anon 88.109.16.63 this time and is the same person. Since Raul654's done a good job thus far handling the situation, if it keeps happening maybe it'd be worth requesting his help. LuciferMorgan 13:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Grandmasterka/Admin backlog contest[edit]

Feel free to comment, change it, blast it (not too harshly I hope...) Whatever. Just read it. Grandmasterka 04:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment here? If so, tone down the negative penalty for overturned blocks, by at least 1/2. SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep, the negative penalty is way too harsh. Also something needs to be done with the incentive. Some sort of Featured admin for the week, maybe? I also feel some wikiproject would be better to implement this rather than an make it official. --soum (0_o) 06:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah... I think it would be best if any comments were left on its talk page, not here. You can be bold and change it yourself, or see what others think first. It's a work in progress. :-) Grandmasterka 06:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Not bad stuff, actually. Would you add a line for WP:COIN? DurovaCharge! 08:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Go for it. Herostratus 15:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice, although I'm only 28th on the list of admins. Must try harder! (aeropagitica) 20:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting more support than I thought it would. As such, I'm encouraging others to BE BOLD and help contribute to the list with your own items and ideas, because I don't touch all the admin-related areas. Grandmasterka 20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

...and now it's on MFD. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Blatant Vandal" Tag[edit]

I have to say I am most unimpressed with the {{blatantvandal}} tag, which in its current state looks like this:

"
Stop hand.svg
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you."

When I placed this tag on an offender's talk page (the Offender in question having been already slapped with a "test4", I expected the tone of the message to be far more serious, for instance:

"This user appears only to be performing bad edits, purely out of malice. It is therefore requested that an administrator block them at once, for at least 1 week."

well, something like that anyway. My point is that the current message is too weak. A template calling itself "Blatant Vandal" shouldn't be the sort of template where the good faith of the user is still to be assumed, ie one that welcomes them and kindly requests them to edit sensibly. What would be the point of sending such a message to a "Blatant Vandal"?

Incidentally, are there any warning templates I can use which send out a more harsh message than "test4" does, without actually informing the user that he/she has been blocked?--131.111.202.17 12:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I find Template:TestTemplates quite useful, even though it's deprecated. You could try {{test4im}} next time? --Deskana (fry that thing!) 12:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no need for a more harsh message than test4. If they have continued to vandalize after test4, report them on WP:AIV. The blatant vandal template is just a way to kind of skip over test1 and test2 if the users edits have been unusually obvious vandalism. --OnoremDil 12:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

{{blatantvandal}} is basically the same thing as {{uw-vandalism4im}}. It's for someone whose intent to vandalize is so obvious that good faith need not be assumed. It's not intended for use after a test4/vandalism4. If someone vandalizes after those, go to WP:AIV. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I used to work on the basis that {{bv}} is about a level-3 warning, adapted to be givable immediately in cases of obvious vandalism, and {{test4im}} is about a level-4 warning, when the vandalism's both obvious and more serious than usual. --ais523 13:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is the way I use it too, ie. not to be preceeded by, but to be followed by test4, where vandalism is obvious and extreme, and where there are no prior warnings. --Ezeu 13:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:UTM is what you want, I believe. 64.178.96.168 23:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This tag should be used for someone whose intent is clear but has only had one or two edits. Someone who, for example, replaces the entire page of Albert Einstein with "einstein is gay and wikipedia sucks lulz" is quite obviously not trying to test his or her abilities to edit. However, since it's their first edit, blatantvandal is best to make it clear that those kinds of edits are not appreciated and to give them a chance to stop, while making it clear that if they continue, they can be blocked without further warning. At least, that's how I see it. JuJube 00:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Me too. If an editor's first couple of edits are vandalism, and I'm in a good mood, I might slap this on their talk page. On the other hand, if I don't notice it until they have a half dozen or so, I'll just block them as a vandalism-only account. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Warning templates aren't supposed to be "harsh," I'd say -- they're intended to fill in the gap between our general desire to assume good faith and our need to block people too intent or ignorant to stop disrupting the project. When somebody does something disruptive, we can warn them; if they do the same thing again, repeatedly, after some number of warnings, we can pretty safely assume they're not here to be helpful. That's the idea, as I take it. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok thanks that's pretty much all I wanted to know. It's just that I'd come across quite a few vandals who'd already receive a couple of test4's, and I expected the bv tag to do more than it actually did. I'll take up your suggestion of AIV or test4im when I next come across such users.--131.111.202.17 10:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Spaming By Judeeclare[edit]

Resolved

All of Judeeclare edits has been spaming his own website. DXRAW 10:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

But does his spam include non-free images in mega-list form? --Gmaxwell 10:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Didn't see any of that, this was the garden-variety external link type. Still, I figured we should give him credit for effort and an indef block. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Anon 88.110.129.24 making disruptive edits[edit]

Anon 88.110.129.24 has made disruptive edits to the FA Quatermass and the Pit by sectioning the lead section which is meant to act as a summary of the article. All the info he is sectioning is actually already in the body of the article. He also keeps reverting others edits to stop this, and taunts them with a reminder of the 3RR rule. LuciferMorgan 18:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be Light current (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), I presume. Antandrus (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser on the anon shows him to be User:OpenLoop Raul654 18:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Could those two be the same? His activity at the Reference Desk [8] is very LC-esque. Antandrus (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Ive looked at those edits, and they dont show any similarites to me. BTW how do you define LC esque? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.123.188 (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Light current's edits have long since fallen off the recent changes and out of checkuser. But using a bit of black magic, I was able to dig up some of LC's IPs, and confirm that they match the anon. Raul654 18:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoever he is he's done it again to Quatermass and the Pit. Angmering 23:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
This is anon 88.109.16.63 this time and is the same person. Since Raul654's done a good job thus far handling the situation, if it keeps happening maybe it'd be worth requesting his help. LuciferMorgan 13:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Grandmasterka/Admin backlog contest[edit]

Feel free to comment, change it, blast it (not too harshly I hope...) Whatever. Just read it. Grandmasterka 04:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment here? If so, tone down the negative penalty for overturned blocks, by at least 1/2. SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep, the negative penalty is way too harsh. Also something needs to be done with the incentive. Some sort of Featured admin for the week, maybe? I also feel some wikiproject would be better to implement this rather than an make it official. --soum (0_o) 06:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah... I think it would be best if any comments were left on its talk page, not here. You can be bold and change it yourself, or see what others think first. It's a work in progress. :-) Grandmasterka 06:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Not bad stuff, actually. Would you add a line for WP:COIN? DurovaCharge! 08:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Go for it. Herostratus 15:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice, although I'm only 28th on the list of admins. Must try harder! (aeropagitica) 20:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting more support than I thought it would. As such, I'm encouraging others to BE BOLD and help contribute to the list with your own items and ideas, because I don't touch all the admin-related areas. Grandmasterka 20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

...and now it's on MFD. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Blatant Vandal" Tag[edit]

I have to say I am most unimpressed with the {{blatantvandal}} tag, which in its current state looks like this:

"
Stop hand.svg
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you."

When I placed this tag on an offender's talk page (the Offender in question having been already slapped with a "test4", I expected the tone of the message to be far more serious, for instance:

"This user appears only to be performing bad edits, purely out of malice. It is therefore requested that an administrator block them at once, for at least 1 week."

well, something like that anyway. My point is that the current message is too weak. A template calling itself "Blatant Vandal" shouldn't be the sort of template where the good faith of the user is still to be assumed, ie one that welcomes them and kindly requests them to edit sensibly. What would be the point of sending such a message to a "Blatant Vandal"?

Incidentally, are there any warning templates I can use which send out a more harsh message than "test4" does, without actually informing the user that he/she has been blocked?--131.111.202.17 12:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I find Template:TestTemplates quite useful, even though it's deprecated. You could try {{test4im}} next time? --Deskana (fry that thing!) 12:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no need for a more harsh message than test4. If they have continued to vandalize after test4, report them on WP:AIV. The blatant vandal template is just a way to kind of skip over test1 and test2 if the users edits have been unusually obvious vandalism. --OnoremDil 12:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

{{blatantvandal}} is basically the same thing as {{uw-vandalism4im}}. It's for someone whose intent to vandalize is so obvious that good faith need not be assumed. It's not intended for use after a test4/vandalism4. If someone vandalizes after those, go to WP:AIV. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I used to work on the basis that {{bv}} is about a level-3 warning, adapted to be givable immediately in cases of obvious vandalism, and {{test4im}} is about a level-4 warning, when the vandalism's both obvious and more serious than usual. --ais523 13:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is the way I use it too, ie. not to be preceeded by, but to be followed by test4, where vandalism is obvious and extreme, and where there are no prior warnings. --Ezeu 13:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:UTM is what you want, I believe. 64.178.96.168 23:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This tag should be used for someone whose intent is clear but has only had one or two edits. Someone who, for example, replaces the entire page of Albert Einstein with "einstein is gay and wikipedia sucks lulz" is quite obviously not trying to test his or her abilities to edit. However, since it's their first edit, blatantvandal is best to make it clear that those kinds of edits are not appreciated and to give them a chance to stop, while making it clear that if they continue, they can be blocked without further warning. At least, that's how I see it. JuJube 00:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Me too. If an editor's first couple of edits are vandalism, and I'm in a good mood, I might slap this on their talk page. On the other hand, if I don't notice it until they have a half dozen or so, I'll just block them as a vandalism-only account. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Warning templates aren't supposed to be "harsh," I'd say -- they're intended to fill in the gap between our general desire to assume good faith and our need to block people too intent or ignorant to stop disrupting the project. When somebody does something disruptive, we can warn them; if they do the same thing again, repeatedly, after some number of warnings, we can pretty safely assume they're not here to be helpful. That's the idea, as I take it. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok thanks that's pretty much all I wanted to know. It's just that I'd come across quite a few vandals who'd already receive a couple of test4's, and I expected the bv tag to do more than it actually did. I'll take up your suggestion of AIV or test4im when I next come across such users.--131.111.202.17 10:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Family Guy episodes[edit]

Large discussion about screen shots in Lists of episodes moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/List of Family Guy episodes --01:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Spaming By Judeeclare[edit]

Resolved

All of Judeeclare edits has been spaming his own website. DXRAW 10:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

But does his spam include non-free images in mega-list form? --Gmaxwell 10:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Didn't see any of that, this was the garden-variety external link type. Still, I figured we should give him credit for effort and an indef block. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Radiant's Bureaucracy Watch[edit]

Some editors have suggested a procedure for selecting the "best" featured article among articles featured each week and month, via majority voting. The practicality of this process is questionable. Feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Article of the week and Wikipedia:Article of the Month. >Radiant< 10:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have a procedure for selecting procedures to procedurally disassemble. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
How about Wikipedia:Featured process and Wikipedia:Featured guideline? We could surely do without those. Mangojuicetalk 14:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that's pretty awesome, we should explain the Policy of the Week on the main page, because that way all n00bs will learn policy!!!1!!one
We already have Today's featured policy. – Steel 14:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with the idea, though I really should be commenting at the talk pages, not here. Not really an admin issue. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Featured Users, then we can all vote of who the best user is! ^demon[omg plz] 15:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be Wikipedia:Featured user then? ;-) --Ali'i 15:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh my: [9] --Ali'i 15:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Vote is a Bad Word. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • We could rename RFA to "Featured User Candidates". We could make all sorts of, er, delightful puns with that FUCing phrase. >Radiant< 16:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, WP:FUC is already taken :) --Durin 16:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
We could have a Featured Administrators' Noticeboard Incident Thread (WP:FANIT), but I wouldn't want to suggest anything ever hits fans around here. Antandrus (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:SHIT, WP:FAN, merge proposal, WP:SHIT hits WP:FAN. Make your own joke... Guy (Help!) 21:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's always the joke about how the WP:FANs will then spread the WP:SHIT all over the place... Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Reapersss x[edit]

Resolved

Reapersss x (talk · contribs) was an account created on, and only made one edit on December 12, 2006, which was vandalism to the Central Elgin Collegiate Institute article seen here. This followed my constant reverting of vandalism on that article, and other Thames Valley District School Board secondary school articles like Arthur Voaden Secondary School and West Elgin Secondary School. This behaviour occured throughout November and December 2006, most notably from other one-off vandalism accounts including:

Another one, Count Hindu (talk · contribs), was created afterward. This nonsense brings up the question of if there is sock-puppetry going on, due to the timing patterns and similar nature of the vandalism. I could do an investigation, but I have neither the energy or time. My main concern is Reapersss x, which I feel mocks my user-name, and I feel should be blocked for that, the unconstructive edit, and possible sock-puppetry amongst the chaos on the TVDSB articles in early December 2006. Thank you. -- Reaper X 16:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Reapersss x as a vandal only account when this was first posted at RFCN, not sure why it was moved here. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I was advised to take it to WP:RFCN, and they shot it back here. Nonetheless I was unaware the user was already blocked. Thank you anyway, case resolved. -- Reaper X 18:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The user was not already blocked, I blocked in response to the RFCN posting. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

NeilinOz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has emailed me asking (well, more demanding, really) to be unblocked. I blocked per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kzq9599. I don't particularly want to engage in dialog with this one. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser request mentions BryanFromPalatine, NeilinOz1 isn't directly related by IP but was mentioned as using open proxies. A quick glance at their contribs shows a sudden return from hiatus right around the time other users mentioned in the RfCU were active in a particualr dispute, and also a rather stunning familiarity with policy and Jimbo quotations for somebody with 0 prior edits in any projectspace... hrrm. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. Sockpuppet or troll, don't much care which. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 19:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Joe Dick[edit]

Hi I was wondering if you could help us here. HoneyBee and Myself have some difficulties with a new user Joe Dick. He has removed a large amount of content from the Methos and Duncan MacLeod articles and each time the content is reverted back he claims vandalism on our parts and refuses to discuss his reasons on the talk pages. Not only that he has been reverting the warnings placed on his talk page leaving a message on our talk page stating Please do not post any further invalid warnings to my talk page, or I will report you. Please can you help resolve this as he will not listen to any regular users, Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 22:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If you read the talk pages, you will find that I have in fact stated my reasons and have attempted to discuss things, to no avail. Joe Dick 22:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that things have calmed down. Thanks :-) -- UKPhoenix79 23:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan semi-protection[edit]

Hi there. About two weeks ago, I requested protection for the article Ronald Reagan, which was granted, but they said for only two weeks. Than this box {{pp-semi-protected}} was on the top, like with every semi-protection. The problem is that it says it was to expire after two weeks, and two weeks have one by, but the date in the box changes every day, for some reason, resluting in an unofficial permanent protection. Now, personally, I like it like this, because it is sooooo much better without the constant vandalsim, but to not say anything would be wrong, so I was wondering what to do. If there's any way to permanently protect this page, im interested, because this 2-week potection has been great. Happyme22 03:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone put the expiry date in the template as "2 weeks," hence making the apparent expiry date change every day. —210physicq (c) 03:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I did. I'm officially stupid :) Back in my first days of admin. - Alison 05:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The box, or template, doesn't actually protect the article, it's just a notice. To see actual protections and unprotections, check the logs. John Reaves (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok thanks everyone. Happyme22 04:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

DWEEC (Devout, Western, Educated, Ecumenical Christians)[edit]

Has there been discussion already about the doubleblue.info site? I just came across it, and the content seemed very relevant to WP, but when I tried to post a link it was refused, so maybe I just missed the discussion? Anchoress 05:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's on the spam blacklist [10] under "#Essjay's list" but the only place I've seen it mentioned on the discussion page is here [11] so I'm not entirely certain why it was added. Is this familiar to anyone?
You can always add a request for delisting here. Antandrus (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, sorry, I had to scrap my old post because of the blacklist, and when I re-wrote my post I didn't do a very good job of explaining what I was after. I'm not interested in posting the link anywhere (except on AN), because my interest in the site is due to the content (discussion about WP editors and alleged cabalism/POV pushing). The fact that it's a blacklisted site leads me to believe, though, that I'm not the first person to bring it to admin attention. Sorry for being unclear before. Anchoress 05:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I found it. Look in this diff from April 2006: [12] -- it inserts a line comment "Site contains personal information about Wikipedians, and is being used to stalk and harass them." Antandrus (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the find. Anchoress 05:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

We finally have a conclusion to the Essjay situation[edit]

The Essjay situation resulted in Jimbo calling for a credential policy which resulted in this straw poll which resulted in the community rejecting every policy proposal except "This is a proposal to ask the Foundation to make it a formal policy that checkusers' identities are known to the OFFICE. It is said that they are but it is not formal policy." titled "meta:Talk:CheckUser policy#Real name policy". Which up to now has only resulted in the change of Jimbo's proposal into an essay. We now we have an actual policy change in that its contents match the policy approved by the community. Kat Walsh announced May 1 that the board approved a Resolution:Access to nonpublic data on April 11 that requires "all users with access to non-public data covered by the site's Privacy Policy to provide identification to the Foundation. This includes checkusers, oversights, stewards, and volunteers on OTRS. In addition, all users holding these positions must be 18 or older, and also of the age of majority in whichever jurisdiction they live in." People with existing access have 60 days to get their ID data to the foundation. WAS 4.250 01:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That seems about right. Thatcher131 02:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
That's terrible. It could increase systemic bias — according to UNICEF, one third of all births in the world are not registered. [13] That's one third of the world's population that has no ID. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 02:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
How many of those have access to CheckUser, Oversight, or OTRS? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Who knows? A third of the world's population means over 2 billion chances to overcome the odds. Such people are already underrepresented without discriminating against the few who manage to become Wikipedians. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 12:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The overwhelming majority of those don't have regular access to the Internet, much less holding trusted positions in Wikipedia. I am quite sure that alternate forms of ID will be found and accepted should such a far fetched hypothetical case arise. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The overwhelming majority of the world does not have regular access to the internet. If undocumented people were proportionately represented on Wikipedia, one third of Wikipedians would have no birth certificate. Obviously, they aren't proportionately represented, contributing to systemic bias. However, it is still reasonable to assume that even if each undocumented person's chance of becoming a Wikipedian is less than one's chance of winning the lottery, a few of them still made it. (We are talking about over 2 billion people, after all.) Someone without a birth certificate is unlikely to have any other form of official ID. So, unless alternate ID can include another stranger who might not have an ID or speak English testifying that the person is in fact known by a particular name, I doubt that alternate forms of ID would be found and accepted in the majority of situations. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 00:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure how that is a conclusion to the "Essjay controversy", but it is news warranting note on this noticeboard. --Iamunknown 02:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, it doesn't have much to do with Essjay at all. This has been under discussion since the last steward elections at least. In fact, the decision to head in this direction is what prevented Essjay from running in the last steward elections... I understand that pissed him off greatly :). --Gmaxwell 03:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Brad Patrick, former Wikimedia Foundation lawyer and interim executive director, says in the foundation mailing list thread WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed The point is that the Foundation cannot risk letting people no Foundation person has shaken hands with, spoken to on the phone, etc., from having the capacity to expose confidential information. One word: Essjay. [14] - WAS 4.250 22:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
People are still mad at Essjay, after all these months, even after he apologised and stepped down? I wonder why anyone would still want to be an admin, beauracrat, checkuser, or anything like that knowing that after years of hard work serving the community, that same community may jump down one's throat over one mistake. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 00:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
And that is a conclusion how, exactly? Mr Patrick's comment sounds more like Essjay pummelling to me. Oh, whatever, the issue is irrelevant. Thank you for bringing the news to WP:AN --Iamunknown 01:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
WAS, whats the bold text for? --Gmaxwell 01:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Iamunknown, I would suggest you read Brad's full message and the message he was replying to so that you have the full context for his statement. --bainer (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Family Guy episodes[edit]

Large discussion about screen shots in Lists of episodes moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/List of Family Guy episodes --01:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Radiant's Bureaucracy Watch[edit]

Some editors have suggested a procedure for selecting the "best" featured article among articles featured each week and month, via majority voting. The practicality of this process is questionable. Feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Article of the week and Wikipedia:Article of the Month. >Radiant< 10:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have a procedure for selecting procedures to procedurally disassemble. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
How about Wikipedia:Featured process and Wikipedia:Featured guideline? We could surely do without those. Mangojuicetalk 14:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that's pretty awesome, we should explain the Policy of the Week on the main page, because that way all n00bs will learn policy!!!1!!one
We already have Today's featured policy. – Steel 14:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with the idea, though I really should be commenting at the talk pages, not here. Not really an admin issue. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Featured Users, then we can all vote of who the best user is! ^demon[omg plz] 15:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be Wikipedia:Featured user then? ;-) --Ali'i 15:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh my: [15] --Ali'i 15:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Vote is a Bad Word. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • We could rename RFA to "Featured User Candidates". We could make all sorts of, er, delightful puns with that FUCing phrase. >Radiant< 16:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, WP:FUC is already taken :) --Durin 16:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
We could have a Featured Administrators' Noticeboard Incident Thread (WP:FANIT), but I wouldn't want to suggest anything ever hits fans around here. Antandrus (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:SHIT, WP:FAN, merge proposal, WP:SHIT hits WP:FAN. Make your own joke... Guy (Help!) 21:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's always the joke about how the WP:FANs will then spread the WP:SHIT all over the place... Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Reapersss x[edit]

Resolved

Reapersss x (talk · contribs) was an account created on, and only made one edit on December 12, 2006, which was vandalism to the Central Elgin Collegiate Institute article seen here. This followed my constant reverting of vandalism on that article, and other Thames Valley District School Board secondary school articles like Arthur Voaden Secondary School and West Elgin Secondary School. This behaviour occured throughout November and December 2006, most notably from other one-off vandalism accounts including:

Another one, Count Hindu (talk · contribs), was created afterward. This nonsense brings up the question of if there is sock-puppetry going on, due to the timing patterns and similar nature of the vandalism. I could do an investigation, but I have neither the energy or time. My main concern is Reapersss x, which I feel mocks my user-name, and I feel should be blocked for that, the unconstructive edit, and possible sock-puppetry amongst the chaos on the TVDSB articles in early December 2006. Thank you. -- Reaper X 16:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Reapersss x as a vandal only account when this was first posted at RFCN, not sure why it was moved here. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I was advised to take it to WP:RFCN, and they shot it back here. Nonetheless I was unaware the user was already blocked. Thank you anyway, case resolved. -- Reaper X 18:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The user was not already blocked, I blocked in response to the RFCN posting. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

NeilinOz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has emailed me asking (well, more demanding, really) to be unblocked. I blocked per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kzq9599. I don't particularly want to engage in dialog with this one. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser request mentions BryanFromPalatine, NeilinOz1 isn't directly related by IP but was mentioned as using open proxies. A quick glance at their contribs shows a sudden return from hiatus right around the time other users mentioned in the RfCU were active in a particualr dispute, and also a rather stunning familiarity with policy and Jimbo quotations for somebody with 0 prior edits in any projectspace... hrrm. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. Sockpuppet or troll, don't much care which. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 19:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Joe Dick[edit]

Hi I was wondering if you could help us here. HoneyBee and Myself have some difficulties with a new user Joe Dick. He has removed a large amount of content from the Methos and Duncan MacLeod articles and each time the content is reverted back he claims vandalism on our parts and refuses to discuss his reasons on the talk pages. Not only that he has been reverting the warnings placed on his talk page leaving a message on our talk page stating Please do not post any further invalid warnings to my talk page, or I will report you. Please can you help resolve this as he will not listen to any regular users, Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 22:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If you read the talk pages, you will find that I have in fact stated my reasons and have attempted to discuss things, to no avail. Joe Dick 22:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that things have calmed down. Thanks :-) -- UKPhoenix79 23:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan semi-protection[edit]

Resolved

Hi there. About two weeks ago, I requested protection for the article Ronald Reagan, which was granted, but they said for only two weeks. Than this box {{pp-semi-protected}} was on the top, like with every semi-protection. The problem is that it says it was to expire after two weeks, and two weeks have one by, but the date in the box changes every day, for some reason, resluting in an unofficial permanent protection. Now, personally, I like it like this, because it is sooooo much better without the constant vandalsim, but to not say anything would be wrong, so I was wondering what to do. If there's any way to permanently protect this page, im interested, because this 2-week potection has been great. Happyme22 03:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone put the expiry date in the template as "2 weeks," hence making the apparent expiry date change every day. —210physicq (c) 03:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I did. I'm officially stupid :) Back in my first days of admin. - Alison 05:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The box, or template, doesn't actually protect the article, it's just a notice. To see actual protections and unprotections, check the logs. John Reaves (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok thanks everyone. Happyme22 04:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

DWEEC (Devout, Western, Educated, Ecumenical Christians)[edit]

Has there been discussion already about the doubleblue.info site? I just came across it, and the content seemed very relevant to WP, but when I tried to post a link it was refused, so maybe I just missed the discussion? Anchoress 05:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's on the spam blacklist [16] under "#Essjay's list" but the only place I've seen it mentioned on the discussion page is here [17] so I'm not entirely certain why it was added. Is this familiar to anyone?
You can always add a request for delisting here. Antandrus (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, sorry, I had to scrap my old post because of the blacklist, and when I re-wrote my post I didn't do a very good job of explaining what I was after. I'm not interested in posting the link anywhere (except on AN), because my interest in the site is due to the content (discussion about WP editors and alleged cabalism/POV pushing). The fact that it's a blacklisted site leads me to believe, though, that I'm not the first person to bring it to admin attention. Sorry for being unclear before. Anchoress 05:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I found it. Look in this diff from April 2006: [18] -- it inserts a line comment "Site contains personal information about Wikipedians, and is being used to stalk and harass them." Antandrus (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the find. Anchoress 05:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Small backlog at AIV[edit]

Resolved

11 reports at AIV currently. I think Gwernol's there, but could probably do with a hand. --Dweller 14:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks admins. You weild those mops mightily. --Dweller 14:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mudaliar-Venki123[edit]

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Mudaliar and User:Venki123 are each banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year. This notice is posted by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 15:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Proposed for deletion for over five days[edit]

Resolved

This category's CfD was closed as delete back on April 18, but it's still around. Perhaps the problem is, as User:After Midnight explained, that "technically, this category can not be deleted without editing the template so that it will no longer attempt to populate the category"? (Or one of the other comments...) I'm not confident enough in my template-editin' skillz to fix this...maybe someone with a higher degree of wikitechnosavvy would be willing to check this out? Thanks, — Scientizzle 15:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the template so that it no longer categorizes into the category in question. All the pages in the cat at the moment will need to be null-edited or deleted to finally clear the category (unless this is another of the jobs the job queue does). There aren't very many, so it shouldn't take long, and then a simple {{db-xfd}} on the cat should finally finish the CfD up. --ais523 16:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe that everything will disappear eventually from the category as a consequence of every article currently prod'ed being either deleted or edited to remove the prod. --After Midnight 0001 16:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted all the non-musical ones in the cat, but there's three musical ones left prodded for notability/spam reasons which I don't feel qualified to deal with. --ais523 16:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I've now null-edited those as well and deleted the (empty) cat. It shouldn't fill up again now. --ais523 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done...I'll try to be more helpful next time. :) — Scientizzle 17:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Merkey wishes to return to en:wp[edit]

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029852.html

Jeff is a controversial figure, can be an odd fellow and can rub people up the wrong way. But he's shown himself over the past year or so to be a basically good guy and utterly sincere in wanting to play nice with the Wikimedia projects, and hasn't caused anywhere near the fuss he did on en:wp since working on stuff elsewhere (notably a lot of hard work on Cherokee and other native American language wikis and MediaWiki work). And notably, he's not making any of the legal threats he did last time around, and has stated he plans to avoid the article about him.

So if he does come back to en:wp, I (speaking just for me) hope admins will not react reflexively but will work with him in a productive manner for all.

(And I know the last person I said this about was Jason Gastrich, and that didn't work out well at all. But this is not IMO a comparable case.) - David Gerard 21:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it with the example :-) Guy (Help!) 22:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The only thing I wonder about is whether we would end up in a dispute over his article? Fred Bauder 22:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a given that he's not allowed to edit his own article? WP:AUTO is one thing, but add in history, and that's a no-brainer. --Cyde Weys 23:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am curious how he would express his opinion on how WP:COI would apply to his edits on subjects he is deeply emotional about and how he would interpret our rules on civility. WAS 4.250 00:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to allow Jeff back on the site, assuming that he refrains from editing his own article (civil talk page comments are fine), and follows basic policy. Perhaps that should be a condition of his return, but I don't personally see it being a problem. Ral315 » 00:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
If he comes back, the history of his talk page should be undeleted (and he should know this in advance, lest he demur). I think if he follows policy, then he should be welcome, but no start-over. Chick Bowen 01:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
He considers himself an authority on Native Americans. It may be not all his knowledge is published in reliable sources. Fred Bauder 03:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Should he be required to address some of his past actions? I don't really expect anyone to care about his silly threats to have me and others arrested, but I would expect some concern about his claim (made as Waya sahoni) to have deliberately seeded Wikipedia with copyright violations. I would also hope for an explanation of the threats made to Jimbo. --MediaMangler 08:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think raising those issues is likely to lead to a good place. Fred Bauder 13:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, lets just raise the issues that actually come up again, if they come up again. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It is very unlikely that allowing Merkey to edit again is going to lead to a good place. (Well, there is a group off-wiki that is rooting for him to start editting again, just for their amusement at the resulting wiki-drama, so I guess it will have value for some people.) If he does return, I will do my level best to avoid him. --MediaMangler 14:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Is wikipedia really ready to deal with an obviously vexatious person who posts web pages like [[19]] this when frustrated in his endeavor to own certain articles, most notably his own biography?

Hrm. I blocked User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey that was just created, not realizing this thread exists. Since there doesn't seem to be consensus to allow him, and some people want to allow with conditions that have also not been decided on, I'm leaving it blocked until such time the community decides what's going on. He could have just picked another username in the meantime though, I don't know. pschemp | talk 16:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing to understand about Jeff Merkey is that he's a really intelligent guy and he would be a great resource to English Wikipedia, if only he can be kept contributing productively. He's done some utterly amazing work with language translation software. He's not a "banned troll"; he is the kind of person we would very much like to have around. --Cyde Weys 17:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Cyde. I think the only issues we've had related to Jeff we related to the article about him back when he hardly understood our project. I don't think there are any urgent problems in that space anymore. Jeff contributes effectively to many Wikimedia things without causing trouble. --Gmaxwell 18:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Isn't Merk the dude who actively constructively posts to the mailing lists just fine. No trolling or civility issues, and has a lot of free content experience to boot? He asked nicely, why wouldn't we give him another chance? Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Are any of you in private contact with Jeff? Does he want to edit under User:Gadugi, or did he want the new account, User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (was it him)? I believe in his good intentions. A note, private or otherwise, indicating he'll try not to do anything listed in his indefinite block would be helpful[20]. Given that, I'm willing to unblock. --Duk 18:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

For those unaware, Jeffrey has continued to contribute to the project during his block, see m:Wikix and m:Wikitrans (MediaWiki Extension) for example. --Duk 18:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff's Words[edit]

I received an email from Duk, here is the content and my response.


Puddl Duk wrote:

> Hi Jeff,
>
> Per:
> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Jeff_Merkey_wishes_to_return_to_en:wp
>  and
> * http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029852.html
>
> Which account do you want to edit under, User:Gadugi?  Someone recently
> created User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, not sure if that was you.
>
> Will you abstain from doing things listed as reasons for your indefinite
> block ? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Gadugi
>
>
> If so, I will unblock immediately.


I do not think I will ever make the same mistakes again.  
Yes, that was me.  The Gourd Dance article has some serious vandalism
and had been that way for some time.  I just did not want that bad 
information about our culture there without correcting it.  JohnTex
had done a great job on that content, but he is not native, and a 
native person has a lot more credibility and background in fixing it.
It has been vandalized for months, and I just returned from the 
Gathering of Nation in New Mexico where I led our Gourd Society
from Utah at the dances.    Our leaders had seen the article, 
and since the tribal leaders are the same people who are also the Gourd
Dance society leaders, it really harmed Wikipedia's credibility in 
their eyes.  It had to be fixed -- and immediately.

To date, I have invested over $500,000.00 of my own funds in The 
Foundation and Wolf Mountain Group Wikipedia projects.  Given the
level of investment and commitment, I do not believe I intend to 
ever repeat the mistakes of the past, nor is it in anyone's interest
for me to do so.

Unfortunately, in blocking the account without consulting with me, 
this new account already has a block log record and a black mark
out of the gate.  Unblocking it is fine, but I will not use that 
account because you folks failed to simply ask me before creating a log entries
of the account being blocked.  If you can remove the log entries from 
the database, I will be happy to use that account.

Jeff


>
> ----
>
> I'm sure you know the following, but it bears repeating:
>
> Things have changed somewhat since you last edited, including a greater
> reliance on citing reliable sources. In a hypothetical content dispute,
> where your personal knowledge of Native American topics might exceed
> published sources, the published sources are more important. See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS
>
> You shouldn't edit the article about yourself. Doing so will likely get you
> re-banned as it would inevitably cause disruption. See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:blp#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself.
>
> As a well known person, you will likely be picked on and baited by jerks.
> I'll try to keep an eye out for you.
>
> Regards,
> User:Duk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Duk
>

In response to the specific issues raised:

  • 1. Jimbo Wales has assumed oversight on my biography and issues which arise with it I email him directly based upon my promises to him. To date, his methods of dealing with these trolls have been incredible. I have no issues with or desire to edit that article. It appears to be in the best hands possible -- Jimbo's. If folks want to troll that article with Jimbo reviewing every edit, then they do so with full knowledge their activities may be subjected to his scrutiny.
  • 2. I have a lot of content on Native Issues to fix. I keep getting dumps from the English Wikipedia for our projects which have a lot of errors and bad materials. I am happy to fix most of it.
  • 3. I did not understand the project well enough when I was "thrust" into the Wikipedia scene by a group of trolls who were bent on misusing the project for improper purposes and as a platform for as Jimbo eloquently stated -- "libeling others". Since that time, I have learned a lot, made a lot of friends, and come to love many of you.
  • 4. After Reviewing Chick Bowen's comments, I feel obligated to respond as well. The word "Gadugi" is honorific in our language. It was a serious judgement error on my part to use this sacred word as a user name, given the level of disrepsect given to the account. As such, I cannot use this word, and Jimbo deleted the pages as a courtesy to me. I am 47 years old and a highly respected Native American Elder. In our culture, older people are afforded respect from those who have less gray hair. I also agree that respect must go both ways. Most Cherokee people (and most native people for that matter) do not fare well on the English Wikipedia because the culture here is apposite to ours -- they get frustrated at being disrespected by others and leave or get blocked. I have worked for over a year at learning how to adapt to this culture. In the business world, I have learned these lessons well and have ammassed more wealth than most of you will see in your lifetime. My IQ is over 190 so I am also not stupid. But I am not perfect. I am human and I am smart enough to realize I do not know everything. The best elder is one who is willing to learn from others. I have learned that we are students all our lives.

Jeff


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by CherokeeWiki (talkcontribs) 21:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC).


Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is him, I am familiar with his style of editing. He made 3 edits before he was blocked. I would simply unblock him and let him have a try, but await feedback. Fred Bauder 21:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked. --Duk 22:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

HD DVD[edit]

... so I just fully-protected it yet again as folks are insisting on publishing the codes there even though it was semi'd and WJBScribe already went in once and scrubbed the file history. Right now, that protect could be construed as pre-emptive, which is not covered in WP:PROT but I'm sufficiently concerned at this point. Can one or two folks review what I've done here and endorse / reduce accordingly? - Alison 09:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had an email back from Anthere confirming that the Foundation is aware of the matter and hopefully we will have guidance from them soon. I don't see this a pre-emptive protection, we tried s-protect and it didn't work- the info was still added (that being said we can't protect every single article). I see nothing wrong with an article being fully protected for a while pending our finding out how far the Foundation wants us to go in preventing this encryption key being hosted on Wikipedia. WjBscribe 10:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It is pre-emptive. You can only use such protection for cleaning up vandalism or in matters of dispute. — BRIANtalk • 2007-05-02 15:23Z
Well all protection is by definition preventative but I would disagree that it was pre-emptive in this case as a lower level had been tried and had failed. I note the following comment by Jimbo about this matter from WP:RFPP: [21]. In any event full protection is due to wear off in a few hours, semi-protection should hopefully suffice from then... WjBscribe 01:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Humour" page moves[edit]

Resolved: Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. I don't have time to attend to this right now, so I'm noting it here. User Willie Work (talk · contribs) has been moving pages whose title contains humour to read humor instead. This is a new user who seems to have made these changes without discussion. I know these US/UK spelling issues annoy a lot of people, so I figured this should be investigated. Mindmatrix 16:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Just spotted this after I reported to AIV, has been blocked by Majorly. GDonato (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Sometimes I get tired of ordinary page edit histories being cluttered with edits which are merely UK/USA spelling corrections. Anthony Appleyard 21:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oops.. was about to complain about the block reason then realised the username, if I was awake I might have spotted this (Willie... in case you hadn't noticed) GDonato (talk)

No more office[edit]

Apparently, the community rejected WP:OFFICE. Now, who will be blamed for unilaterally protecting articles? -- ReyBrujo 16:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be more accurate to say that Kelly Martin rejected WP:OFFICE. Her reasoning isn't sound- Anthere edited the page on Apr 22 (and