Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive153

I just discovered some long-standing vandalism

Frankly, I don't like it. A completly nonsensical article, Lonny Fame and the Belltones, just came to my attention due to a change I caught on RC patrol. This band only garners 89 Google hits, is filled with pure nonsense straight out of Uncyclopedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica and this idiocy has been up since January. Subtle vandalism to Shawnee Mission School District relating to this group was added as well; I've since removed it. User:Rsherm was the editor responsible for adding more nonsense atop the nonsense a few moments ago. The account was just created and has no positive contributions whatsoever. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Nocturnal emissions control device". Love it! --Jenny 07:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems highly likely to be a hoax, but since an admin has just removed the speedy tag I guess it should go to AfD. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's very clever and that's what worries me. The admin who reverted the speedy didn't read down the page. It starts out relatively plausible, but degrades into a refugee from Uncyclopedia about halfway down. It's a speedy under several different criteria from band vanity to pure nonsense. I hope it doesn't clog AfD since these bozos have had enough fun for the last six months. WP:SNOW really would apply here. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Without checking, I believe hoaxes aren't normally speedies except where they are so blatant they qualify as a G3 i.e. pure vandalism. I reckon that's the case here. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have to agree with Jenny that the article is funny and I wish to heck that BJAODN was still around. Another cultural phenomenon lost to the ravages of time, I fear.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And doggoned if it isn't on AfD. At least it's a good-faith nomination and I've voted accordingly. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedied. Enigma ^message 07:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Bless you. That red link was a relief. I can now head off to beautiful downtown Dreamland secure in the knowledge. Nice working with you all today.  :)) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted at User talk:Shii/Hoaxes --Iamunknown 07:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Pity it's gone, really. It was a gem among hoaxes. "For fans and critics alike, the Belltones' musicianship was only half of what their fans tried desperately to avoid. The other half was the paranormal-like connection the members of the group had with each other. (...) But yet, like the partnership between heat and humidity, it was like the Belltones, from day one, breathed the same air, had eaten the same food, and worn the same type of underwear". A classic ;-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There actually is (or was) a "Lonny Fame and the Belltones" - they were a fifties-nostalgia act at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. I like the sound of our version better though. DuncanHill (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects templates

Needs immediate tlc

(That I can't give today)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect#When_should_we_delete_a_redirect.3F is totally messed up currently, I suspect a side-effect of a missing set of nowiki's or of what I started to report below... someone fiddled with a key template while not knowing where and how it was used! (Hot potato. HELP!)

my original post began

I've recently found several redirects (the {R from... }) tags which have been indelicately altered, shall I say so they won't work properly in pages where they are directly included. (Wikipedia:Templates/Redirect templates for one, there's at least a second, and perhaps more [Added some linked below].) While this isn't overt vandalism, people are apparently breaking things through ignorance (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:R_from_other_template&action=history R from other template] for another)

1. Wikipedia:Redirect#Spellings.2C_misspellings.2C_tenses_and_capitalizations -- Looks okay, but extra eyes might pick up something I missed.
2. Wikipedia:Template_messages/Redirect_pages my quick peek, suggests okay, but ditto on extra eyes checking.
3. Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages -- ditto again.
   1. Wouldn't hurt to have someone look into why some of these table cells show a <hr> and others don't. Looks like there was a now obsolete reason for some of these having a <hr> and I suspect most can be eliminated, while opining the tables would look better without.

Gang up on these guys, a nickle for every incompatibility found! <g> Don't want essential "How-to" to look crappy. // FrankB 17:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize and take full responsibility for any problems caused here. I've been going through templates one-by-one and each time, I thought of a new way to do what I had in mind, so the whole effect is perhaps a gradually increasing mess. (I had no idea it would cause any problems, though). Just so I'm up-to-date, is "When should we delete a redirect" looking the way it should now? $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 21:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (publically) for the private apology. ON "When should we delete a redirect", I'm unclear on your meaning. If you want to change the messaging, just make sure it makes sense and interfaces nice with the help pages linked above. Whatlinkshere will show all occurrences and text searching "Wikipedia:" should find all the pages that is directly including them. If you're truly interested in deleting one, that goes via {{rfd}} and WP:RFD. If you're thinking a major change in categorizing stuff, that should be discussed at the village pump and/or Category talk:Categories or sometimes Wikipedia talk:templates. You were interested in altering redirects categories, from what I saw in passing, so that discussion belongs in Wikipedia talk:Redirects, first and foremost, with a side-note annotation in the other places if its a big change. Hope that helps. // FrankB 22:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Autoblock assistance please

Resolved

 – released by Maxim

I'm not in a position to take care of this myself right now, so could someone please release the autoblock on Giano II? It's a complex block history so it may take a few minutes to figure out which block/unblock is causing the problem. Thanks. Risker (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Maxim_(talk) 19:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Maxim. We're having serial power failures here and I've already had four crashes today. Risker (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

'Login successful' page corrupted

Hey. There's a problem on the UserLogin&wpCookieCheck=login page. The link to the WP:HELP page isn't displaying properly. The page is also not W3 compliant, 7 errors.

If you're using the W3 validator, make sure you're sending the page itself, not the URL to the page; W3.org is not logged-in to Wikipedia ;).

Have a nice day/evening. --Sébastien Leblanc ^(Talk|Mail) 02:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be fine, when you actually log in. I don't know what's going on with index.php but the problem is only when you call it from the link above. --Selket ^Talk 03:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Also validation passes XHTML Transitional on copy-paste from view source. --Selket ^Talk 03:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll be damned. [1] [2] --Sébastien Leblanc ^(Talk|Mail)

Reported at bugzilla:14709. --- RockMFR 01:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Request Page Move Help

Resolved

 – Page moved; next time, post request on WP:RFPP.

Please move the page at Violetta Blue to Noname Jane as this is her correct stage name and she is barred from using Violetta Blue anyway. I would do the move myself, but there is a conflicting redirect that I cannot remove. Thanks so much! --BenBurch (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Would a move to Ada Mae Johnson not be more appropriate in this case? Anyway, for future reference, thre is Wikipedia:Requested moves. — Edokter • Talk • 00:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what is appropriate for an actor/actress? Is John Wayne's article under Marion Robert Morrison? Whatever the standard is. Thanks! --BenBurch (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done, with all double redirects fixed. Btw, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) stipulates that using either legal name or stage name is correct. —Kurykh 00:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! If you are an American, have a great Independence Day Holiday, and if not, well, have a great weekend! --BenBurch (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

New category:administrators willing to make difficult unblocks

Resolved

 – User is free to create category. --slakr^\ talk / 22:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There is already a category of administrators willing to make difficult blocks. In fairness, there should be a category of administrators willing to make difficult unblocks.

It is well known that administrators are unwilling to unblock. People have called it the cabal, gang mentality, lynching, etc. This category will blunt such criticism.

It is also well known that administrators who don't like certain ideas but who can't think of a logical way to explain their feelings resort to calling things trolling or make accusations of sockpuppetry. This is not trolling. If you are an administrator and are not willing to make difficult unblocks, you simply don't list your name. It's that simple!

Once again, this category blunts any criticism from Wikipedia critics who call us cabalism. Voxtel (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! That's quite a second edit you got there Voxtel. Have you been an IP for awhile to get to know the place, or a lurker? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not edited for months but I have edited. I lost my password and user name. I have some idea but does it really matter? Voxtel (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

De facto proof that the cabal sucks at being a cabal: they can't keep people from unblocking people everyone wants blocked. --slakr^\ talk / 22:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I can only read "difficult unblock" as "unblock against consensus". Not sure we should encourage that. We get quite enough of it already. Friday (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No fair. Friday stole my comment and then edit-conflicted me. :) OK, try this: We don't really need categories that describe an admin's willingness to perform basic administrative functions. How about Category:Admins willing to protect pages in an edit war? Or Category:Admins willing to adjudicate complex 3RR reports? Or Category:Admins willing to block Giano? MastCell ^Talk 22:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Then should we eliminate the category "admins willing to make difficult blocks"? Voxtel (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Short answer (from me anyway) Yes. It presumes there are easy blocks. No block I've ever done has been "easy". Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well said, Keeper76. Blocks are by policy; difficulty would reflect situations where it's not clear how policy applies. In that case, seeking consensus in advance would be best. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To reply to MastCell, I think we need to worry about a parent category first. Let's create Category:Admins willing to create difficult categories :) _{I's say my sense of humor's workin today.} Wizardman 22:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the smart thing for admins oppose to this idea would be to simply say nothing, hope that nobody signs up, then delete the category after it remains empty for a few days. That's fair! Attacking me, trying speedy delete, and other tactics are unfair and devious. So oppose it, there's an easy fair way!Voxtel (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not very happy with that "difficult blocks" category. The description of Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult blocks, however, does make me stop short of recommendng its deletion. We have had cases of administrators being targetted by vengeful stalkers and the like, so this category (if it serves the purpose described) is likely to be useful in cases of harassment. --Jenny 22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Didn't see this discussion until afterwards, but I've CfD'dCategory:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult unblocks. I'd suggest that if this conversation is going to continue, it continue there. – iridescent 22:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec: cat was redlinked as of this writing)I'm afraid that it's not going to happen. It's not an issue of ideology or opinion— it's part of the blocking policy, in big bold letters. Admins usually don't undo blocks without consensus to do so or in obvious situations. This mainly is done to avoid wheel-warring between admin actions— something that is highly discouraged and frequently can result in desysopping. Therefore, the only possible definition of "difficult unblocks" is one that is done where there isn't consensus to do so, otherwise it wouldn't be difficult. That said, you're totally free to create the category, but it probably won't exist for long as we usually remove underpopulated categories within a few days of it being empty. --slakr^\ talk / 22:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

fine with me. a few days and it remains empty then it's ripe for delete. Voxtel (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it might be time to work on some articles in the meantime, eh? MastCell ^Talk 22:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be more useful to create the category Category:Admins willing to make the tea. It would help in dispute resolution, at least. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Subject of an article requesting deletion of references to himself

Currently, there is an AFD about a book by an author, which seems likely to be deleted. However, the author of the book, Ed Williams, who does not appear to have an article going on this disambiguation page, is claiming he wants references to himself in articles such as Kay Parker and Bachman-Turner Overdrive deleted, although I cannot find any references to him in these articles, so I'm not sure what should be done (if anything). Just letting the admins know.--Les boys (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ed Williams (novelist) - strangely it had been turned into a redirect to an article about an actor. DuncanHill (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right, that explains things. Thanks. Well, it seems like he wants that article deleted, and any references to it (or himself) in other articles. I thought it'd be a good idea to raise this here, anyway, going on the BLP policy.--Les boys (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I found a mentions in two of the articles he mentioned and have corrected the links to point to the now-restored article about him. I think he wasn't so much requesting removal of mention of him, as saying that without the article on him we may as well remove them. DuncanHill (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Note DektopBSD logos (and images with this logos) should be deleted immediately

I used {{db-i3}} on Image:Desktop bsd logo.png and Image:Desktop bsd screenshot.png, because DesktopBSD logos and artwork collection are licensed Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 License. Austria. Ref: http://desktopbsd.net/index.php?id=76 According to policy for non-free content and CSD I3, all images, including DesktopBSD screenshots with DesktopBSD logos or/and artwork will be deleted immediately Shooke (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This was cross-posted (and is being discussed) at MCQ. Dragons flight (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Terminate on Sight: youngbird

Resolved

 – Edit war terminated on sight; complainant and subject are both edit-warring and thus the article's been protected. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Trump XXI)} 18:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Youngbird is a supporter of a competeing artist and has been vandalising the T.O.S. page repeatdly despite warnings! PLease take note! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbhasin (talk • contribs) 18:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Not happening. Page fully protected to stop you two from edit-warring. Talk it out on the article's talk page. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Trump XXI)} 18:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Xasha

User:Xasha, already blocked twice under the Digwuren restriction, persists in making egregious insults and contributing little of constructive value. In this edit, he writes: "Moldovans consider themselves "not Romanians". ethnicity is a matter of personal choice everywhere (OK, it wasn't in Nazi dominated countries)". Given his introduction of a source stating that the Romanian government does not recognize a separate Moldovan ethnicity, this comes quite close to implying that Romania itself is Nazi-dominated, a clear violation of the Digwuren warning: "All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee."

To accuse a country's population to be "Nazi" is actually rude insult against this population.

Moreover, Xasha, in response to a post by User:Vecrumba defending the notion that Moldovans and Romanians form part of the same people, repeated the Nazi accusation: "Please don't revive the Nazi tradition of arbitrarily assignign ethnicity based on God knows what invented criteria."

I hope administrators duly note these two inflammatory messages in blatant violation of Digwuren, and also take into consideration the user's block record and general pattern of tendentious, unproductive editing. --Olahus (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I consider the first use quoted to be only an allusion, and not a accusation. I'm a little unsure about the second. DGG (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a badly-worded comment, not an "issue of concern". Civility warning. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid Reductio ad Hitlerum. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and read this, too. Kelly ^hi! 18:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

And, might I point out, Xasha again invokes the Nazi spectre here: "The similarity with lebensraum discourses is not just a coincidence". In response to the warning he received due to his conduct, he combatively pledged to continue employing this sort of language. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also reminded Xasha of both the conditions of the restriction, and what happened when they were previously violated. If it happens again in short order a block will be required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, enough is enough. Anyone in that dispute that can't avoid all that fighting is due for a long block. Last chance here. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

He is now continuing to conduct a long revert war against several other users, running up to 3R within the last 24 hours at this point, but with numerous previous reverts in the past few days. It's at Latin European peoples (an abomination of an article, but that's a different matter), and it's all about whether Moldovans should be categorised under Romanians or on the same hierarchical level with them, in a tree list of "Latin" peoples. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm reverting an user who is always restoring edits by banned sockpuppets of Bonaparte and now is removing reliable sources to prove it's point. I'm not ashamed at all.Xasha (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Unfortunately, however, you don't get to revert ad nauseam, so I'm blocking you for 96 hours: 72 for the lame revert-warring and 24 for the incivility. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Xasha is modifying the article Latin European peoples and he ignores the discussion on the talk page. Somebody stop him please! --Olahus (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there is someone here to explain Xasha (talk) that talk pages shouldn't be emptied without archiving a discussion. Maybe he's doing it to cover up former conflicts with other users caused by his permanent zestfulness for edit warring, harassing other users or using the encyclopedia as a battleground. He was several times requested by other users not to empty his talk page. However, this is the list of all the discussions deleted by him: User talk:Xasha/Deleted (not archived!) discussions from emptied pages. Cheers! --Olahus (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Users can do anything they want with the contents of their Talk pages -- delete, archive, whatever (except change other people's words). Corvus cornix_talk

Of course they can do anything with their talk page. I know that very well. But: concerning the user Xasa, there is a small additional problem: he likes to modify the wikipedia articles without giving any explanation and when asked about the changes, he just empties his talk page instead of talking about the disupted issue. After the talk page is emptied, he reverts the edits of the disputed article again and he behaves further as if nobody would have ask him anything about the disputed article. --Olahus (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, repeated insertion of loaded comments like this one can be considered harassment ("why are you beating you wife?"), provoking Xasha to remove all comments by that particular user. As for modifying wikipedia articles without giving any explanation - heh, it took you two blocks to notice the existence of talk pages yourself, Olahus. Although your behavior doesn't excuse Xasha's, perhaps laying off those accusations of "Stalinism" as well as not rushing to revert back once you get reverted yourself, but using the talk page first might have a better impact on the general editing atmosphere in relevant articles? --Illythr (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A short view in the revision history of some articles disputed between Xasha and me is anough to demonstrate that you actually fully support Xasha's Stalinist POV (yes, this POV is indeed Stalinist and I can proove it to you if you want to) . So, I don't wonder youre attitude regarding me in this discussion and you're role as Xasha's advocate. Besides, in his talk page Xasha didn't by far remove just my comments. A short viev in the revision hístory of his talk page is the best proof that it is actually a common attitude of his regarding users that contest his POV.--Olahus (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Why, but of course! Otherwise my boss at Lubyanka might cut my wages and I really don't want that, seeing as how most of the money goes to bribing the admins here into not blocking me for my blatant Stalinist POV-pushing. Crap, I let it slip! Ok, please, look at the tip i. You saw nothing unusual today. Please, move along.<

Xasha's free to do with his talk page what he wants (except changing other users' words). The history page is there for all to see, after all. What I disapprove, is that by deleting stuff like that he loses any challenges automatically, thus weakening his point.

If you want to prove something to me, better do it on my talk page. I might want to hide the Truth as well, you know. --Illythr (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I recently reverted an edit by User:Xasha in the article Groschen which altered Romanian Principalities to read Danubian Principalities, because the edit was marked as minor and was not explained in the edit comment or on the Talk page. Xasha reverted my edit - this looks like part of a campaign to remove mention of Romania from articles involving Moldavia, doesn't it? However, after further research I think that it was a good edit. I think that, in this case at least, the only problem is a lack of adequate discussion and explanation (multiplied by the usual $ETHNIC problems, of course). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A typical edit without principles of the user Xasha can be seen here when he reverted this edit made by me. He "excused" his removal stating that OSCE would have accuse Vladimir Socor for fallacies and "outrageous fabrications". And even if he was accused there is unclear if it can be regarded as a reason to neglect the estimations regarding the Moldovans from Romania, because Vladimir Socor is a venerated analyst of East European affairs and the accusals of William Hill (indeed, William Hill accused Vladimir Socor, not the organization OSCE) have nothing to do with the number of Moldovans from Romania (see here).--Olahus (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Pirat Clone of Wikipedia: http://www.adorons.com/wiki (?)

Resolved

 – Banned by the devs. MER-C 02:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to inform administrators and Wikipedians about the not complete copy/clone of Wikipedia [3] but it exactly looks as the real Wikipedia - I think - something is not correct with it (?)--Cerber (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a live mirror site, with no advertising added (makes a change) but it's pulling all the images from Wikipedia directly. What's the policy on these? Based on WP:MIRROR, I've added it to m:Live mirrors - do we need to do anything else? Neıl 龱 11:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. This site been noted since October 2007— Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Abc#Adorons.com. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a remote loader website, see [4]. Do the devs know about it? MER-C 11:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, it does have something. Click view source on any page, and go right to the bottom (or search for a013.com) - it's doing something with an advertising sitetracker. And it's definitely remote loading, right click on any image and see "properties" - they're coming from upload.wikimedia.org. I've added it to m:Live mirrors, so the devs should know about it fairly soon. They were pretty quick about e-wikipedia.net a few weeks back. Whois data for www.adorons.com: [5]. Neıl 龱 11:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That was probably because it was on Slashdot. You might get a faster response on IRC: irc://irc.freenode.org/wikimedia-tech (see this comment). MER-C 14:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't use IRC, but if someone wants to drop a note there, feel free. They still haven't fixed the one before adorons.com on m:Live mirrors, which is full of adverts, either. Neıl 龱 14:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

 Bugged the devs on IRC. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This anonymous site (http://www.adorons.com/wiki) is very misleading especially for "Google search" using visitors, on the other hand, is it really an exact copy of the authorized official Wikipedia and not a modified/manipulated mirror? I also would like to know - What's the policy on these?--Cerber (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

They are using the WMF logo and Wikipedia globe, which is not released on a fee use licence so wouldn't be in breach of copyright on that account. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 12:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think what you meant is: that it is a copyvio! Bearian (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The site now redirects to Leech (computing) and displays an "access denied" message. We're done here, at least for now. MER-C 02:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Notification of injunction relating to Giano II

The Arbitration Committee, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley, has voted to implement a temporary injunction. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The injunction is as follows:

For the duration of this proceeding, Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not to be blocked, or unblocked, by any administrator, other than by consent of a member of the Arbitration Committee.

As noted in the text of the injunction, this restriction is in effect until the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley case is officially closed by a clerk, following a successful motion to close by the arbitrators.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Latest MascotGuy idiocy

Nearly five years by my reckoning is too much to bear and something needs to be done and soon. His latest incarnation, User:Chopsticks Guy created a whole slew of nonsensical redirects, far too many for me to want to tag for speedy deletion on an individual basis. I found a slew of unreverted edits and new redirects by blocked sock User:Animal Guy, among others. Would someone be so kind as to check the edit history of those two socks and blow off his original contributions? I mean, we know where this guy edits from, we know his name and we know who his IP is. How can this be stopped once and for all? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: The Animal Guy sock has left a whole bunch of similar new postings and redirects in its wake. I've rolled back as many as I could, but I have to sign off. Please, could someone just delete his entries and send the checkuser to his IP for (hopefully) a major TOS violation? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to create user page...

Resolved

 – User and talk page created for user. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Im trying to create a User Page for, "Tiny giant what???" When I try to make the page it say "The page title that you have attempted to create has been included on the local title blacklist, which prevents it from being used due to abuse." Am I included on the Blacklist because of the "???" on my name? What do I need to do to create a user page? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiny giant what??? (talk • contribs) 03:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a user and talk page for you (the system allows admins to create restricted titles). You can go ahead and modify them as you see fit. I'm guessing the "???" was probably the cause. Keep in mind that you'll have this problem again if you ever need to create subpages in your userspace, so you might want to consider being renamed at some point, but for now all is good. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

EyeBuyDirect.com contribution

Resolved

 – Handled on user's talk page. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I had created the page for EyeBuyDirect.com and it has been deleted. What steps can I take to create the page properly? This creation was the first attempt of creation on Wikipedia and I would love feedback on how to correctly post.

Please contact me and we can discuss. Also, how can I go to the real time help chat? I know that used to be a feature but am unable to find it currently.

Thank you for your assistance.

Best, Blain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blainhowardjs2comm (talk • contribs) 15:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll discuss with this user on his talk page. No admin action necessary at this time. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Changing cursor codes in signatures.

Resolved

 – No action necessary. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Does wikipedia policies allows cursor changing HTML codes in signatures such as this: --Raunak' ' ( .:: Raunak Roy ::.. ) 11:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC). Does the wikipedia policy of images in signatures applies to that too? --Creamy!^Talk 19:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I expect there's nothing written about it, common sense would suggest that such a thing is a Bad Idea. Seriously, how does stuff like that help build the encyclopedia? Happy‑melon 20:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think indulging some self-expression helps build the community. The flip side to your question is: How does this hurt the community? Dragons flight (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Some very established editors use a cursor like the one above in their signature. I am unaware of any controversy over this. Cenarium ^Talk 20:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

God forbid anyone simply click the damn button (or type ~~~~) and just get on with it.... --MZMcBride (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, User:Alison was the one who started that and no it is not against policy. Since she is an Administrator, a CU, and an Oversighter, I don't think there is any harm being done here. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved for the simple reason admin action is not needed. Next? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeesh! I don't think I was the one to start it, to be honest. And please - no "zOMG-checkuzar-oversight-adnimz" - I have the same standing in the community as anyone else, so best off not using me as some sort of gold standard :) - Alison ^❤ 09:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Heads up re Huggle

Gurch seems to have vanished, shutting down Huggle as his final act ([6], [7]). User:Atyndall has since reactivated Huggle, but without Gurch to keep an eye on it, users are already starting to make their own tweaks to the configuration. Be aware that unless/until Gurch comes back or someone else takes over the maintenance, it may get buggier & buggier. As a last resort, Huggle can be shut down by restoring this version and protecting the config page; unless we start getting problems, I don't propose doing this at this stage given the disruption it will cause to those who use it. – iridescent 18:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Erratic behavior. Enigma ^message 18:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well per WP:BOLD, and to prevent possible disruptive Huggle changes, I went ahead and fully protected the config page. No prejudice against reverting if this level of protection is deemed unnecessary. —Travis^talk 18:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think restricted established editors from editing the config page is a bit extreme, why not semi protect it instead? There's more chance of a new user or an IP from vandalising than an auto-confirmed member. We've never had problems before with the page being vandalised. ——Ryan | t • c 18:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ryan. Semi would be good, not full. Enigma ^message 18:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think gurch is gone for good, but he may not be able to edit much or at all for the next few months :( delldot talk 18:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Because Gurch isn't an admin, full protection will restrict him from editing it if/when he returns. I'd oppose full-protection for that reason, as long as someone's watching the page closely. – iridescent 18:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe I overreacted. Back to semi, then. —Travis^talk 18:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As a general note to everyone who's followed the link here from WP:Huggle/Feedback, if I see any signs that Huggle's playing up I won't hesitate to shut it down despite the annoyance this will cause to its users, and would urge anyone else to do the same; as with bots, it works at such high speed (20+ edits per user per minute sometimes) that "shoot first and ask questions later" is IMO the appropriate action if it seems to be faulty. – iridescent 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I came here form the feed back page. The whole point of the config is so that the huggle users can edit it. Anything that they are not meant o be able to change is configured into the actual program. I will watch the config page until gurch gets back (if he comes back) and I will also log all things to be fixed onto a page so the feedback page doesn't become too backlogged. The config page is already semi protected and that should be enough. If anything is playing up with huggle then please add it to the feedback page. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 19:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Though WP:OWN applies to many pages it is ridiculous to start messing around with the page just because of Gurch's temporary leave of absence. Its a great tool that Gurch has provided and there's no need to fool around it. I do think the semi-protection is a bit unnecessary but hopefully it will help people understand that the config page shouldn't be tampered with.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Not commenting on the deeper issue, but semi-protection makes perfect sense; huggle users are approved for rollback (and therefore no doubt autoconfirmed) and able to edit semi-protected pages. –xenocidic (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection isn't really over the top. Following WP:BEANS (not saying what) but you can change one line and mess up one line in that config and suddenly everything goes wrong. People wouldn't notice straight away and then there would have to be one major cleanup from damage. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 19:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that someone (preferably an admin) should add a notedire warning on the page about exactly what will happen to you if you edit the page and accidentally cause other people to make errors in their reverting. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, if I see anyone deliberately disrupting it (as opposed to a well-intentioned but wrong "improvement"), they'll be explaining their actions via {{unblock}}. AGF is a core policy, but not when it means potentially disrupting thousands of mainspace pages. – iridescent 19:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI: The page was originally semi’d back in January. —Travis^talk 19:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we're all overreacting. The page has never been vandalised in the history of it's existence. The only questionable edition was by User:Xp54321 and his edits were in good faith. ——Ryan | t • c 19:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding what I was saying above about adding a dire warning to the top of WP:Huggle/config, even if an edit was a good-faith attempt to try something, there is still an insane potential to mess up hundreds or even thousands of pages within a very short time. And it would be nearly impossible to fix all of the mistakes because they would be made by like 30 or 40 different establishd users and admins, so you couldn't just go through and rollback like you can with a spambot or a vandalbot.

Basically, what I'm saying is, we need to make sure that people know what the potential consequences of their actions could be, not only in the form of blocks/nudges/permanent blots on reputation, but also the tremendous and almost irrevocable damage that could be done to the entire project in a very short period of time. It's like allowing random people to mess around with the firing mechanism of a Teller-Ulam device sitting inside a tank of liquid deuterium and lithium 6. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest 20 edit per minute is pretty rare unless you are only taking a glance at each page and it is during a peak time. There are currently over 15 user huggleing on the english wikipedia and together they only made a total of 19 edits per miniute. Over time that is still quite big but if something went wrong with that it shouldn't take long to fix. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 19:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe add something saying "If you want to propose a change do so at on the feedback page" or something similar. Otherwise looks good. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I must be blind (maybe make that line a bit bigger? :D) ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Change the line that reads "Vandalising or making test edits to this page could result in an immediate block." to "Vandalising or making test edits to this page WILL result in an immediate block."

I cannot imagine the amount of damage that could be done if someone made a very small change that went unnoticed for a while.

Also, shouldn't all the subpages of Template:Huggle be full-protected? None of them should ever need to be changed, and (WP:BEANS, so commented out) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You forgot the part about dogs and cats living together, and mass hysteria. Perhaps a little atom bomb symbol, instead of the red stop sign? Font needs to be bigger, in red, and more panicy (How do you spell panicy, anyway?). And more exclamation points, please (where, exactly, to put them can be at your discretion). And finally, of course, a note somewhere (Wikipedia:Village Pump/Vandal noticeboard perhaps?) to further advertize to vandals where they can cause the most damage. --barneca (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Comment was based on a template that has since been removed, and comment was snotty anyway, so stiking out. --barneca (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right. Dammit, just make Gurch an admin and full-protect the config page ;) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that I could get behind 100%. But it's been tried. :( --barneca (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what Gurch should do is move Wikipedia:Huggle/Config to User:Gurch/huggle_master.css and make Huggle look there for instructions. I've suggested that to him, but he either didn't read or didn't want to do that, for whatever reason. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of the config being open to edit is so that people can edit it :D. Putting it on his user page .css would kind of stop that from happening. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the point now is, Huggle is an incredibly fast and widespread tool. Vandalism to the config page has enormous potential to almost irreparably damage Wikipedia. I do not think that just anyone should be allowed to play around with it like that. Allowing only Gurch and admins to change the configuration page is a the only viable solution, IMO. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that not just anyone should be allowed to edit it but restricting it so only gurch and adims can edit it is, in my opinion, a bit too protective. Also to change the location of the page at this stage would mean a re release of the current version of huggle and also making all previous versions useless. Also this would be a global change for all for the wikis that huggle is used on (commons,meta,bg e.t.c) meaning the inactive gurch would have to create an account on each of these wikis for the .css user page to be viable. I think thats about all I wanted to say. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Er... we all have an account on each of thise wikis. – iridescent 21:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppsy, didn't notice he had a SUL. Well this would make things a bit easier if that is the way that we want to go. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, though, that the config page is good just semi'd. If there are changes that shouldn't be made by people other than gurch, he can hard code them in. If it ever becomes a problem, we can deal with it, but I don't think it is now. delldot talk 21:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I could probably throw together a bot that would revert edits to the page by non-rollbackers (or non-admins other than Gurch, or whatever) Standard procedure is it'd need Bot group approval though. Pseudomonas_(talk) 21:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That in my opinion would probably be a good idea if not the best idea. (I was acctually thinking of proposing this a bit earlier) ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Per conversation with gurch he will not be coming back to wikipedia. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that's unfortunate, did he tell you why? Or is it personal? ——Ryan | t • c 22:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope he didn't tell me why but knowing him I respect his decision. I will try to keep ontop of keeping huggle up to date. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 22:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

With Gurch gone apparently forever, we should have another .NET programmer take over maintenance, the source code is up for grabs, there's a link at WP:HUGGLE (for convenience, it's [8]). Someone has to take over maintenance and construction, a quick look at the WP:Huggle/Feedback page shows quite a few outstanding program bugs and requested features. Anyone volunteer? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Bot policy is to unflag a bot if its operator/owner leaves the project (even temporarily). Considering the power of huggle, it should be disabled until Gurch returns, or someone agrees to take his place. giggy _(:O) 23:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think it should be shut down until either Gurch returns or someone volunteers to continue the project. One of Gurch's last edits was to deactive Huggle so I think we should keep it that way. I'm going to be bold and at the same time, peeve off many members. ——Ryan | t • c 23:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Much as it will annoy everyone, I agree with Ryan. – iridescent 23:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Temporarily disabled

In light of the above, I've temporarily protected the config page in the "disabled" state. Once this is resolved, anyone feel free to unprotect if that's the consensus. – iridescent 23:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I will develop huggle further. I am in the process of learning .net and have already had the huggle source for quite some time. I have already fixed a few of the bugs in the current version and hope to release a newer version soon. Gurchs version "0.7.11" had many bugs and he didnt give it to me so "0.7.10" is acctually the most up to date version currently. Anyway I cant say I will be as good as gurch was but I am willing to try to fill his pace. (dam edit conflicts)·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 23:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally would feel more comfortable with someone already proficient in .NET taking it up. giggy _(:O) 23:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Same with everyone else, quite obviously, hence my comment above. There's a more or less list here (all the people with the ".NET programmer userbox"). Crude and incomplete, but if someone can find a trusted user in there... I personally didn't find one within the first 150 transclusions. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Here's the disabling. I don't think it should be reversed until someone is willing to do everything Gurch did - bug fixing, dealing with user problems, development, etc. etc. giggy _(:O) 23:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if anyone else does come out for this then please ask me for the latest source (I see where you are comming from giggy) I would be willing to "try" to develop and fix bugs(I have done 3 already) and have always dealt with user problems on the feedback page but really there is probably someone better suited to it than me ^^. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 23:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Also just a small point but on the config page "enable-all:false" should work :> ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 23:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Giggy. Check my talk archives; during May-June I was reporting bugs to Gurch virtually every day. Remember, unblocked & malfunctioning Huggle will leave a string of blocked users, users stripped of rollback rights etc; when you do reactivate it, make sure you get it right! – iridescent 23:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think disabling it entirely is too extreme at this point, especially given how useful the software is. If there are concerns about how to proceed, why not just acivate the "admin-only" option ("require-admin")? That way, we don't lose a powerful tool in vandal-fighting. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree thinking about it as having it enabled without gurch here isn't acctually going to make much of a difference compared with if he was here. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 23:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Huggle should remain deactivated entirely until someone experienced enough can maintain it. Even if you limit it to just sysops, if it were to malfunction, who would be skilled enough to rectify it? With the power of huggle and it's already dented reputation here on the project, we'd be crazy to continue using is unmanned ——Ryan | t • c 23:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't meant to sound flippant, but are there actually any admins who use Huggle? Aside from (occasionally) Persian Poet Gal, and a few edits from myself when I was testing the software, I don't think I've ever noticed a huggle-edit in Recent Changes from any admin. – iridescent 23:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Epbr123 does (did?). giggy _(:O) 00:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course you haven't. Huggle gains you adminship. You don't use it after adminship. Okay, that's all from me. Going away now...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with disabling of huggle at least till we get word from Gurch or we find someone who can maintain huggle. I'd wait a few weeks to a couple of months.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 00:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the use by admins, I've certainly found it very useful for late-night vandalism cleanup. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

We could always protect Wikipedia:Huggle/Users and use it as an approval list for now. This way all users already on the list or who have already used huggle can use huggle and continue fighting vandalism but no new users (maybe users that will make mistakes) can use the program? What do you guys think? ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea but still there's the chance of a bug.(Like the one I encountered that got me a 15-min block) and without Gurch we'd be in much trouble.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 00:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ye, Xp is correct. No re-enabling. Use Twinkle. giggy _(:O) 00:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is a bug then report it, To be honest I don't think there can be any more bugs in this version that have not been found as it has been out for months with no new versions released. Just wondering Xp54321 which bug is this? If there is a bug that got you blocked for this long and it was a serious bug with huggle then please post it at Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback and then yes if it is serious I see a reason for huggle to be disabled for now. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why would we disable it? It is a stable tool, working properly, not causing any problems. Seems silly to turn it off, all the edits made by it are the responsibility of the editors, not gurch's, so it is nothing like a bot owner being away situation. I recommend it be re-enabled immediately. So, I am going to reenable it, WP:IAR (this will unarguably improve the wiki) until some sort of consensus is formed here. Prodego ^talk 00:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It was a bug in a previous version. He had his Huggle rights revoked yet was somehow still able to access the program. If a verified user list were to be agreed via consensus then I think the current user list should be scrapped at least down to the core users and then only accept trusted, well established users until we can 'acquire' a maintainer. I do agree, most bugs are ironed out now but would we be willing to take that risk? I think Wikipedia will suffer without huggle, it filters vandalism a lot more efficiently than Lupin's anti vandal tool ——Ryan | t • c 00:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with user list option.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 00:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree but stripping down off the huggle user list? Maybe just taking off the last weeks additions to the list? ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, It's not like I have a huge problem with it even if there are errors, except for the times that is freezes when I close it out, other than that it is a perfectly fine tool and like they said, the page has never been vandalised in it's entire existance, why move to protect it now that Gurch is gone? It's not like he spent 24/7 on Wikipedia when it was running in the first place, just my opinion but I really do think you should turn in on temporarily so we can continuing reverts on vandal edits and see how it goes from there becuase now I have to use VandalProof, a program I am not use to AT ALL, to start my reverts. Notify us if anything changes in the situtation please! --♣ẼгíćЏ89♣ (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'm just wary about continuing the use of a very powerful program without it's maintainer around. Therefore to limit potential abusers, if we were to activate it again, the user list should be limited. There are so many users listed here ——Ryan | t • c 00:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There's got to be someone out of the millions of editors on Wikipedia that can run it. If nothing else, why not just e-mail Gurch and see if he'll fix any problems that come up? I strongly suggest Huggle be reactivated, as Huggle was the most efficient and accurite tool for vandal fighting. IMO, Wikipedia relied on Huggle, and will never be the same without it. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You only have to have used huggle once to have your name there thats why there are so many. I dont see how allowing all in that list to have access would be a problem.. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we keep it enabled unless there's a problem that Addshore can't handle? No reason to assume there's going to be a problem until there is one. If a user on that list creates a problem, we can deal with them individually. Nothing about gurch's presence made people not abuse huggle. delldot talk 00:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(5xEC) The list needs cleaning out anyway, why not now? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec x a million) Addshore, for the exact reason outlined above. No offence Xp54321 but I'm using you as an example. He had his rights revoked, he was still able to edit. I bet there would be many other users who'd be willing to exploit a bug to harm the project and like I said, if there's no maintainer to fix these bugs then Huggle's reputation goes downhill even more. ——Ryan | t • c 00:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Xp54321's bug was in a version of huggle that was allot older. This version should be virtually stable other than the few bugs which have been pointed out on the feed back page (none of which can get your rights removed) the majority of bugs are just huggle crashing freezing with unhandeled exceptions. Yes there could be users willing to exploit bugs but they would need to have rollback :S. And iff rollback got given to someone that would exploit bugs (i know it has bene but hey) i would start to wonder why. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not just let whitelisted Huggle users just use it? I mean whitelisted users are really the ones who are trusted in the first place, right? I don't see the big deal if everyone is worried about people who will abuse the program. --♣ẼгíćЏ89♣ (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no, any user with 500+ edits is auto-whitelisted. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean the userlist not the whitelist. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

But the userlist also contains users who don't have rollback. Remember, the program automatically adds you to the user list and the rollback requirement was a recent addition. So think of how many NEW members are on that list. Another reason to strip it down ——Ryan | t • c 00:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the program currently is only enabled for those with rollback per a config setting. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

We're not referring to that - we mean that the list has far too many people that either can't or don't use huggle. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I see that huggle has been enabled again regardless of all the security concerns and whatever else we've been discussing the past few hours...so this is all irrelevant ——Ryan | t • c 00:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Enabled until consensus is reached here, which it hasn't. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

While I am glad that it has been enabled, the past discussion is not irrelevent, as it has been enabled until consensus to disable it. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Was consensus ever reached for the disabling of huggle in the first place? I can now just see us tied in knots :D ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not put someone in charge until (if ever) Gurch returns, Addshore isn't a bad idea, and chop the approval list smaller to make this transitional phase simpler? Useight (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fritzpoll has expressed interest in maintaining Huggle (along with AddShore?). This solves the no maintainer problem. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I support re-enabling the tool. Huggle already carries a responsibility waiver, and for people like me whose connections crash and burn on Twinkle... Sceptre ^(talk) 00:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of all the people who abuse/misuse Huggle, there are plenty of people who are capable of controlling and properly using Huggle's power, in spite of all its problems/bugs. Is it right to take away this tool from people who have done nothing wrong simply because some people are not capable of controlling Huggle?

Also, with regards to Giggy's comment above about bots, Huggle is decidedly not a bot. The problem lies not in the tool but in the users who do not know how to control it. I have used Huggle since version 0.6.1 (in February) and I can attest that if a user really knows what they are doing, there is nothing (within reason, deliberate errors in programming don't count) that software can do to to make them make mistakes. Unfortunately, the converse is also true.

What Huggle needs is an approval list similar to VandalProof's. Since Fritzpoll is an admin, he should blank WP:HUGGLE/users, full-protect it, and force Huggle to ensure that a user is on the list before they can use the tool. That would keep out all the riffraff. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You could always use the built in config settings. User must:

• Have an account X days old
• Have a rollback account
• Have over 1000 edits

meaning as soon as a user is over these he can run huggle be automaticly added to the list and not have to waste admins time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Addshore (talk • contribs)

Nope, the features don't work, unless you fixed them? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 01:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody knew that they didnt work to know to try to fix them :> I will add this to the list of TO FIX :D ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 01:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would support a manually-managed fully-protected whitelist for the moment (pending consensus on other eligibility criteria), assuming we have an admin prepared to do the additions, and someone who wants to take responsibility for making the decisions. Pseudomonas_(talk) 09:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I too would support an approval list per what Pseudomonas said ——Ryan | t • c 09:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, there's enough vandalism these days to justify keeping things going. Pseudomonas_(talk) 09:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and while I'm opining, if the config page can be fully-protected that'd make me feel more comfortable. Pseudomonas_(talk) 09:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Well, if that works, cool. Would be much easier that an approval list. Or, if you want, I could be an "approval" person, if you went the route I suggested. I have been using Huggle since vs. 0.6.1, nearly four months. In the last 10000 reverts made, I have less than five nudges, as far as I can remember. (that last part was my resumé, hope you enjoyed it :P ) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling we won't be needing that, since we have found a suitable replacement for Gurch (Fritzpoll, see below), which should nullify all arguments (unless I missed something?). Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 01:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the random babbling... it's 21:34 where I live, and I got less than 3 hours of sleep last night, (A/C on the blink....) and my BCL (blood caffeine level) is dropping... See you guys tomorrow! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Didn't know where to mention this, but I could probably get Mellie to talk to Gurch. she can be very persuasive. Steve Crossin (contact) 11:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continued two sections below. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 19:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...I may regret this

If you still need/want someone, I happen to be a "proficient .NET programmer", who has a passing interest in programming for Wikipedia. I'll offer my services if people want a maintenance man like me. Just let me know Fritzpoll (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fritzpoll yay! Well I think this is good. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You're just the person we were looking for... Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're sure you want to put up with all the hassle... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

*huggles Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If fritz can fix the bugs and acctually do the code i'm sure I can cope with sorting out the feedback page, changelog e.t.c to take some of the work away from you :>·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 00:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It can't be worse than navigating the minefield that was getting FritzpollBot approved, can it? Off to bed - I'll wait until I get online tomorrow for anyone to object, then I'll check over the source code and get familiar with it. As GEOBOT is still warming up, this will not be a distraction (before Blofeld gets worried) Fritzpoll (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well given what this discussion has already gone through I don't know why anyone would want to say no to you :D. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 01:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I for one have no objections to Fritz taking over huggle, though I am sorry to learn that gurch has left wikipedia. (I've been working on a program to help the simple english wikipedia, so I've been away for a while...) Thingg^⊕⊗ 01:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

YAY!!!Huggle will be okay!!!Thank you Fritz!!!--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 01:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fritz, I chatted with Gurch before about possibly hosting Huggle on SourceForge. He never objected to doing so, and showed some interest in it, but the idea just fell through the cracks after no more action was taken on it. Perhaps now would be a good idea to do that? Gary King (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Huggle is on SourceForge already :) (and the source, too) Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 03:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The URL being http://eocp.sourceforge.net/huggle/0710.zip for the current Huggle version - by the way, Fritz should know that and keep it that way (and making sure to update the current source code, etc.), and it's hosted by Atyndall. But all that will come after he accepts the position. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 03:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not a public project there; you don't see it when you do a search. Gary King (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

← True. Perhaps talk to Atyndall? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 03:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just hosting huggle on another sf.net project's webspace but I have now applied for an actual project for huggle (It's under the unix name gurch because 1. It honors is original creator, how may have now moved on from the project and 2. For some reason the unix name huggle doesn't work). The site says it could take 1-3 days, once that is done I'll upload the source code and files. Anyone who wants to have developer status to the project should sign up for a sourceforge account then email me and I will add the permissions required. I'll also put the Huggle source code into SVN.  Atyndall93 | talk  08:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Atyndall93 i am currently the only person with the most up to date source so send me an email or something hen you need it. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 22:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Just regarding the svn I can really see huggle getting in a big mess if we try to put it on the svn. there are many files (about 440) and frm's e.t.c. I think it might just be better if we stick to one main dev and if that dev cant fix something then they pass it onto the next person. Fritzpoll has now been given the most recent version of the code and has started trying to fix more bugs. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 19:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I suppose it doesn't need to be in SVN, but I have had an idea that maybe you (Addshore) could be a Wikipedia-side liason who feeds all bugs posted on the WP:Huggle/Feedback into the sourceforge bug tracker system and then I could work out their seriousness and feed them into the task system (kind of like a priority and version to-do list) where Fitzpoll can just fix whener. Although we do need to decide when a new release should be posted etc and what OSS licence to put our contributions under (Gurch put them into the public domain with attribution preferred but thats not compatible with Sourceforge as far as I know).  Atyndall93 | talk  05:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes this sounds good and im happy to do that, Also im happy to fix a few of the smaller bugs or the ones that I know how to fix :> How is the sourceforge project coming along? ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 07:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've added you name to the list of developers and the project is awaiting approval ETA about two days, after that we can commence its use.  Atyndall93 | talk  11:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Mellie/Gurch

• Didn't know where to mention this, but I could probably get Mellie to talk to Gurch. she can be very persuasive. Steve Crossin (contact) 11:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed Steve's comment above. This may prove useful. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, here's the thing. I know her better than anyone, and I know that Mel and Matt are good friends. Mel's a very persuasive girl, and I'm sure she could convince him to come back. I'll ask her to make a cmt here though. Anyway, what do people think of this? Steve Crossin (contact) 13:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Let him be - he's obviously extremely stressed out and doesn't want to be part of the project at the minute. We should respect this and he'll come back in his own time. It looks like we've found someone to help out with Huggle, and he can obviously resume that himself when he's back. Let the guy sort his issues out himself. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Well said Ryan, I agree. I'm pretty sure gurch is going to come back when he's ready. delldot talk 13:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• There's a difference between persuasive and forceful/coercive, but, we will let this one rest. Let him come back when, and if, he's ready. Steve Crossin (contact) 13:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think he should be left. I only managed to talk to him for around 30 mins and his last message to me went along the lines of leave me alone. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 14:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, leave Gurch alone... (and as a matter of fact, huggle is doing quite well w/out him...) Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 19:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well he did make the latest version all I did was compile it, sort out the pages, downloads e.t.c but I agree gurch should be left alone, if he wants to come back he will. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 22:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

Now that it's been re-enabled, can it be semi-protected instead of full? Enigma ^message 17:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It was only full-protected to prevent anyone re-enabling it, and keeping it full to prevent vandalism violates the protection policy... Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 19:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It was declined hours ago ——Ryan • (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

After some discussion, as I said at RFUP, some people may disagree with the full protection. I've found out that some people do agree with it though. Thoughts are welcome here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I commented there - my message was: Fritzpoll is an admin, if/when he takes over AddShore as the main developer, he'll be able to edit the config. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 20:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The page should stay protected - Fritzpoll is an admin. If it's over his head he can disable huggle; the wiki won't end. giggy _(:O) 23:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. No one saw fit to protect it ever (since one time in January) until iridescent wanted to disable it. Now it needs full protection forever and ever? What happened to protection not being preemptive? The page has never been vandalized. Plus, if you're protecting the page, why not protect the whitelist, too? That even more than the config page shouldn't be edited. Finally, iridescent even said it was temporary. " * 19:38, June 23, 2008 Iridescent (Talk | contribs) changed protection level for "Wikipedia:Huggle/Config" ‎ (Temporarily protected pending resolution of this discussion [edit=sysop:move=sysop])" I don't see how this indefinite full protection makes sense at all. Enigma ^message 00:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify since I see this generating more flames on my talkpage; at no point have I ever disabled Huggle. I protected the config page (which was initially protected by TravisTX), for a very short time until it was decided whether to leave it running. At no point have I ever changed the configuration in any way. – iridescent 01:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(To Enigma) The configuration page has had a lot more attention as a result of being linked off AN and it will undoubtedly have caught the attention of vandals, seen as some people went into a lot of detail above about how destructive a tool like that could be if the configuration was messed with. It's now become a higher risk page where it wasn't before. Seraphim♥Whipp 08:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Just like to throw this into the discussion. At this point in time admins should / would not make any helpful contributions to that page because they don't know what to do e.t.c. The only things admins would do is to disable it. The users that want / need to change the page are generally non admins and now have to work through admins wasting admins time and it just a bit peculiar. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 06:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, if it were to have it's semi restored then that would stamp out the possibility of anonymous and new users from vandalising. These two groups of people are more likely to vandalise the page than established auto-confirmed users. ——Ryan • (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The page is now semi protected again. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 15:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Consider me in

Fine - no objections in the past 48 - I'll start looking at this tonight and tomorrow and along with AddShore, I will start looking at bugfixes. If I can get stuff uploaded to the SF page, I will, but I've never done that before! Cheers, Fritzpoll (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Good i agree we defiantly need you :> I have already used the extent of my knowledge fixing one bug :D ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 17:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make one think clear from the outset about my volunteering here for this: I see this as purely the role of a "caretaker". Huggle is considered to be very useful by the community, and clearly needs maintaining/updating and I am willing to do this. If and when Gurch returns, I will not hesitate in returning this job to him upon request. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about sourceforge, I can show you how to use it (it can be a bit feature-intensive at times) but I have had several projects and its a very good website. I am thinking of turning on the task list (once the project is approved) where you can just find out what needs fixing, do it and mark them as done. Although a system of workuing out when a new version should be released needs to be decided on.  Atyndall93 | talk  05:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

New version or subversions should be released whenever all MAJOR bugs have been fixed. There can still be minor ones left :>. Also for full new versions try to get everything you can get done. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 07:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding the Drama

Seriously, how many vandal tools do we have? We have Lupin's anti-vandal, VandalProof, Vandal Fighter, rollback, Vandal Sniper, Twinkle, etc. There are even a couple more that are not worth mentioning. How many more do we honestly need? Sure huggle is a powerful anti-vandal tool, but we got like 10 more of those tools. I'm sure we can handle ourselves with one less tool.

About gurch's departure, we have to face the fact that some good editors leave because of anger, fustration, wikibrunout, etc. and learn from it. That way we can prevent it from happening it again. PrestonH (t ♦ c) 05:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, we couldn't live without it, its that and more. :-P  Atyndall93 | talk  05:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

How many tools do we need? I daresay Huggle rendered VandalProof and Vandal Sniper obsolete months ago. There are things we can afford to lose, and Huggle most certainly is not one of them, as anyone who has used it can attest. Enigma ^message 05:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Enigmaman, can you show me how huggle has improved over VandalProof and Vandal Smiper? PrestonH (t ♦ c) 05:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a much more powerful tool and much less buggy. Can I show you? No. I'd to make a presentation in person to demonstrate what's better about it. If you've used it, you know that it's much better, much more useful, and indispensable. Enigma ^message 06:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

PrestonH, it is far far better than VP. It is probably more useful than all the other tools combined. Prodego ^talk 06:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Also if you ever go into the irc feed and set your client to beep every time the huggle advert summary comes up you will be amazed. Firstly during peak times there can be over 18 people huggeling at once and they can be making well over 100 edits per miniute. Take this away and well thats about 50 cases more vandalism not dealt with and I also agree that this tool is far better than many others. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 07:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of its dented reputation here, we cannot afford to lose Huggle. I've tried using most of the anti-vandal tools you mentioned...well OK I couldn't get VP to work but that's besides the point. Huggle is capable of far more than all those tools combined. Addshore, you'll have to teach me how to make my IRC client 'beep' me. ——RyanLupin • (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Huggle is way better and faster than the rest of the ones you mentioned (well, was, now it's been rendered almost completely useless by the sheer number of bugs). I've personally never been beaten to a revert by a VandalProof user, VandalSniper isn't maintained any longer, Lupin's Tool and Twinkle are monobook scripts that use JavaScript to modify or improve Special:Recentchanges, which is not anywhere near as effective or fast as Huggle, VandalProof, or VandalSniper. Anyhow, this is a wiki, there's no problem with having so many. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 02:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see everyone's point. Anyways, has huggle even been fixed yet? --PrestonH (t ♦ c) 05:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No. I'm estimating 5 more weeks before Wikipedia:Huggle/Bugs is cleared out. It's a slow process. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 05:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So are we going to use the old tools and rollback during those five weeks until everything is sorted out? PrestonH (t ♦ c) 05:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not so buggy you can't edit through it, but just look at all the security/privacy concern bugs on Wikipedia:Huggle/Bugs. Too many for me, but it's still usable. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 05:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Huggle has always been buggy. There hasn't been a single release with some big bugs and the bugs list at the moment is about normal size. Huggle has always been "usable" even though it has these bugs. Yes that whole bugs list could take a few weeks to get through also. Might even now release 0.7.12 first before 0.8.0 ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 06:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I still think Huggle has been handed out to far too many extremely unexperienced users. That can be quite risky, if they have no idea what they are doing. There was previously a large scale discussion, which resulted in it being made clear that applications for Huggle would be taken under greater consideration, but I can't see evidence of it yet. As for the other tools, well, I use rollback, and I have coped perfectly well still, even with other users patrolling with Huggle, so it's not that great. I've argued this case before, it doesn't help RfA participation one bit, if those taking candidates under consideration have to sift through a million Huggle edits to find some non-automated ones. Lradrama 08:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Why does it matter whether it was automated or not? The point is that they're reverting vandalism and contributing to deletion. If I use my raw rollback priveleges to revert vandalism on an article versus using a utility, why should the first reversion be somehow more valuable? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't upset Vandal Proof or it will team up with Vandal Sniper to take out the Huggle Bear. Seriously though, while some may find the older tools obsolete, I find Vandal Proof works just fine for my needs. Also, I agree with the above that Huggle is handed out waaay too freely. I more often now have to clean up Huggle messes while on vandal/speedy/afd patrol due to inexperienced user mistakes.--Finalnight (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont think that you can say "Huggle is handed out waaay too freely". It is restriced to rollbackers and to be honest that should be enough for any anti vandalism tool. Vandal proof and sniper are perfectly good tools it is just some users find huggle allot easier to use. Huggle mistakes if repetitive should really be reported to ANI to be dealt with. Most huggelers will undo their mistakes and if they do not then they should not be using huggle. (my opinions anyway) ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 12:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that Addshore has brought up the topic, Huggle can only be used by editors with rollback. We initially did this because it would transfer the problem from huggle to WP:RFR. If admins at RfR don't have enough sense to keep rollback from editors who don't deserve it... what fault of ours is that? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Other restrictions could be imposed but there is no need to as it is already limmited to only rollbackers meaning all users would / should have a good reputation, some knowledge, edits and time on wiki. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 06:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Gurch is BACK!!!! See the config talk page!!!!--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 20:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes gurch is now lightly deving huggle again. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 19:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Need help with interpetation of WP:UP

I have some questions about interpreting and applying Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page?, specifically point #9. This is in regards to the User page of GHcool (talk · contribs), which has been the subject of controversy in the past, including a no-consensus MfD (though I think the page has been substantially expanded since then) as well as an ANI thread from about a year ago that I cannot seem to locate (and in fact, the user who raised it appears to have had their identity erased entirely from Wikipedia... user page deleted on user's request, no contribs, nada). I was hoping to look to the past discussions for precedent, but unfortunately the past discussions are either missing or else have an ambiguous conclusion.

There is currently on ongoing Wikiquette Alert from Imad marie (talk · contribs), where he/she contends that using a quote from him/her on the user page, along with the text "even after this claim had been exposed as a falsehood", constitutes the naming of a "perceived flaw," as prohibited by point #9 in the User Page guidelines I linked to above.

I do not feel great about the user page in question, but I also do not feel comfortable proclaiming that it is in violation of policy. It is treading a very fine line, IMO. Myself and Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs) attempted to mediate -- our compromise suggestion was to remove specific user names from the page to avoid the appearance of personal attacks, but to retain the diffs so that there was still proof these were actual user comments, and interested parties could still verify all of the info -- but GHcool was not amenable to this compromise, and as I said, I do not feel comfortable trying to force the compromise because I am unsure if the page really runs afoul of WP:UP or not.

Imad marie has asked about his/her next step in the dispute resolution process. I suppose I could say "Take it to ANI" or "Try an RfC" or whatever, but I do not think GHcool is likely to change his mind, and I am uncertain about which way enforcement would come down. So I'd like to hear some input from admins and other experienced users on what they think. Is the page User:GHcool a violation of WP:UP? Does it just skirt the edge? Is it reasonable to ask GHcool to make some accommodations to those who might be offended? Should we tell those who feel offended to just piss off? What do people think? --Jaysweet (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and your userpage is not a free speech venue to broadcast reams of polemic and paint your fellow editors as anti-Israeli via carefully selected and edited quotes. I would remove the entire section. Neıl 龱 15:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Although some of the user-written text is ok for what it is, having it on a user page is still soapboxing. The "selected quotes" however, could be taken as attacks on some users and are very disruptive to a collaborative, volunteer encyclopedia-building project. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

While I assume good faith on Jaysweet's part, I believe he/she has misinterpreted my stance on compromise. I promised him that I would take the users' names off my page if I heard a good argument for doing so. The only argument I heard so far was that fairly and accurately quoting other user's distortions of logic and factual information is offensive to those users. I don't believe this is a strong argument, since Wikipedia is an open community where public accountability and debate is a prime value. The argument is logically equivalent to my arguing that bringing up my user page for discussion offends me and insisting that the conversation stop immediately. I would never do that because I believe that such an argument goes against the nature of this site. I will be going out of town tomorrow for 10 days and will not be able to respond during that time. I respectfully ask that this debate be put on hold until I get back, or if that is impossible, I request that no ruling be carried out until I get back and have a chance to catch up on the whatever proceedings have taken place. Thank you in advance. --GHcool (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A simple response may be, if twice as many people consider it non-conducive to the good of the community in having the comments as they are now on a userpage as those who believe it conducive - then it gets removed. It is not your page, it is the communities page on which you are permitted to provide such information as you feel is of benefit in helping create the encyclopedia. In other words, it is for you to prove the grounds of the inclusion of content when two or more contributors raise objections - or get more supporters for your "stance". IM(NVH)O. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

@GHcool -- I believe a good argument has been made (regarding the interpetation of WP:UP, see above, I will not rehash it here). You do not agree with my assessment of the argument, and that is okay. But that doesn't mean I misinterpreted you, it just means we have a different assessment.

Also, FWIW, in my mind compromise sometimes means giving a little to the other side even if you think their arguments are shitty. You'd be surprised how many compromises I help broker on WP:WQA where one party is like, "Well, that's a stupid thing to be worried about... but what the hell, if it means I get what I want too, then I'll agree to it." In this case, you want to host a user page that is very much pushing the boundaries of WP:UP (in terms of length and intent, too, not just in terms of the "perceived flaws" thing), and in order to continue to do that you may have had to give a little... even if it didn't make sense to you. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, so is there any way to persuade GHcool to remove the offensive material from his user page? Imad marie (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping a few more admins/other users will chime in here. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:John celona socking

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

With no opposition to a ban, User:John celona is now banned from the English Wikipedia. Wizardman 18:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely by Useight.

After a long history with John celona (talk · contribs), I recently co-certified an RFC about him. Very shortly thereafter, it was brought to my attention that he is an extremely obvious sock of the indef-blocked Tommypowell (talk · contribs). Now, I'd be quite comfortable blocking, because it's really not at all a subjective block, but given the fact that I just co-certified an RFC/U, I can imagine somebody taking issue with me as an involved admin. Therefore, I'd like some guidance: should I block? Should I file a WP:SSP report, bearing in mind that that is severely backlogged? Should I just ask another admin to look through contribution histories and make the block her/himself? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll note the last date of edits for Tommypowell was 21:42, February 7, 2007 so checkuser will not be possible due to expiration of the data. MBisanz ^talk 23:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's unfortunate that it took this long, but it's an extremely obvious sock. Enigma ^message 23:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll stop short of saying it's "extremely obvious," but it's very likely. Tommypowell was blocked on Feb. 7, 2007; and John celona started editing four days later. Both have edited Brent Corrigan, an article that attracts some interest but where two unrelated users are unlikely to show up randomly. If you have more evidence linking them, please state it here. This is already a good start, and if you can build on it, you can justify a block - but be careful because John celona is an established user with more than a year of experience, and should not be indef-blocked without careful forethought.

Also, don't file an SSP report. Those just wind up on my desk anyway. So continue the discussion here, and if you need me to check anything, ping me on my talk page. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 23:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

[9] "Very nice job. The evidence that John celona is Tommypowell is conclusive, for me, and we didn't even need a checkuser! Tommypowell was indefinitely blocked on February 7, 2007. The John celona account was created on February 11, 2007. They also edited some of the same pages." Check out the tool which compares the pages they edited. Enigma ^message 23:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the most obvious: Duplicate edits to Tom Sawyer (1973 film). [10] [11] They were both quite active on Michael J. Devlin and the now deleted pages on his victims. AniMate 00:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

The following is the evidence of sock-puppetry:

• Tommypowell was blocked indefinitely February 7 ([12]), John celona registered February 11 ([13])
• Both editors took the position that Brent Corrigan was born in 1985, and not 1986 as the subject claims ([14],[15], plenty more diffs available on request)
• Both editors added gay porn stars' real names to their articles ([16],[17], may more diffs available on request)
• Both editors inserted identical language regarding an underage nude scene in Tom Sawyer (1973 film) ([18],[19])
• Both editors edited articles about gambling card games ([20],[21])
• Both editors engaged in Holocaust denial ([22],[23],many more diffs available on request)
• Both editors liked to emphasize how long material that opponents favoured removing had been in articles ([24],[25])
• Both editors showed substantial interest in Michael J. Devlin and, especially, in his victims. For example, Tommypowell supported keeping an article about one of Devlin's victims ([26]) but was unsuccessful in doing so; early in his career, Celona supported overturning this deletion at DRV ([27])
• Both editors had the habit of cross-posting their messages to involved editors' talk pages (Powell: [28],[29],[30], Celona [31],[32])
• On June 2, Celona made an edit to Newyorkbrad's talk page that began with "As someone who has contributed to this article", referring to Michael J. Devlin ([33]). At that time, Celona had not made any contributions to that article. Powell, however, had made several ([34])

There's lots more than that, if you care to look, but I think I've outlined enough to make the case conclusive. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In the (currently final) bullet beginning "On June 2", the details aren't quite right ([35]) . But it is still evidence of similar interests. GRBerry 13:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That edit isn't a "contribution", it's a WP:POINTy removal of material that Celona favoured including in response to the deletion by NYB of a different article. I think it continues to be more than "evidence of similar interests". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Petition for Community Ban

• Support Bstone (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Has disrupted the encyclopedia for far too long. Enigma ^message 04:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think a ban vote is necessary: we just need an uninvolved admin to go through the evidence and block Celona. I mean, we could ban too, I suppose, and I'd likely support that, but what's needed at this point isn't a community discussion, but a single uninvolved admin. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

  While we wait, we may as well discuss a ban. For me, it's a forgone conclusion that the user will be blocked whenever someone looks this over. The question is a ban, and I think one should be implemented. Enigma ^message 05:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban. I didn't actually read any of the diffs, but I trust Sarcasticidealist not to fake them, and if even half of them pan out, that's more than enough evidence. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 06:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I have only looked at a few of the diffs, but the evidence both that Celona is disruptive, and that he is a sock is very conclusive, especially those identical edits to the Tom Sawyer article. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 06:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support I did read the diffs and I too trust the Judgement of Sarcasticidealist. He supported John and tried to help him become a better editor.I tried to help John too but too many people have been adversely affected by Johns disruptive behavior so I regrettably have to support this call for a community ban. :Albion moonlight (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

To be clear about this, if there is to be an indef block, it would be madness to base it on the socking accusation. The alternate account was indef blocked itself, more than a year ago. You can't seriously suggest that, 18 months later, the other half of the sock should also be blocked. After all, you're allowed to operate one account unless you're banned. It would be punitive, post-factor and pointless. It specifically would not prevent the identified problem, as it's been more than a year since it even occured! The material content of the RfC regarding conduct is a separate issue, of course. You're not allowed to persistetly misbehave on more than zero accounts. Splash - tk 12:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You're not allowed to operate an account for the purpose of circumventing an indef-block, banned or not. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the Tommypowell account indef blocked, or banned? If it's indefinitely blocked, have Celona's edits been disruptive, or constructive? If they have been constructive, why do we have to block him? A year of "time served" is quite a lot. Of course, if he's been disruptive, then by all means, block. Neıl 龱 15:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it counts as "time served" if you create a sock four days after being blocked, which edits actively for the next year. But to answer your question regarding whether it's disruptive, see the RFC to which I linked earlier. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Forget what I said - indef block. I'd call for one irrespective of his previous identity, that's beyond the pale. Neıl 龱 15:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

SI is in a difficult position. As initiator of the current RfC about John celona's conduct as John celona, SI shouldn't be the one to block for being a sock of an indefinitely banned editor. Someone uninvolved should do the block tho. The evidence that John celona, an obvious successor account created four days after tommy's indef block, is just evading tommy's block is very persuasive. Will some uninvolved admin please administer the block?David in DC (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Since it's clearly a sock, what exactly is the question? Four days after being indefinitely blocked, he created a sock to circumvent the block. If anything, the second account was even more disruptive than the first. I don't see how exactly we should reward abusive socking. He should be indefinitely blocked immediately and I don't know what's taking so long. Sorry if I come off hard, but it's about time someone put an end to this. Enigma ^message 18:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

<- I've notified John Celona of this thread. He last edited 24 hours ago, give or take, so a response may or may not be forthcoming. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Did not see that since I hadn't refreshed the page, but I was bold and became the "uninvolved admin" to indef block John celona as per his pattern of disruptive behavior indicated here and at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John celona. Useight (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If he edited for over a year without causing any problems or acting like an ass...well that makes him a contributor to the Wiki. And while he's "avoiding" an indef block, I don't think it's unheard of to not ban him since he was productive for so long. But then again, BAN HIM NOW. ;) Beam 20:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the RfC. He was even worse as John celona. He never behaved well, under his previous account(s) or this account. Thank you, Useight, for blocking. Enigma ^message 21:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeing no opposition to the ban, can we now officially call him banned? (I support this as well). Wizardman 21:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block/ support ban based upon everything above and in the RFC. Aleta ^Sing 00:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I think we can call him banned. Enigma ^message 16:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Taekwondo edit war- and expansion

The Taekwondo talk page gives a good introduction. Started (several months ago) as an edit war after JJL (talk · contribs) substantial rewrote the article with a strong Pro-karate/Japanese POV. Several editors felt he went to far beyond what the sources supported, it went to a mediation which stalled. After this failure JJL and Manacpowers (talk · contribs) engaged in and edit war over a Japanese vs Korean POV, I and some other editors attempted to produce a neutral version and reason with both sides, this was hampered by stubbornness on both sides, policy misunderstandings and Manacpowers poor level of English. Except from brief flare-ups on the reliable sources notice board, and the martial arts project talk pages it has generally keept it self to the Taekwondo and talk pages. I have brought this here Manacpowers has now started editing various Korean martial arts articles in attempt to prove a point that only majority view (in his opinion that Taekwondo is primarily korean) should be shown. I noticed this on the Hapkido article where he as claimed the it might actually have originated 3000 years ago with Bodhidharma (see Asian martial arts (origins), the edit war & POV forks there for how debatable that is) referencing a Korean edition of Britannica, which I tried to translate using babel fish & can't make out anything useful from.

I asked him to read WP:Point, and he then copy an pasted a previous comment of mine about showing all sourced views. showing his previous patten of finding a point policy to stand on and reiterating it regardless of relevance, counter points, misunderstandings of what he has read or contradiction. I realise that I have become embroiled in this and am struggling remain neutral due to my increasing frustration with Manacpowers, and to a lesser extent with JJL. I have asked on several project talk pages for other editors to help but as none have come forward I am left with myself an a couple of other well intentioned editors to try and resolve the dispute. Manacpowers escalation to other articles has lead me to believe that he will not debate but will keep arguing the point and disrupting articles, while a block may not yet be in order some stern words (ideally in Korean) are needed to prevent him from spoiling several articles that have been progressing well and introducing errors (factual and grammatical) that my not be fixed for an extended period. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Poke 22 hours later (and several comments on requests below) anyone willing to help? --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you want to happen? Beam 13:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

For an independent party to warn and/or block (if appropriate) both sides, or help mediate. The page was protected for a week which only slowed things down temporally. It is just incredibly frustrating that no one seems to care that this edit war has spoilt one, and threaten several other articles, none of them were perfect but they were useful and reasonably well written, now TKD is abrupt and subject to 'fixes' from both sides. If this had stayed on the one article it would have been annoying but if Manacpowers insists on disrupting multiple articels it has gone too far --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well then, I'd recommend the main article be protected, and then you should start the mediation process. Beam 14:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation was tried once before I was involved and stalled and to be honest I am so fed-up I don't want to deal with the paper work of it to watch them not get anywhere again, because the refuse to see anything other then there own POV. I will try file the request, but just don't care enough to spend the next two weeks not editing productively thogth being too busy, as I seem to have wasted my time tying to resolve this so far. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal Information

Is it okay for people to give out the personal information of users going by their IPs? A group of trolls is harassing two IP users, publically posting the state, city, and even the county where they live. I can't believe that Wiki would allow something like that, especially given the dangers that go along with it. I mean, what's next? Phone numbers and street addresses? I'd really like confirmation on this issue.Fragments of Jade (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We're simply going by the WHOIS reports, nothing more. And we used WHOIS because they (and you) might be one and the same (sock puppetry). The WHOIS reports tend to confirm those suspicions. 88.161.129.43 (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you an admin? No. You can't go around posting where people live. I'm not even in the same state as those two. I shouldn't even know that, but I do because you think it's okay to practically direct everyone to their houses. And that talk page is not for discussions of sock puppetry. Admins and the other higher-ups handle that stuff, not you or your friends. That talk page is for discussion of the article, which is a video game. If you've got a problem, take it to the proper people and leave it out of that talk page.Fragments of Jade (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Being an administrator does not affect what you can or can not post. If you don't want your IP address in the logs, register an account. Honestly, I don't know if we have "policy" on this - hopefully not, that would be far too bureaucratic. As far as I'm concerned, anything off a popular public WHOIS service is fair game. If you have an account, only a checkuser can see your IP address. Cheers, Alex Muller 12:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

1. If you edit while logged out, your IP is recorded publicly, and revealing information derived from it (such as place or residence, school or employer) is not a privacy violation.
2. If you edit while logged out during a dispute, either accidentally or on purpose, it will certainly appear to other editors that you are trying to avoid scrutiny, and it is only your fault if editors guess that the IP is yours.
3. Fragments of Jade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation and general edit warring on Silent Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The talk page there is a mess, too. Thatcher 12:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Death threat

After a heated argument in which he called me a "weirdo creep", "snob", "poetaster", "nationalist" and "pig-headed", User:Kalindoscopy threatened "make yourself useful and push up the dasies"[36]. This was just 17 minutes after I reminded him of WP:NPA, which he didn't take too kindly to[37]. I am very concerned about this threat, which comes from a user who has previously been banned for two weeks for personal attacks[38].--Yolgnu (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty weak "death threat" to be honest. Beam 13:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

With this user's history, and the range of personal attacks he's made against me and others, I'm taking it pretty seriously.--Yolgnu (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on the editor's talk page, there's no need for metaphors like that one. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yolgnu, it wasn't a death threat: it was a suggestion that you make yourself useful by dying. Entirely in bad taste and very rude, apologies. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If any admins have the time (and inclination) to take a look through my communication with Yolgnu, I'd appreciate it. He's been stalking me for some time now, bandying about a similar laundry list of taunts and patronising snipes. Re: 'attacking others'... I'm not sure who he's referring to. I've been rather lucky so far and never run into anybody quite like Yolgnu on wikipedia before. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Image upload error-DELETE

Please delete Image:welcometosisseton.JPG. I accidentally uploaded it here instead of commons.--Connor401 (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done - For future reference you can use the template {{db-author}} to delete an image or page added in error. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Resolved

 – Entire userspace of relevant accounts deleted per request.

Will it be possible if an administrator could erase all of my userpage & subpages + talkpage - including my alternate user Yun-Yuuzhan here on Wikipedia - I'm leaving wikipedia indefinitely - I'll be semi-active on other wiki-sites . Terra 18:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done. —Kurykh 18:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Terra 18:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Boze Pravde moving pages against what I thought was Wikipedia Consensus

Resolved

 – Page move-protected for a week to encourage editors to resolve this through dialogue rather than move warring. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The en.wikipedia spelling of the city Pristina.

See the following diffs:

diff1 See the move log for the moves of Pristina article and talk page.

The first diff is him reverting my reversion. I don't want an edit war as I'm a neutral kind of guy, but these moves and edits will have far reaching effects into articles about Kosovo. A little help? Beam 14:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have dealt with this user in the past, and I'm pretty sure he considers me biased, which is why I come here instead of direct mediation. He knows what he is doing, and he knows the previous consensus process. For instance, at the Kosovo article we made a consensus that Pristina is the correct spelling, he was made aware yet still tried to edit that article. Luckily consensus stopped him.

Also see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Kosovo-related_articles)/Prishtina-Pristina-Priština and I have notified him of this, and he was previously (above my notification of this noticeboard topic) notified of the manual of style on Pristina.

Your help, as always, is appreciated in the deepest of manners (excluding sexual appreciation... for now) oh benevolent Administrators of Wikipedia. Beam 14:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is clear: The official language of the US is English, so all US cities are written in English, regardless if the majority population in some cities in the US are Mexican. Let's not get ethnicity into the whole issue, I hope we're above that. Priština is a city in Serbia, this is how about 150 countries in the world see it, as well as the UN Security Council (See Resolution 1244 of the UNSC), and Priština is not spelled Pristina, but Priština. The "š" is different from "s", because it sounds like "sh" instead of just "s". The far reaching effects that my colleague Beam is talking about will be negative in the sense that all these cities: Peć, Gračanica, Leposavić, Zvečan, Velika Hoča, etc. will be subjected to change, change that is against Wikipedia policy. And I hope nobody will use the lame ethnically racist excuse: "Well, the majority of Priština and Kosovo are Albanian, so the name has to be more similar to Albanian". Let's try to be above that and recognize the facts of how the world recognizes Kosovo as a province of Serbia (excluding about 40 countries).

Also, Beam, on a more personal note, mentioning "sexual appreciation... for now" is just disturbing for me, so please keep that kind of stuff off Wikipedia. Thanks, --GOD OF JUSTICE 14:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I will revert for now, and if he reverts me, I'll have to depend on you guys for help. Beam 14:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverting won't solve the problem. --GOD OF JUSTICE 14:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so you guys know GODOFJUSTICE is Boze Pravde, and I said that sexual appreciation isn't available...for now. And I will let others move the pages back to their right places. Beam 14:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I love how you didn't comment on my arguments. But that's OK, I can wait :) --GOD OF JUSTICE 14:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Arguments? Look at the manual of style, there are no arguments, that is now consensus.

Also, note that User:Bolonium (who has a Kosovo is Serbia icon on his user page) has reverted my move, and I am now in 3rr territory, so it's up to you guys. Beam 14:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If there was a consensus that New York is really in Great Britain, would that make it true? You can't make a consensus on facts, facts are facts. Thanks to ChrisO for once again proving that he's neutral by supporting only one side in the dispute, good job. --GOD OF JUSTICE 15:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If we're going to talk about templates, don't make me start about your friend Cradel's templates... Besides, look at the UN list of countries, try to find Kosovo, and then tell me if Kosovo is or isn't a part of Serbia. --GOD OF JUSTICE 15:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:TRUTH. Thanks.

Admins, can you fix this mess, it's pretty apparent that Boze is fighting for the WP:TRUTH instead of consensus that is already established. Beam 15:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, that's funny. You can't make a consensus on facts. I've been to Priština and everybody knows what the correct spelling of that city is in Serbian, the official language of Serbia, in which Priština is a city. Wikipedia can't declare that a spelling is wrong in a language, especially if the people arguing can't speak Serbian. --GOD OF JUSTICE 15:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed my link it's WP:Truth. My apologies. Honestly Boze, it's been explained to you before and you aren't stupid by any means. I'm sure you understand. Beam 15:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My message to the admins

All of this is probably really bothersome to you. The few of us arguing about the name of the city, and about a little detail, whether it will be "š" or "s". It's reasonable to think that you might not find this that important and you may be right. I may be wrong for pushing this, I often am. However, I believe that you'll understand that it's a well-known fact that the name of the city is Priština. Imperfection in any case is something Wikipedia should not be endorsing, and you, as administrators of Wikipedia, are the protectors of Wikipedia policy and Wikipedia itself. This is why we have administrators, or else Wikipedia wouldn't function well, as it has so far. You are the ones that can solve this dispute, because you are neutral and can look at the facts in a neutral way. You are the ones that have a cool head and will not decide to lean on one side, while completely ignoring the other side. Pushing this may be pointless, when there are so many Albanians on Wikipedia who will not give up changing everything in Priština that comes even close to reminding them of Serb presence (I met the only remaining Serb in Priština last year, an old lady that wants to live peacefully and be buried next to her husband in Priština, but cannot do either things, the Albanians provoke her all the time and consider a Serbian burial in Priština a "provocation"), and this is why the name Priština bugs them. Priština is the name of the city in Serbian language and since Kosovo is considered a province of Serbia by the UN, the UNSC, the international community (149 countries of the world) the names of Kosovo cities are written in Serbian (See: Leposavić, Zvečan, Uroševac, Peć, etc.). Why make Priština any different? You, the administrators, have the power to stop this before it gets only more complicated and much worse.

Sincerely,

--GOD OF JUSTICE 16:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... anyway the consensus on Wikipedia, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Kosovo-related_articles)/Prishtina-Pristina-Priština, is evident. Please revert Boze's edits and page moves. Thank you. Beam 16:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've temporarily protected the page from further moves so that the name can be discussed (hopefully in a calmer fashion) on the talk page. Controversial page moves should either be done with consensus or not done at all. I'll mark this one as resolved for now. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I just want you to know that there have been several conversations and the resulting consensus from all of them over the past few months has been the current spelling of Pristina. Which also was the result of that manual of style. Beam 19:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ombudsmen Committee formal proposal

Located here. Please comment at the VP. Thanks!!! Bstone (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Very strange vandalism

Clicking on today's featured article (Macintosh Classic) brought up a shock image (goatse type) coded in colored blocks and ASCII. I thought it was in the article, but it appears not to have been there after all - at least it had disappeared, and is not in the histories of either main page or the article. Did anyone else see it? --Janke | Talk 21:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably one of the templates on the page got vandalized and it showed up on all the articles it was on. Enigma ^message 21:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at the templates on Macintosh Classic and I bet you'll find your answer. Enigma ^message 21:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, vandalism from IP 211.30.245.58. Was there for almost five minutes... Shouldn't all today's featured articles be protected (including their templates) ? --Janke | Talk 21:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Long-standing policy not to protect featured articles unless absolutely necessary. Templates on those, though, should probably be protected for the duration that it's featured. We had a similar thing with Barack Obama some weeks ago. Enigma ^message 21:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the vandalism was on template "Infobox_computer". Didn't occur to me to look until you suggested it, thanks. --Janke | Talk 21:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Opera-Mini

This Person had blocked Opera-mini from Editing wikipedia Just Because Someone had vandalised Using this Browser, i Don't think that this is a smart idea. i am a Opera Mini User too and i am facing this problem, Please Put some Lights on this and Please Remove This Unwanted Ban Bharath (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems Slakr has hardblocked the entire Opera Mini IP range for five years. I can't find any discussion on this, anyone know where it is? Neıl 龱 17:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think basically because it basically acts as an open proxy. Not sure there was discussion per se, but anyone can log onto the network and use their IP's. I did have a chat with Slakr about this off wiki and there were ideas that the unblock mailing list could handle problems with the block just as giving ipblockexempt to those users affected. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not exactly an open proxy. Slakr is ordering everyone affected by the block to pester Opera to include XFF-forwarding, but I'm not even sure that works on a phone or PDA browser. There was a discussion here about it. Neıl 龱 17:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

According to my conversations with Slakr and others, the "demo" feature of Opera-Mini lets someone surf and edit using a concealed IP address. This would permit a user to log into the demo and edit WP with an IP address that was not their original address, making it an Open Proxy, standard blocking convention is to hardblock such IPs for long periods of time to prevent sockpuppetry abuse. Also, Opera permits the "demo" IP address to overlap with the actual product, meaning we can't segregate it to only hit demo users. And for Neil's question, Administrators and users with the IP-Block-Exempt flag can pass through such a hardblock. Hence why people hitting the block are redirected to the mailing list, to confirm the intention of their use of Opera-Mini and grant the IP-Block-Exempt flag. MBisanz ^talk 17:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Opera Mini already forwards XFF headers, now it's up to a WMF developer such as JeLuF or Tim Starling to add it to the trusted XFF list. I was initially riding slakr really hard about this privately, but as MBisanz said, the big problem is the demo: it needlessly acts as an open proxy, shares the same two /23 pools of IP addresses as the phone client itself, and does not forward XFF headers correctly. east.718 at 18:01, July 1, 2008

That is correct, for most Opera mini users,, their real IP is forwarded by XFF and available to checkusers. I'm not sure that blocking the range because of a few demo users is wise. Who was Salkr having a problem with, and did he ask a checkuser to look into it? Thatcher 19:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you now, from where I sit, my admin account was blocked when I've been trying to edit on my "wanabee blackberry" PDA using opera mini - mind you I'm also prepared to blame my technical incompetence.. Pedro :  Chat  20:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't you have the ip-exempt flag? Enigma ^message 20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhh... on checking it's my technical incompetence as was fore-ordained - Doh! Pedro :  Chat  21:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Listed on bugzilla. Thatcher 22:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  Responded on my talk page. Presumably, if Opera can play ball with us, one of two things could happen:

  1. They assign the demo interface a specific IP and we just block that and unblock the rest.
  2. We add all of their proxies to our XFF trusted list, keep the addresses blocked, and only the demo users will be affected if only the XFF forwarding on the demo is inaccurate.

  The main reason I made the push toward contacting Opera from the users' part is that abuse from this range has reared its head before and apparently Opera didn't care/did nothing about it. :\ --slakr^\ talk / 22:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

They still haven't fixed it? See meta:Talk:XFF project#Opera Mini and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive104#Opera proxies. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe you cannot log in on the demo version (I can't check it right now, as Websense blocks it for "proxy avoidance"). You can try, it might even say "logged in", but as soon as you go to a different page, you're logged back out again, as it doesn't hold cookies. If that's the case, couldn't it be blocked anon-only? Neıl 龱 08:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I just used my alt account Mbisanz (talk · contribs) to log into the demo version, I could surf pages, view my watchlist, etc, all while logged into the demo. MBisanz ^talk 08:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you edit a page? Neıl 龱 09:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This edit [39] was made through the Mini Demo interface using my alt account. MBisanz ^talk 09:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Waiting on the Bugzilla request it is, then. Neıl 龱 09:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser shows edits that only forward the Opera IP, and other editd that forward the real originating IP, so yes, demo users (or someone) can edit as if it was an anonymous open proxy. Thatcher 12:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

i am Still Blocked :-(((((( , Why don't you guys Remove the ban????!!!Bharath (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't remove it because it appears that doing so would cause major problems. --Carnildo (talk) 01:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sysop help

I was wondering if a sysop could help me on two things -

1. The closure of an outstanding (12 days?) CfD for categories I created (the cats, not the CfD), where it was decided they should be renamed to reflect WP:1.0 standards
2. An {{editprotect}} here to implement the new categories for WP:VG. The text is there, just needs to be copied. Thanks! JohnnyMrNinja 02:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Being sent barmy

Please help User:AndreaMimi. I'm being sent half barmy by her bizarre edits [40][41] and her totally irrational desire to purge wikipedia of all commas even when they separate items in a list [42]. DrKay (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really find her edits bizarre or irrational. They are based on the form of English that she was taught. Identical to the form I learnt 30+ years ago. I left her a note and pointed her to Serial comma and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Serial commas. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The bizarre edits don't involve any commas. They don't do anything. That's why they're bizarre. I don't care if she removes serial commas outside of quotations but I do care when she removes all the commas, which renders sentences unreadable if the commas separate a parenthetical clause or two items in a list ("Probyn Montagu" as opposed to "Probyn, Montagu") or alters direct quotations. DrKay (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with User:Jasepl

Resolved

I'm looking for advice or help in how to deal with a problematic user. This user has made several redirect pages for airport names, dropping the "International" word from their names. For example, creating of Piarco Airport to redirect to Piarco International Airport. Nothing wrong there IMO, as it would be useful for mistypes. However the user has been editing dozens of Airline articles, changing their destination pages to the redirect page. First, this is simply wrong because these are not the proper Airport names, the "International" in the Airport name is part of its name. (Some international airports don't have International in their name). On Wikipedia, for virtually every article, we use the airline's full name. Besides the fact, linking to a redirect doesn't make sense. But even piping it properly and just changing the link name is against the whole airport name standard set on the thousands of articles in Wikipedia.

The user has been notified on his talk page to desist from arbitrarily changing the naming convention of airports. The majority of his edits have been reverted, not just by me, but from various used. He has re-reverted some of his edits and continues to make his changes on additional articles without responding to requests to stop and discuss it. I am assuming this is good faith, he has made constructive edits to other articles, but I have no idea how to get him to simply stop doing these airport name changes. It's just becoming a large headache to track down and fix and wasting many people's time. I am here to request help on how to handle this situation. Thank you. Rasadam (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The user has finally responded on his talk page and promised to stop the edits. Please ignore. Rasadam (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Subornus

I am here to discuss that the spoiler Tv page have been delete not only when I and underexperince wikipedia editor made it but also when a experienced wikipedia editor made it. It seems people think of it as advertising but it is not .I have 2625 people who can all stand up and say they would like this to be put up on wikiedia . Mabey you should stop and think whether movie pages aren't advertising the movies they talk about.. but they are ! but are also give out infomation, we only want to give out information not advertise it , if we wanted to waste out time advertising it we would have done.

So I urge you to take into consideration letting me and my felo forum members to allow us to have A page for Spoiler TV - Daryl McAllister --Desmond Hume99 (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

since your article was deleted at AFD, then deletion review is the correct place for this. --Jac16888 (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

BAG membership nomination

Per the bot policy, I am making this post to inform the community of my request for BAG membership. Please feel free to ask any questions/comment there. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Backlog needing attention

Can someone have look at this backlog Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Backlog Gnevin (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Jody McBrayer

This page reads like a biography from a commercial source. Even if it isn't copied from somewhere, its got multiple issues: NPOV, style, tone and sources. The history reveals some contentious editing and entires by a persistent IP. Really needs a good seeing-to. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've removed copyrighted text (taken from [43] and [44]) added to the article by User:74.14.209.136. Not much left at the moment. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Bstone and Wikipedia:Ombudsmen Committee

I am bringing this here because, well, I have just received a 3RR warning from Bstone for making a single revert to Wikipedia:Ombudsmen Committee. It seems he believes this proposal has now received consensus[45], based on ten comments at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee#View_by_Bstone, and a few more comments here. His proclamation was immediately reverted,[46] and discussion began on the talk page of the proposal. He reverted back to his "proclaimed" position,[47] was reverted again,[48] and then put on a "disputed" tag rather than a "proposed" tag.[49] I've reverted back to the "proposed" tag,[50] and have received a 3RR warning in return. (Yes, I have to admit I am stunned to receive a 3RR notice for a single edit.)

This is not the first time that Bstone has tried to unilaterally proclaim consensus on a proposal he supports; he did this as well with Wikipedia:Threats of violence.

I have voiced an opinion on this proposal and thus am not completely neutral here; and it's pretty clear that I'm not getting through to him that policies do not get proclaimed in 5 days because about 30 people think they're worth talking about. Could someone else please see if they are more successful in getting through? Risker (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Risker, you're correct in that you're not neutral. Your much too involved and, thus, shouldn't be taking administrative actions. I applaud you for adhering to the appropriate process and bringing this issue here. Based on the RfC, the AN thread and the support of two arbitrators, many administrators and many editors (and just a few nay-sayers), it's clear that the support for this proposal is much greater than the lack of support. I believe that after 7 months of discussion, work and soliciting opinions for consensus, OmbCom has indeed become policy and is official. You believe it does not, despite this is quite very clearly a minority opinion. It's a bit shocking and disturbing, really. When I added the disputed policy tag, which is clearly the most appropriate one when the status of a policy is disputed, you reverted even that. Thus, I am quite mystified and miffed. So, to sum it up: the vast majority support the OmbCom and a minority do not, including yourself. So, why is it that you keep reverting it from being policy? Bstone (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ridiculous to think that a mere 10 thoughts make it a "consensus". The last thing we need is MORE bureaucratic paralysis. This is a BAD idea, IMO. -- Avi (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Protected until further discussion takes place. Nakon 03:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Where was the supposed consensus reached? Reading through Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Ombudsmen_Committee_formal_proposal there is certainly no consensus supporting it, maybe even the opposite. Beam 03:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for a response from Risker why the disuputedpolicy tag was removed since it is disputed. Bstone (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have explained it on the talk page of the proposal, Bstone. Only actual, approved policies (like WP:V or WP:NPA) are flagged with the disputed policy tag. That is because they are policies. This is not a policy, it is a proposed policy. Your personal interpretation of consensus does not a policy make; in fact, we've already had exactly this kind of discussion on WP:TOV, another proposed policy that you tried to tag as approved. Risker (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Because one can only dispute existing policy. This is not existing policy. -- Avi (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, Riser, I never added a policy tag to TOV. In fact, I added the rejection message box and essay tags. Just what are you trying to allege? Bstone (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, this is indeed an error in my recollection. We had a long debate on whether it should be a proposed policy or a proposed guideline or an essay. Ultimately, you did accept that there was not consensus to make it either a policy or guideline. My error. Risker (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Pot recants statement aimed at kettle, calls self black

This is a pet project, not a policy, disputed or otherwise. Orderinchaos 04:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do have an affinity for projects which help with transparency and openness. And with the support of two arbs, it seems like a very good proposal indeed. What are you trying to imply, OIC? Bstone (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not implying anything, I just made a very simple statement. Appeals to authority (i.e. "two arbs support it, so it must be good!") are meaningless to me - the need to make use of them actually puts me off, especially as they aren't in here defending it. Orderinchaos 04:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33

The above named Arbitration case has closed. Giovanni33 is banned for a duration of one year by the Arbitration Committee. You may view the case at the above linked page.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Unbanning of this account at it.wikipedia.org

Resolved

 – "To discuss any of the above issues regarding Wikimedia projects other than the English Wikipedia, please find the appropriate venue at that project or at Meta-Wiki."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm User:Beamathan (universal account), and my nickname is Beam. This being so I created this account user:Beam to preempt anyone messing with me and because I sign with Beam so that if a user tried to goto the user page or talk page of "Beam" they wouldn't be misdirected.

Anyway, I tried to universify User:Beam, and it seems that the prior User:Beam got banned at the Italian wikipedia in October, 2007. Unfortunately I do not speak Italian and can not get unbanned through it.wikipedia.com.

Please help me, so that I can universify user:Beam.

Thank you. Beam 18:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Beam 18:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, we can't do much about the Italian Wikipedia, either. Do we have any admins here who also admin over there, I wonder? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That's my hope. Or at least someone who speaks Italian enough to ask them to help me. It's appreciated. Beam 18:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Go there and request help from an admin. That's what I did at the Portugese Wikipedia. I'll link you to the noticeboard. Enigma ^message 18:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I just needed a rename, so I went to an easy place at pt. I tried to find AN at Italian Wikipedia but I wasn't successful. If you do locate an admin, placing a request in English should still get results. Enigma ^message 18:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I'm unable to even navigate the it.wiki because I do not know a shred of Italian. Beam 18:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I used a dictionary to say thank you at pt. Here, I tried to translate administrator into Italian, but that word didn't come up with a page for me (at least, WP:[word]] didn't. Enigma ^message 18:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, guys... (points at "languages" section on the left side of the screen) I don't see it in there.... -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Damn spy sappin' mah sentry!)} 18:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You can probably try their embassy at [51] (with English buttons). The bottom two sections contain links to the non-Italian speaker SUL process (although you seem to need something slightly different). Kusma (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Or you can try to post in English at it:Wikipedia:Richieste agli amministratori ("requests to admins"? I can order pizza in Italian but not really read it). Good luck, Kusma (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I was posting at the same time Kusma did but here goes: Here's a list of current Admins in it.wikipedia. I could not find a direct equivalent to ANI but the closest I found to communicate with Admins is "Requests to Admins". -- Alexf⁴² 18:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm it.wikipedia sysop, User:Beam on it.wiki is blocked for sockpuppet and vandalic action. Place a Usurpation request (on meta.wiki, stewards request). --Fabexplosive (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing of Fabexplosive (I'm an it.wiki admin too), but he just did it faster than me. :) --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to do a usurptation? But..but..bawwwww. Where do I go in meta.wiki, if you don't mind linking me? Beam 20:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are bureaucrats on it.wiki then you go to them. Otherwise go to m:Steward requests/SUL requests. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I went to the Steward Requests on Meta, and posted the first post I made in this section. I hope they help me. Thanks for the link, and thank everyone for the attempted assistance! Beam 01:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

They've given a link, it:Wikipedia:Cambiare il nome utente/Riassegnazione#For it-0 speakers (SUL) where you can put a request. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What exactly am I requesting? I don't want to turn Beamathan into Beam, I just want Beam. Hmm... maybe I'll say just that. Thanks so much for the assistance, again. Beam 01:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You'd be requesting usurpation of the it.wiki user Beam, so if they allow usurpation, they'd rename "Beam" on it.wiki to something else, allowing you to use "Beam" on it.wiki for your Global account. At least that's what I think. I would think you can post in English - I see one en-3 Bureaucrat there. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:FSC

Not a problem, exactly, but the Featured sound candindates page (WP:FSC) could really use some more reviewers, as well as anyone who knows of good sounds to nominate. To give you an idea of why we need more people: There are only 14 Featured sounds. This at the same time as we have the marvellous resources of one of the best freely-licenced classical music libraries over on commons (See commons:Category:Classical music), as well as a great deal of other things.

This project needs some more love. Please help =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Move request

Resolved

Would someone mind moving User:Hersfold/Stoofy t to User talk:Stoofy t and then re-protect the user talk page? I received an email from a user blocked on suspicion of being User:Me toofy and can't reply via email due to the fact the email was a fake. I wouldn't bother, except I want to document it in case the user tries this again - Me toofy and his/her socks are indef blocked for continual disruption of the unblock category, hence the pre-emptive talk page protection. I'd do this all myself, but I'd rather not use my admin account on an insecure connection. Any questions, shoot me an email. Thanks for the help. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 01:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Done.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 01:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

Resolved

I noticed that someone protected this page: Template:Quran-usc wich is a template for all Quranic verses. Homewer after careful investigation, i noticed that the protection tag TRANSCLUDES into all coranic verses extracts. Can someone fix it? --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 03:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to noinclude this edit. —Giggy 03:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. Thanks for the heads up. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoopsees. Sorry. Grandmasterka 05:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing problem with User:Bwfguy

Resolved

 – deleted, protected & redirected to talk page. --Rodhullandemu 12:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, repeated notices that this site isn't a webhosting service are lost on this individual. He claims to be a kid who wants to see his stuff posted here with boxes and the like. His user page has been deleted at least once and he recreated it again. He also may have a sockpuppet at User:Tystedman at this point. I've brought this to the attention of AIV a couple of times, but like I said, he isn't getting the message. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Bwfguy has just recreated his deleted user page again and with all this inappropriate stuff repeated 13 (!) times although having being informed that this is not MySpace or the like. Can't this be prevented permanently? Thanks. (Jamesbeat (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC))

Question about disruptive editor

Resolved

 – no admin action required here Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to handle this, an editor has repeatedly been disrupting AfDs by making misleading comments, referencing policies that do not relate, badgering editors that are attempting to reach consensus, and replying to comments about comments/conduct with confusing nonsense. This editor has already been blocked several times for the exact same thing, including a sock-puppet account. I do not know how exactly RfCs work, but my comment was replied to with nonsense and a call to WP:NPA. I do not know if other editors will file a similar complaint, as the comments are spread throughout many small discussions and appear many times to be good-faith confusion. Several editors have commented in the AfDs, and on the user's talk page, about the confusing/misleading conduct. I do not simply do not want someone to get away with deliberate attempts to derail consensus. Any advice is welcome. JohnnyMrNinja 06:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

First, who are you talking about? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles - I didn't want to put the name out in context with the above post on such a public board, but I guess it's appropriate under the circumstances. The specific response I referenced above is this - a comment I made before realizing the editor had a history of such problems. Another editor received a similar response here. There are many such examples, spread across WP. JohnnyMrNinja 08:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Firstly you haven't addressed your concerns directly with LGRdC. Secondly this is what dispute resolution is designed for and thirdly, no admin action is required here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• (ec)LGRdC notified. I find it hard to get wound up about his Socratic debate style (if you don’t care for it, you don’t have to engage him), but to each their own. It is true that some other editors share your opinions about his actions, so perhaps a user conduct RFC would be the best next step. I'd guess that LGRdC himself would be amenable to that. What administrator action or involvement are you seeking out here? HiDrNick! 11:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • LGRdC is somewhat disruptive but they clearly have only good intentions and there doesn't seem to have be any attempt to resolve this on their talk. I have weighed in there but I really don't think that this is the right forum to have this discussion or that their behaviour has reached anywhere need the point for admin action. I did archive this discussion but was reverted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    • JohnnyMrNinja, many deleters have at one time or another carried on making comments on several or more other comments of 'the other side' at AfD. However, you are right in that there are more deleters than keepers so this habit is shared. I don't consider that the views necessarily equal 'Consensus' as there are a number of regulars who do little but nominate and vote in these proceedings. Many others spend their time writing articles. The closing admin will weigh up numbers and points of view of all comments - if there are more than a few keepers then maybe there is a point to keeping anyway which deleters are missing, if not, one keeper does not bode well for an article's survival generally. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sonny Moore

The 'Sonny Moore' page has been protected and disabled by administrators for nearly a year now. I understand that this was due to vandalism, but can you please create a new page now? This person is fairly popular and I'm sure many people would like to read about him and not be directed to his old band instead. There is much info I can contribute myself if this was to be changed. Please consider this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skrillpac (talk • contribs) 13:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please list the request to restore the page at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I would suggest that before doing that, however, you write a draft article in a user subpage and refer to it there. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Radical idea concerning MascotGuy

As active as I've been these last few years in trying to fight this guy off, I'd like to propose something really, really different: Why not allow his next sock to edit and only that sock; he wouldn't be allowed to create any new ones. Once he picks his next user name, that's the one he sticks with. That is, assuming he does some good edits like the last few he's done. NawlinWiki is for it and I'm sure Gogo Dodo will be as well; they've blocked his last few attempts. He would, of course, be notified via the talk page that he's being allowed to edit and that his edits will be carefully monitored. I would hope that he would be willing to discuss changes on his talk page, but given his condition, it wouldn't be absolutely necessary so long as his edits remain accurate. I was the one who'd made contact with his mom some time ago since one of the socks was named for his mom's e-mail address. Never did hear from her again, though. Since he's far more clueless than malicious, what do you all think? Could this be brought up for some sort of vote? I got burned trying to counsel a couple of allegedly autistic users, but I think this may be different and I'd be willing to monitor his progress. I'm looking forward to reading your opinions. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worth a try. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a very good idea, if you can get him to stick to one account. It seems like lately he's being blocked on principle rather than for any problem behavior. He's here because he wants to contribute, so if there are experienced contributors who are willing to keep an eye on things, why not let him? -- Vary | Talk 01:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you didn't provide any background information, or maybe I just don't know where to look I will simply comment on principle. If there is any way to allow or encourage an editor to contribute in a beneficial manner to the project it should be done. And personally, by should I mean must. Oh and if you'd like to enlighten me with some background and details of the situation I'd be happy to give an educated opinion on this situation. Beam 02:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to vehemently disagree with this, unless you're considering blindly reverting everything the sock does. The last time (to my knowledge) we nearly kept some of his contributions, they turned out to be too untrustworthy to keep. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive429#Seemingly legit article by a prolific vandal. And that's MascotGuy's M.O. - things that look plausible on the surface but turn out to be completely false. You'd be signing the community up for one hell of a babysitting job. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wknight94. We don't need to babysit this guy any more than we do now. Instead of welcoming him, we should find a way to make it so that he cannot access the site as he seems to have no problem with now. If we have to contact his mother again or simply block him on our end for as much as a permanent result as we can, we should do that instead of letting his edits go uncontrolled and allow him to create more garbage accounts that he'll never use in the first place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I admit that even proposing this in the first place runs counter to what all of us have been doing for far too long. There's a problem beyond just a bunch of untrustworthy edits from a guy whose parents have a dynamic IP with Road Runner Cable. I've written to Wikimedia and gotten no response. I'm still waiting from a response from Jimbo on another matter and I know how busy he can be. In short, the highers-up seem to be taking no interest in the problem and I don't think they realize the scope of the work it's creating for admins and those like me with rollback privileges. This is why I'm thinking that we offer one carrot to this guy and one only. He claims an account and edits from that one only, period. No more socks and the first sock or bad faith edit nulls the agreement which he should be made to do on his talk page or in an e-mail to an administrator. As I pointed out a couple of posts ago, the "Animal Guy" sock did several bizarre redirects to the term, "round robin." Other edits were legit. Maybe the guy's growing up; I don't know. If he screws up, he's done and hopefully, a formal complaint can be leveled at his IP at that time. If this is moving toward a "no" vote, then what's the next step? Who needs to be alerted in the foundation? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a decent proposal IMO and useful for other cases, but not in this case as Wknight94 has identified. Orderinchaos 04:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's an interesting idea, but I'm not so sure that it's going to work in practice. As noted in WP:LTA/MG: This editor does make useful edits, but his frequent bad edits, and noncommunication with other editors makes him a problem. I think the difficulty will be getting him to stick to a single account and be communicative. I've got mixed feelings about this idea. On one hand, I've got faith in reforming almost anybody and it would be nice to finally be able to close something that has been going on for way too long. On the other hand, I think the communication issue is going to be a problem. He seems to be well aware that he is doing something wrong (e.g., the tagging of his own sockpuppets) and I'm not sure the problem can be fixed. But if somebody can open a communication line with him, it's an interesting idea. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• You're right. I'd forgotten about that bizarre little trait of his and I'm thinking as a rational and normal person which he clearly isn't. This is just a game to him as evidenced by the fact that he literally tagged himself as a blocked vandal at User:Guyapalooza. Just when you think you've seen it all. I do believe I've answered my own question. Since edits relating to the "Eloise" book and TV franchise seem to be his particular forte at present, it might not be a bad idea to semi-protect them for a little while. He keeps tagging, we keep bagging. If someone has the ear of the foundation, now's a good time to yell in it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess it may be time to close this discussion. Acalamari just blocked a few socks which MascotGuy himself first tagged as blocked sockpuppets before they were even blocked. Heaven knows I made a good-faith effort to try and bring this guy in line, but there's no talking to him and whoever is in charge of supervising him is apparently unaware of the havoc he's causing. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Something you should see...

There has been a recent dispute on the Wikipedia Help desk, concerning the section "How do I report admin abuse?". This section was stated by Jeffrey Pierce Henderson and, according to some comments on his talk page, resulted in some disparaging comments. I, Graham northup, was indeed involved with this conflict, and may have heated the situation by posting an anonymous comment (that I admitted to later), and Jeffrey accusing me of being a sockpuppet or trolling admin (that he reports has been stalking him). Other users involved include Theresa knott, Mjpresson (aka Mike P), and IP address 76.14.110.81. The discussion was archived and closed by Shinmawa (aka small caps SHINMAWA). Although the section is not protected, th archive templates suggest that no one else modify this article.

I invite any concerned administrator to please evaluate this case and deal with it accordingly.

Sincerely, Graham Northup (Graham (talk, contrib) 03:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC))

Nothing to see here. To avoid sparking this sort of drama in the future, I would suggest that you try to make those sorts of comments when you are logged in for now on. There's really nothing else for anyone to do. If the uploader continues to have a problem with the actions of the deleting administrator, they can take it up with them on their talk page, or pursue other avenues of dispute resolution. Cheers, HiDrNick! 11:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will definitely remember this next time. Kind of embarassing... Graham (talk, contrib) 15:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: the anonymous post was because I sometimes add PSs that SineBot confuses with unsigned posts. I took that to advantage, and, as described, didn't want to look like an idiot for having such a reversal of opinion.

Backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves

We now have a backlog including items over a month old at WP:RM. Any assistance would be appreciated, as always. JPG-GR (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

More specifically, Wikipedia:Requested moves/Tennis is the oldest request currently present and needs some attention. JPG-GR (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wood on xkcd

Wood was on xkcd today; it will probably be vandalized for a little while. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we really get vandalism from xkcd readers?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes Check the history. It's happened several times since I wrote that last post. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been semi protected. I'm amazed there were no got wood jokes, though. —Giggy 04:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Got wood for sheep?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As 'vandalism' goes, it's about as mild and harmless as it gets. FCYTravis (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, they didja one better In popular culture LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted (again) and salted for a week. Hesperian 04:56, 7 July 2008 (UTCE

You may want to do the same to In Popular Culture (cAsE variant). Sigh. Some people don't seem to know there is such a thing as taking a joke too far... —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to note that I protected this, and no-one has unprotected it, and protection has not yet expired,[52] yet, after having been recreated by another administrator (which I do not object to BTW), it is demonstrably not protected.[53] Does the creation of a protected title cancel its protection? Hesperian 01:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not an administrator from what I've seen create protection, only prevents a page from being made by a nonadmin, and not the ability to edit or move said page if it is created by an admin. So you will have to reprotect the page as normal, if it still needs protection. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 01:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The scary thing is, I bet that, one day, there will be someone writing an article (or getting a dissertation) on the composition of our "In popular culture" sections (what gets mentioned how often, and what this distribution says about the popularity of various popular culture items)... and then we'll have a reliable source for the "In popular culture" article... meaning that this comic can be mentioned in its "in popular culture" section... and then the blogosphere will implode. Or be eaten by raptors.

A fitting tribute for Raptor Jesus. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Randall Munroe is a genius. FCYTravis (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

For punishment, he must license it CC-BY-SA. — Edokter • Talk • 14:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

He may be kidding with Wood, but Braces is already like that, with a list of pretty much every character, fictional and real, who has ever worn braces. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, LaraLove removed it about two weeks ago. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

disturbing vandalism

Resolved

Hey, I just reverted some vandalism I REALLY don't like: diff. It mentions Obama's death. I'm sure this guy is just an idiot, but I'm not going to let this slide without bringing it to others' attention. I hope this isn't something we take lightly. --JaGa (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• I just did a WHOIS and reported him to Charter Communications. --JaGa (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

RBI, to be honest, given the nature of the vandalism... _GB^T/C 10:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That's it? Look, I don't believe this guy is a true security threat, but his actions still should have consequences. You shouldn't be able to vandalize Wikipedia with comments forecasting someone's future death and not even get a stern message about it. Do we really have no policy beyond RBI for cases like this? --JaGa (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be flippant but this is ridiculous - fire up Huggle or Vandalproof and you'll probably see a hundred pieces of vandalism like that within 10 minutes. RBI is entirely the right course here – there's no earthly way that's a credible threat. – ırıdescent 20:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I know it isn't a credible threat, but I still don't think it should be tolerated. I spend a lot of time on Huggle and it's the first time I've come across something like this. This just seems like something that should have zero tolerance. --JaGa (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I can remember one morning where a guy uploaded a picture of a black man who had been lynched, with Obama's face crudely superimposed on it. The user then proceeded to add the image to a lot of articles (think upwards of 30-40). Seriously, this stuff happens all the time. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Holy CENSORED ^{Excusez mon francais}, these vandalisms are almost hate crimes! 30-40 pages with a picture of Obama being lynched?! It almost seems like something mre should be done...[sigh]...Graham (talk, contrib) 21:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Normally users aren't reported to ISP's or whatever unless they're serial vandals or something like that. Random vandalism like posting a picture of Obama being lynched is, quite frankly, mild compared to what happens here every day. Of course, if you want to report them, go ahead... Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 21:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am mildly amused that somebody declaiming (justifiable) horror at the use of race hate in attacking Obama should excuse the "CENSORED" comment by referring to it as French... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC) My hovercraft is full of eels!

Any time an edit insinuates extreme violence against another person - either another editor or a public figure - that vandal should be blocked, reported to their ISP, and a template should be placed on the IP's page informing them that they've been reported to their ISP. Just because it happens a lot is no reason to be OK with it. Just out of curiosity, what was done about Mister 30-40 pics of Obama hate? --JaGa (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins - Please contact the secret service with as much information as you have about this poster at your earliest opportunity. The DC field office may be reached at 202-406-8000. Please tell the operator that you are calling to report a threat to a presidential candidate. Thank you. --BenBurch (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone really going to do this? Or has anyone already? Graham (talk, contrib) 16:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I seriously hope not, as I suspect the Secret Service probably have enough on their hands dealing with credible threats without having to add dealing with a random piece of Wikipedia drive-by vandalism to their to-do list.

Perhaps getting a sense of perspective might be a good idea in this instance?

1. Admins (even checkusers) will have no more information available to them about this than any other user, since the person concerned wasn't logged in when they made their edit.
2. Take the edit in about the only bit of context there is available by looking at the IPs previous edit. Hmmm. Let's pick one at random. December 4 1983 - JK Rowling wins the lottery. A bit tricky, as the National Lottery didn't start up 1994.
3. Everyone knows that Scooby Doo is Scrappy's bitch and not Shaggy's. I mean, come on...
4. Unless I'm much mistaken, if Obama were to win the election in November he won't move into the White House until January 2009. This would presumably explain why he's there at 4.43 in the morning shortly after Christmas 2008, as he'd clearly have snuck in under cover of darkness to measure up for new curtains.
5. If that's a credible "threat to a presidential candidate", I'm a banana.
6. Continue ad nauseam, and ad realisation that this is just a random piece of vandalism and should be treated as such?

RBI is there for a reason. Revert, block, ignore. Let's stop feeding the trolls as this sort of drama is exactly the sort of reaction they're hoping to achieve. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 17:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm OK with the opinion, but what's up with number 3? Graham (talk, contrib, SIGN HERE!!!) 00:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment, but this is more of an immature vandal rather than anything else. There actually isn't a direct threat towards a candidate as much as a moronic statement. I totally agree with the RBI, if there is something that lists in full blown detail an actual scheme than that is a different story. Yanksox (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This thread has really run off in some quite interesting tangents. I think Yanksox's advice above is pretty reasonable. Orderinchaos 20:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets is hideously backlogged, with some 46 open reports. Admin attention here would be a welcome sight :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations is also backlogged (12 days). --Iamunknown 06:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll join in working through that one, since it doesn't require one to be an admin to do the tagging/checking :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Done up through July 1st. Sleep beckons. Will check it in the morning and do more if still backlogged. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations backlogged cleared...here's hoping someone tackles SSP now :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Oddness on one of my talkpage archives

Username2511 (talk · contribs) & 194.109.221.2 (talk · contribs) have been editing one of my talkpage archives (and so far nothing else), they appear to be the same person, I just thought that Admins might recognize the behaviour. DuncanHill (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It is most probably the same person, yes. Both accounts have only edited in a short space of time, and each one of those edits have been to your talkpage archive. Behaviour is very similar between the two. Looks like sockpuppetry. Might be worth reporting at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Lradrama 10:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks, I've got no idea who it could be. Could you report it for me please? 1) I don't know how, and 2) I can't stay online for long. DuncanHill (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why bother? I've blocked the account indef and I've blocked the IP for the next few days.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK good work. Sorry, but I had to leave my computer at that point, in the hope that another admin or someone could look into it. If I didn't have to go, I would've done the work myself. Cheers, Lradrama 15:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody take a look?

Resolved

 – nothing for an admin to do here

Gwen Gale (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Would somebody take a good look at this "proposal"? In summary, an editor (the well-known owner of a tag-bot) seems to have taken offense at a relatively minor dispute over (in part) mass tagging, and posted a very pointy "discussion" and canvassed a number of editors to draw them into it. I believe that the overview of the dispute very much mischaracterizes my and the beer project's issues with the well-intentioned actions of its parent project, and is destructive to my reputation. The history of the discussion and its genesis are reasonably well-linked, and I don't want to introduce bias by commenting much. I am, however, getting quite frustrated and think it best to remove myself from the situation and go offline for a bit. – ClockworkSoul 18:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The "proposal" is going nowhere, by dint of 1 supporting vote versus 13 dissenting votes, to date. There's no particular reasons why admins should look at the proposal, beyond general interest in all things wiki: certainly there's no admin treatable infraction occurring ... I understand that you are frustrated and can see why you would make an appeal for more eyeballs, but I'd suggest this is (at best) village pump fodder, or (assuming we have one) a meta-project talk page thread, but not WP:AN. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit scary when arguments over beer of any kind get nasty. Orderinchaos 21:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In my neighbourhood (and I'm talking 100 metres here), it's Super Bock, which has quite the kick, but the stuff tastes like liquified aluminium to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn

Anyone want to close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn? It's been open for eight months now; I very much doubt anything's going to come of it, especially since the subject never replied to a single post about the subject, let alone commented on the RFC. As one of the certifiers, I don't really want to close it myself (although I don't think the issue in question has gone away). – iridescent 20:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought these were closed by a bot after a month. What am I missing? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User conduct RfCs are closed manually after an appropriate time. Often a month isn't long enough to get outside opinions so it needs human judgement. You can either use an archive template, or simply delist it from the userconduct RfC page. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've closed the RfC following this request. It had long ago fallen out of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

JeanLatore article sabotage

A couple of days ago, I blocked User:JeanLatore as a sockpuppet of a banned user. Today, he dropped this message on my talk page (and several others') indicating that the apparently constructive article edits he made may not have been so constructive after all. Accordingly, I believe that all of his mainspace contributions need to be either fact-checked or excised. I've deleted all of the affected articles that were G5-eligible, but there remain quite a few of them. I've started a list of them here, and assistance in going through them would be appreciated. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've checked several of the listed articles and so far the edits appear to be correct. However, a couple of the pages include technical legal points so it might be a good idea for someone with legal knowledge to review them. I identified those questions in my comments on the fact-checking subpage. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Account-creator right

I've hit the limit on account creations at ACC, so I'm going to need the account-creator right. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 03:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done - many thanks for helping out. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 03:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adminbots

Don't think this has been particularly well advertised - a Request for Comment has been opened on how the community should clarify its opinion on admin bots, and how these should be managed in future - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adminbots. Neıl 龱 12:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It was still only linked off the following odd collection of pages (why just those users?):

• Wikipedia talk:Administrators
• User talk:Msgj
• User talk:MZMcBride
• User talk:Misza13
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies
• User:Ned Scott
• User talk:ST47
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All
• User talk:WJBscribe
• User talk:Cyde
• User talk:Maxim
• Template:RFCpolicy list
• User talk:East718
• User talk:DerHexer
• User:Kathryn NicDhàna/Admin Toolbox
• User:Pigman/Admin toolbox
• User:Persian Poet Gal/AdminToolbox/Noticeboards
• User talk:Nakon
• Wikipedia:WikipediaWeekly/Episode52
• User:Chetblong/Adminbots (redirect page)
• Wikipedia:ADMINBOTS

So I put it on village pump and the Cent template. rootology (T) 13:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well a fair number of those users operate admin bots and were notified that the general concept of their behavior was being discussed, also I suspect a fair number of people transclude the RFCpolicylist, hence the /toolbox style links. No reason it can't go on the VP and CENT though. MBisanz ^talk 13:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies

It's backlogged all the way back to May 22, with over 140 un-filled reports. It's had both {{backlog}} and {{adminbacklog}} on the page for seemingly forever. Can someone go through and process them (requires knowledge of open proxies and how to detect them). Thanks... Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to, but I have not got the slightest clue on how to deal with, detect, or resolve the matter. Suggest you create some admin instructions like they have on WP:RFPP or WP:AN3. Stifle (talk) 12:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Washington Nationals

Resolved

 – Well, that's awkward - No action needed. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we had some fun-filled vandalism at this article earlier. A vandal (now indef-blocked) replaced the content with, among other things, {{db-attack}}, marking the page for speedy deletion. The edit was here. That was at 06:39 UTC, about 6 hours ago. The page looks clean to me, but it is still showing up in Category:Attack pages for speedy deletion, despite the passage of time and purging the list. Is there anything I'm missing here? Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, within a minute of posting this inquiry, the article fell out of the category. Crisis averted, no action needed, and all that. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In patrolling the CSD category, I have discovered (okay, another editor told me) that often a page that is put there (for whatever reason) stays there until it is edited again. I think the null edit fixed it.  Frank  |  talk  13:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Behaviour of Admin- Dbachmann

Resolved

Admins are supposed to be impartial and set a example for others to follow. But i am sorry to report that user Dbachmann who is probably an admin has been behaving in a very wrong way. He resorted to name calling me on a discussion board and threatened me without reason. His behaviour to other editors who do not agree to his POV is also aggressive.

[54] [55] [56]

He also indulged in edit war on article Hinduism. He has protected his talk page so nobody could leave any warning. (another instance of abuse of Admin previlages) following are the diffs.

• 1st revert: 10:45, 8 July 2008
• 2nd revert: 10:56, 8 July 2008
• 3rd revert: 11:06, 8 July 2008
• 4th revert: 11:11, 8 July 2008
• 5th revert: 11:12, 8 July 2008
• 6th revert: 11:50, 8 July 2008
• 7th revert: 12:11, 8 July 2008
• 8th revert: 12:12, 8 July 2008
• 9th revert: 12:12, 8 July 2008 Sindhian (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at all the diffs, and trawled through the history of the article. My conclusion: Dbachmann has been robust in discussion, but I would not say aggressive. As to the so-called reverts, the majority of them are not reverts, and making claims that they are greatly weakens your argument. I note that you have been in dispute with him over the article; I'm sorry that you thought it was a good move to bring that dispute here wrapped up as a criticism of his actions; it was not a good move. I do not believe any admin action is required here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I'd urge any admin to review dab's Talk page before acting on this report. There are allegations of bad faith and trolling by Sindhian. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sindihan, this has been reviewed by several admins and addressed on dab's talk page. Bringing it here is just admin shopping. I am sure you followed the discussion on dabs talk page where we discredited the 3RR report as there are several sequetnial edits that do not count towards 3RR. Reporting it here is just disruptive. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Any chance we can delete this? He created it right before posting here. — _Maggot^Syn 18:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Satori Son beat me to it. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, under WP:CSD#G6. I hope no one objects to doing so as non-controversial housekeeping. — Satori Son 18:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It saves the time of an MfD, so I wouldn't see why. Mark as resolved? — _Maggot^Syn 18:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry I made a mistake in taking the diffs, I took the diffs from the Article history by selecting two edits. I now realize I made a mistake but please understand this was my first time reporting a 3RR violation. I sincerely did not know I am making a mistake. Please forgive me. Sindhian (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not resolved

I have been watching all of this unfold, and I was pleased to see that Dbachmann was unblocked and I was even thinking "you see Wikipedia CAN be fair." But now that I see that Sindhian has been blocked for 48 hours for putting in a 3RR request against an admin I'm sort of shocked. What is the message you're trying to send to us regular user with this block? Sindhian made a reasonable mistake in submitting this 3RR request-- it was found and all is well. So what's with the vengeance? Could we, in the name of FAIRNESS, lift this block as well?

I know NOTHING of the editing dispute, I just feel strongly that users should not be punished simply because they find fault with admins. futurebird (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to take another look. There is another thread below related to this matter. — _Maggot^Syn 15:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I just too a look and now I'm even more confused. I don't see a good cause for this block. futurebird (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Scientology issues

JDPhD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has over some time been adding material to this article, much of it unsupported by the sources he's cited. In particular this addition seems to rely on a primary source and has no indication how it satisfies verifiability. TBH, I don't have time to go through all of this for health reasons but it is starting to get worrying. Anyone with more experience of this article and its issues care to take a look? Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 19:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have also come across additions by this user to articles such as Reactive mind and Dianetics that are drawn mainly from primary sources, or in some cases where other sources were used inappropriately. I have tried adding notes to the articles' talk pages as well as a note to the user's talk page, but JDPhD (talk · contribs) has not engaged in any discussion. Cirt (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who insist on breaking the major rules (WP:5P) are subject to requests for comment, blocking or banning. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please re-asses the rude behaviour of Dbachmann

Resolved

 – Complainant blocked for 48h for disruptive editing and forum shopping.

Admins are supposed to be impartial and set a example for others to follow. But i am sorry to report that user Dbachmann who is probably an admin has been behaving in a very wrong way. He resorted to name calling me on a discussion board and threatened me without reason. His behaviour to other editors who do not agree to his POV is also aggressive.

[57] [58] [59]

But I would still ask you to review Dbachmann behaviour because it is difficult to work with him because he is aggressive and disrespectful of other editors and does not pursue dispue resolution properly. He has been at odds other editors on Hinduism article and is not engaging in a meaning full discussion but resorting to personal attacks. Following is the proof.

1 "wow. can you say "paranoia". ... Instead, you opt for making political noise about "defamation", citing some page you googled on experiencefestival.com. That's so much easier than actually researching stuff, isn't it? And it gives you a warm feeling of being a Defender of the Faith against the infidel "defamers" of Hinduism, isn't that great."

2

Doug, this is a no-brainer for anyone familiar with this project's goals and purpose. It isn't necessary to even react to such stuff. Sindhian is just troll, in the classical, non-inflationary sense of the term

19:07, 8 July 2008 Sheesh, we have enough good references here, this is getting as bad as Talk:India in terms of quibbling for the sake of quibbling. Don't you guys have any article you actually want to improve?

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hinduism&diff=prev&oldid=224371718 3]

"I see. In the light of this, I suppose the proper course of action would be banning Sindhian's account under WP:DISRUPT. Investing time and good faith in talking sense to this user is clearly a waste of time. It is difficult enough to deal with bona fide religionists who actually do make an effort to respect policy (such as Wikidas). No need to make this more difficult by pampering trolls."

4 I was just asking you to try and not turn a trifle into a vitriolic wikidrama. You will observe that my sample edit of what you should have done instead of embarking on a hostile rant does give your proposed listing order, so I don't quite see what you want.

5

thanks for this perfect illustration of what I am talking about when I mention "paranoid zealots" pestering our Hinduism topics, and for ending this discussion by appeal to Godwin

6 Wikidas, with edits such as this, you are doing no-one a favour, least of all Hinduism, or the image of Hindu editors on Wikipedia. We state that Hinduism originated in India because after years of zealots pestering the article, we want to be really up front that Hinduism is absolutely native, indigenous to India. Get it? Not imported by Aryan invaders, but perfectly native to sacred Indian soil. But trust that right after we make such concessions, another Hindu zealot comes ......

Again he makes insulting comments in the edit summary like "stop acting childish, please" 7

Doesn't wikipdia have a policy of resolving content disputes in a polite manner. Should a admin be bullying new users like me in such a way. He refuses to engage in a discussion and attacks other people as well. I had also put warning on his talk page but he deleted them [60]. I have observed admins warning editors at small instances of rudeness but when the admin himself acts in such a way how can you justify this hypocricy. Sindhian (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes its called dispute resolution, which is where you should be taking it instead of yet another thread to AN. — _Maggot^Syn 23:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

yes indeed. --Allemandtando (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the 3rd time you have brought this up and it has been reviewed. On DAB's talk page and two threads here. The edit summaries may be slightly abrasive but I see nothing extremely improper. What do you want done? Do you want him de-sysopped because his edit summaries disagree with you? Grow a spine and stop bitching about it. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 23:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the trouble to review Dbachmann's conduct on Talk:Hinduism. He's clearly making great efforts to communicate, whilst steering the article in a NPOV & improving direction, against the slings & arrows of a parade of poor quality edits that articles on religion tend to attract. You, Sindhian, appear to be engaged in little more than a wiki drama of your own imagining. Let me throw back at you your "Another example of delibrate defamatory propaganda against hinduism", and agree wholeheartedly with dab's response to you there: that it would have been 100 times more constructive to have made a change, than choose instead to bitch about a supposed defamation. You are now engaged in wikilawyering, looking for something that'll unseat your advisory. Your quest is a waste of our time. I suggest in the very strongest terms that you give your campaign a rest and try, like dab, to spend your time improving wikipedia, or if you are unable to do that, find some other hobby off wikipedia. Let me spell this out for the avoidance of doubt: you are going to get nowhere with your anti-Dbachmann campaign for the reasons that your allegations hover between trivial and baseless, because you are abusing the disciplinary process, and because your recent editing record on wikipedia is so very poor. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because Dab is an administrator does not mean that he has to be an idiot. Just because he points out your ignorance, or the fact that you're wrong does NOT mean that he is being a bad person, or that he is being uncivil. I'm sorry but this is why some of the best administrators take the most shit. And look, I get it, when I first started editing on Wikipedia I thought Dab was the biggest asshole ever. Go look at my talk page or his. After about 2 days of hatred I realized he's just being a good editor. I got some sources together and bam we got along fine. Content Dispute!=Ban the Admin Beam 23:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not an issue of whose arguement is right or wrong. Dab has indulged in 'name calling' and threatening and the proof is there. I am complaining about verbal abuse here. Is this an acceptable behaviour? Will you accept a similar behaviour from every other editor?

And your judgement about my ignorance and contribution was not shared by other editors and especially the moderator wikidas who wrote "While i do not dispute dabs admin function, I would prefer if it was not mixed up with editing function to make it clear. "Sindhian" has some point, maybe not well expressed and/or perceived - we need to look for sources for that section that are NPOV or contrast a few views on the issue, as there are many. Wikidās ॐ 16:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC) " 1

This is my last edit and I leave it to your judgement now.

Dab has removed some edits from the talk page, so you may not get correct picture just by reading it [61]

[62] etc.

Sindhian (talk) 07:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We get the picture fine - dispute resolution is where you need to be. --Allemandtando (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe nobody has blocked this chap yet for his blatant trolling, forum-shopping, rants and disruption of Wikipedia talkpages. Also, whatever happened to WP:DFTT? --dab (𒁳) 08:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked now, 48h. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have clearly requested on four different occasions that Sindhian avail themselves of dispute resolution.[63] [64] [65] [66] Since they have refused to do so, I believe this short block was warranted. Whether or not they should be dismissed as a troll, I'm not yet sure, but this disruptive forum shopping is not appropriate. — Satori Son 14:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the block. He has had ample time to consider his actions. — _Maggot^Syn 15:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I also endorse this block. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, so Sindhian was blocked for not wanting to do dispute resolution? Huh? I don't understand the purpose of the block. This all seems very strange to me. futurebird (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

He was warned multiple times. Here as well as in the diffs provided by Satori Son. He chose not to pursue dispute resolution. — _Maggot^Syn 15:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What was he warned about? Warned that he might be blocked if he didn't accept dispute resolution? I don't know, looking that this is seem like he's being punished for complaining about an admin. It sound like his complaints had little substance, but, still people should be free to complain without fear of being blocked. futurebird (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

He was blocked for trolling. The issues were addressed multiple times, on dab's talk page and here on AN (with two separate threads). He has a vendetta against DAB, and ignored all reason and analysis by other editors of the situation and was just having too much fun beating the horse corpse to stop. I am sure he was tired of all that beating so we gave him a complimentary break (via block). Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

His complaint is what's considered "trolling" or are you talking about something else? futurebird (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

His excessive complaining, posting multiple AN threads and generally not dropping the topic and moving on, especialyl after several editors reviewd the situation and saw nothing horribly wrong. I stated sure the edit summaries were mildly abrasive but he needs to get over it and move on. Several other editors independantly analyzed the situation and supported DAB's actions. Even through this sindihan refused to stop. This is where it becomes trollish behavior. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As some one who is not an admin, all I can say is this just doesn't look fair at all. I'll leave it at that, since this isn't such a big deal, I'm just quietly submitting that this is the sort of thing that gives people the impression that the process is unfair and that their is favoritism. It's not an easy thing to keep that kind of trust high and admins have a lot of work and deal with a lot of crap, so perhaps they should be cut a little slack, but every time that happens it gives of the impression that the rules do not apply in the same way to everyone. Just something to think about, for the futurebird (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I personally appreciate your concern and have posted on your talk page regarding this. This is a particularly difficult area to work in (dealing with trolls, sock puppets and disruptive editors) and likewise, understanding a whole situation can be difficult as well. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As I'm not an admin either, I can say this block was entirely appropriate. No one wants to come off as bitey, but stick around, you'll learn a lot. :) — _Maggot^Syn 15:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And just to add one more thing, we as a community are quite aware of the chilling effect it could have if we went around on a regular basis blocking people for making spurious noticeboard reports. In order to get blocked for forum shopping and/or spurious reports, you really have to cause a lot of disruption and annoyance, as Sindhian did. Believe me, nobody is going to get blocked because they made one faulty report against an admin. The big problem with Sindhian is that he made a bogus report on AN (which was already forum shopping at that point, BTW, and clearly disruptive behavior), was strongly cautioned not to do it again, and then he did anyway.

Admins get spurious reports made against them all the time and no action is taken against the person doing the reporting. But if the disruption continues, eventually we do put a stop to it. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC) also not an admin

OK, that helps clear it up a bit more. Thanks for the response! futurebird (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)