Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive101

courtesy blanking of section.--Doc^g 11:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Single-handed conclusion of an AfD by an interested party

Yesterday, a user tried to conclude a AfD as "no consensus" of an article that he created himself, probably as a pov fork. The conclusion seems contrary to the vote as well. I first thought that I was dreaming, but it really happened. The user has a very long history of disruptions, see for example his block log and talk page (Haham hanuka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). I would appreciate if someone can look into this issue. Best regards, gidonb 11:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the AfD worked out OK; I have warned the user in question. The Land 21:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of this issue. Regards, gidonb 21:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

LUEshi AfD (Sockpuppetry, et al)

Likely the wrong place, but the thing was a bad faith nomination by a very new user (it was his second edit) and sockpuppetry runs like the plague. Can someone block the sockpuppets and, if deemed suitable, speedy close the debate? --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 16:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy kept, bad faith, GNAA clause. Will (^E_@) T 21:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with the speedy keep, the last AfD consensus was to merge this article elsewhere, and it doesn't look like much has changed on it since then... --InShaneee 21:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are we assuming this nomination was bad faith? Christopher Parham (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User's second edit, and seems to know the AFD process. LUE has a disdain for Simple Plan (I myself should know, being a LUEser). The previous three nominations didn't have a delete consensus, and ILSP read them. Will (^E_@) T 07:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN

Hellooo??? Anybody home? There's stuff still there from the 11th! Werdna_T^c_@^b_C^m_L^t 22:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I took a peek and threw in my two cents. --InShaneee 23:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the point of that page? Are the people listed there up for blocking or something? --Cyde Weys 23:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The idea is that if you're being personally attacked, you can leave a note there to have it dealt with. Werdna_T^c_@^b_C^m_L^t 12:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Lentisco

User is setting personal attacks on my page, and is refusing to follow Wikipedian rules. Reverts tags, attacks users. Yanksox 04:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yanksox

Why is a shamelessly ignorant 18 year old american editing pages on australian history?. He is out of control. Let him edit the Paula Abdulla pages -but not Australian historyLentisco 04:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

My point proven. Yanksox 04:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've warned him not to be so incivil...this is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, after all. Even us ignorant american-ers. --InShaneee 04:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

...Aaaaand blocked for 24 hours for reverting a 'notability' tag from William Sams a whopping 8 times today. --InShaneee 04:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Being blocked for reasons that I dispute

Moving this to User_talk:Mboverload as it doesn't seem to require administrator attention. --Tony Sidaway 01:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

NOTE that I am putting this back until Tony can come up with a better place for it other than my talk page, and demonstrate that this is not the place for it. This is in good faith in following the rules outlined at the top of this page which say this is the place to complain about an administrator.

User:Cyde recently blocked me for "Personal attacks and disruption". You can read it here User_talk:Mboverload#Blocked.

I dispute that jokingly saying that someone doesn't like women because he is trying to delete a userbox with a picture of breasts in it is a personal attack at all. I also disagree with his assessment of me calling someone a vandal.

In addition, I am in a content dispute over userboxes with Cyde. I used to support his efforts to get rid of junk boxes but then I saw that trying to delete 30 at once was a mistake.

From reading the blocking policy I see no provision for blocking someone for making one personal attack. I will even admit that I have made personal comments in the past, though they hardly rise above a snide comment in response to one of theirs. Although I don't know where to point to, I believe that an important part of the rules when it comes to blocking is to give fair warning and ask that behavior that does not immediately threaten Wikipedia to stop. People can have 4 rounds of vandalism with as many expletives as they want and I'm not allowed leeway on this?

I do not ask that any action be taken against Cyde. All I ask is that this be reviewed. --mboverload@ 05:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, each of the instances Cyde adduces is relatively mild; even taken together, I can't imagine that they were particularly disruptive, and I probably wouldn't have interpreted them as contravening the letter or spirit of WP:NPA. Inasmuch as the block is only for three hours, though, I think you'd do well simply to wait it out; even if your comments weren't personal attacks, they surely didn't foster the collegial spirit necessary for the project, and you should likely consider how better to phrase things in the future. Joe 05:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. However, I don't really like having a notice about me being blocked in my talk archives. Not cool. =( --mboverload@ 05:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I tend to agree that the block was not necessary, but I do feel your comments were quite inappropriate and counterproductive. As it was only a three-hour block, however, I have to think this merely had the intention of making clear that your behavior was unacceptable, which I think it succeeded in. Whether or not that is an appropriate use for a block is questionable, but in the end rather trivial. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Mboverload had a general ongoing pattern of incivility, disruptiveness, and unproductiveness on WP:TFD and something needed to be done to shock him out of the negative pattern. Fellow administrators, examine these links: one two. --Cyde↔Weys 05:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Some more unproductive comments (I didn't even see these before): "This isn't the 700 Club. We aren't here to stupid-proof Wikipedia.", "Do you hate blind people or something?" User needs an attitude adjustment. --Cyde↔Weys 05:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I go right to the point. I don't sugar-coat stuff. I like my hard-hitting responses with a pinch of humor to a dull process. If you disagree with my style, which you seem to not get over the internet, you are more than welcome to send me a message about my civility. --mboverload@ 06:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Mboverload, you could certainly do more to edit harmoniously. Cyde, your digging for additional reasons to justify the block after the fact only serves to show that it wasn't particularly justified. The diffs you provided were inappropriate edits certainly, but why not talk to the editor about it before reaching for that block button? Friday (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of the diffs do seem marginally incivil, in that they pose allegations of other editors' beliefs as rhetorical questions...but where the speed-limit is 55, and the average speed is 65, you don't ticket someone for travelling 58. Judging only from the evidence presented here, this user is not unusually or unacceptably incivil, and should not have been blocked. "Shocking [someone] out of [their] negative pattern" does not impress me as a well-defined reason for a block.Timothy Usher 06:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

(conflict with the eminent Fri) While I'd agree that these aren't helpful comments, I'm certainly not seeing enough to warrent a block. There's nothing that looks like a warning on User talk:Mboverload, either. I'm also dead sick of hearing "no harm done" when a little three hour block is dropped on someone outside policy probity. Using adminstrative powers as a slap-stick doesn't appear on the blocking policy page that I see.
brenneman^{L} 06:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the comments of Friday, Timothy Usher and Aaron. -- DS1953 ^talk 13:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with these guys. Cyde, please take note, there seems to be at least some consensus that you were a little too reckless with the block trigger. -lethe ^{talk +} 15:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This will probably get me another "high horse" or "holier than thou" tally in my entry in Cyde's personal book, (apparently I've got quite the collection already) but I do think Cyde has an unfortunate tendency to shoot first and ask questions later. I think a warning would have been appropriate in this case before a block and find myself in agreement with Friday, Timothy Usher and Aaron in this case. That's not to say that Mboverload shouldn't consider changing approach, and full marks for doing so as indicated below. ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: After seeing the responses I have gotten over my comments I will change how I behave. I didn't realize it was that big of a problem. I am used to message boards where people know that half the stuff you say about them is sarcasm and stupid fun. I now realize that Wikipedians do not assume "playful" banter (I know some of my comments push the edge of it) when reading comments. I am a playful person by nature but I get carried away when it comes to people who do not understand what I'm doing. I know that asking why someone hates deaf people is pretty crude when you say it out of the blue, but it was all in good fun and humor about deleting a spoken-article template. I regret any effects my actions may of had. As you can see in my talk page, I can be extremely understanding and helpful.

I'm still unhappy with having a block on my record and a message on my archives but I'm not going to push it. As brenneman said, using administrative powers outside of their guidelines, however how "small" it may be, is not something to be taken lightly. Perhaps what I'm really upset about is that I would be blocked. I have done my best to better Wikipedia through anti-vandalism and hopelessly mundane spellchecking that I wouldn't wish on my ex. I'm not asking for smypathy, it's just that the mental effect of this is much greater than any record in a database. I will continue helping Wikipedia and I will change how I comment, but I still leave scarred.--mboverload@ 07:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, good. Such a change in not only advisable but necessary in the wiki world. And always remember to use smileys liberally when you are making a joke, especially when the recepient is one who you don't know very well. I too come from the world of messageboards and have suffered here because of the habit of making tongue-in-cheek comments without emoticons. Tintin (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, you have my empathy when it comes to having really stupid shit in your block log :-P Cyde↔Weys 12:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If the blocking powers when properly used aren't a "slap stick", I don't know what they are. Looking at mboverload's recent edits, they seem to be littered with casually offensive personal attacks. "And I find your objection offensive. This isn't the 700 Club. We aren't here to stupid-proof Wikipedia." [1] , "Keep Do you hate blind people or something? What's going on?" [2]. "Keep the only vandalism I see is you sticking that deletion template in it." [3]. "Keep Conrad hates women!"/"Keep Conrad hates boobies!" [4]. " This seemingly endless stream of vituperation is quite unacceptable. The block was, if anything, rather shorter than was merited. As a matter of urgency, mboverload must change his behavior. --Tony Sidaway 14:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That comment would mean a heck of a lot more to me, coming from someone else. If you really felt that way Tony, you'd be blocking yourself fairly regularly. Somewhere there's a moral to this story. Friday (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That is very, very naughty, and completely unjustified. Please be careful who you launch into attacks on. And "That comment would mean a heck of a lot more to me, coming from someone else"? Really, that is too much. --Tony Sidaway 16:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tony, having reviewed mboverload's recent edits, a longer block than that given him by Cyde was in order. If Cyde's guilty of anything in this mess, it's being too lenient. FeloniousMonk 15:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm more of the opinion that for starters, a warning would have been the nice thing to do - I can't find one. As has been said before, we regularily assume more good faith in clear vandals. -- grm_wnr Esc 15:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you do, I sure as hell don't! --Cyde↔Weys 15:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It certainly wouldn't hurt to warn first, in cases like this. Worth a thought, perhaps, Cyde? Maybe erring on the side of more civility is apprropriate while taking someone to task for incivility? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF is policy. Please abide by it. Kusma (討論) 15:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. In cases of clear vandalism a warning is merely mindless pro forma that serves no practical purpose. Discretion/common sense in such situations is the byword, not robotic adherence to policy. FeloniousMonk 16:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

And what we're talking about here is in no way clear vandalism, so that's quite beside the point. P.S. Yeah, I was quite foolish to bring that up in the first place, now that I read that again. Sorry. -- grm_wnr Esc 16:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I can say that I have noticed Cyde's blocking in the past. Cyde seems to have no inclination to warn even good faith editors who make mistakes. I would ask Cyde to consider leaving messages on talk pages warning people about inappropriate behavior and blocking only after warnings go unheeded, rather than just blocking on the spot every time he sees misbehavior. The latter action is appropriate for vandal-only accounts or clear sockpuppets of banned users, but is probably inappropriate (no matter how short) for anyone with any good faith edits on their account. -lethe ^{talk +} 15:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

And a warning for vandalism is not mindless pro forma. In many cases, it stops the vandalism just as a block does, and has less bad side effects (other users affected etc.) Kusma (討論) 17:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

He blocked me for two edits (one of which he admits wasn't really important). He dug those edits up LATER in an attempt to justify his actions. --mboverload@ 21:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth I've also noticed Lethe's unblocking in the past. He doesn't seem to have an inclination to discuss with fellow admins. --Cyde↔Weys 15:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that you're unwilling to consider my suggestion? -lethe ^{talk +} 15:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If only we could develop some sort of amazing lethe-cyde crossbreed. But with a tasty marshmallow coating, and perhaps cutting off the third head early... --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 16:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde has to buy me dinner first, before I'll consider breeding with him. :-) -lethe ^{talk +} 16:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll buy dinner if you buy wine and dessert. --Cyde↔Weys 16:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion, Cyde: Try to listen to and understand criticism without needing to dish it back out to the person giving it to you. Snoutwood (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

So Cyde, there's been no indication that you've any intention of taking under advisement the suggestions of me, Friday, Timothy Usher, Brenneman, DS1953, Lar, GTBacchus, and Kusma, who've all expressed the opinion that blocking without warning is not a good policy. Is that so? Will you consider being a little more careful when blocking good-faith editors? -lethe ^{talk +} 17:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde was working well within policy and within his administrative discretion and blocked an editor for egregious personal attacks. That you yourself choose this opportunity to launch personal attacks on the blocking administrator does not reflect well on you. --Tony Sidaway 19:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not intend for anything I said to be construed as a personal attack against Cyde. I merely wish for him to acknowledge the fact that at least 9 people have weighed in on the issue saying that Cyde was too quick, and that he will consider their opinions. If it seemed like a personal attack, I apologize. In the mean time, I eagerly await some comment from Cyde, even if it is to say "Tony is right and the 9 of you are wrong, I will continue to block on sight." Tony, I think you're being a bit combative. -lethe ^{talk +} 20:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a little. I'm seeing what appear to me to be extremely poorly grounded criticism of Cyde, based on the complaints of a user who was correctly blocked for a sequence of personal attacks. I'd like to see some acknowledgement that Cyde does not merit this criticism but should be thanked for doing his job. --Tony Sidaway 21:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me say this again: He blocked me for those two edits and those two edits only. He dug those up later to try and justify his behavior. To say that him going outside of the rules is doing is job...I just can't comprehend how you would take that position. WP:BLOCK has NO provision in it that justifies his his block at all. Perhaps you should read it again? How are users expected to follow the rules when administrators do not? --mboverload@ 07:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be wikilawyering of the worst kind. You seem to be openly admitting that you engaged in a series of personal attacks. You were blocked for them, Don't do it again. The blocking policy certainly does support this kind of block. Don't attack people and you won't be blocked, it's as simple as that. --Tony Sidaway 19:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I support Lethe et al. in their request that Clyde exercise more restraint before blocking, particularly by giving warnings first. A block is a last resort, not a first. Frankly, the fact that Tony Sidaway so strongly supports Clyde only convinces me further that Clyde is in the wrong. Admins need to WP:AGF and be WP:CIVIL, at least as much as non-admins do. Al 18:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You may be dismayed to find that most editors consider that I'm usually right on these matters. And your antagonism towards me doesn't give you carte blanche to engage in veiled personal attacks. Take care. --Tony Sidaway 19:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Most" editors, "usually" right... , anyone? But you're right about those "veiled" personal attacks, they're uncalled for and not helping anyone. But neither do "veiled" threaths like "take care", Tony. Chill out, and that goes for all of you. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm tired of seeing constant complaints that contributors aren't fully warned or didn't deserve this or that block from people who aren't familiar with what's going on and often don't seem to take the time to find out. How about we assume some good faith in the direction of admins every once in a while? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

And now it's time for a nice cup of tea and a sit down. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 19:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't drink the tea! It's poison! Soylent Tea is People! It's a trap! More pop-culture references! --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 20:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

OMG!!! BANNZORZ! Avillia has just suggested that Katefan is a murderer! Someone block him without warning, quick! =) --mboverload@ 02:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

(Spam?) at Nigeria and many, many reverts

I am not sure what is going here - there are two users past 3RR already and what appears to be sockpuppets fighting to keep two links with the domain name mooo.com or something like that. Perhaps someone knows what is going on here.... Yet another lame sig I came up with ^{T | @ | C} 07:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this edit war has subsided- it has been more than six hours.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This user, User:Amy333, is back adding the links again. User:Madriya_Hetrigona, most certainly a sockpuppet of Amy333, has also been adding the links. I have warned Amy333 about the relevant policies on External links, 3RR, and sockpuppets, and gave an indefinite block to User:Madriya_Hetrigona. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Another sock, User:Magrich. Also an indefinite block. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I also tried to look at the site to really consider its merits. But, the site is down and I only get "Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at ..." All the more reason not to include the links. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The pictures site wasn't too bad, but it was added by the site creator. The "news" site just made my eyes bleed. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - well done :). Yet another lame sig I came up with ^{T | @ | C} 16:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Since then, at least seven more link-adding sockpuppets have been created only to be blocked by me. See Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Amy333. — mark ✎ 09:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user, 84.90.120.199, with new IP

Old IP: 84.90.120.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

New IP: 84.90.120.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Same spam added as the old IP with the new IP to the same articles, Portugal and Algarve. IPs are both in the same class C subnet. -- Kevin Breitenstein 09:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of. His targets are on my watchlist, so I'll catch him wherever he pops up. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Whitehopeman

Whitehopeman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an account with publicized password, changed password, needs blocking altogether. Cheers! Dr Zak 11:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked by JoanneB I believe. Syrthiss 12:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This is after the fact, but as was pointed out to me earlier, once you've changed the password to a public account, it no longer needs blocking because the original owner no longer has access to that account. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Two problems with that - (1) unless the contact email is changed, the original user could request a password reset and re-compromise the account and (2) its still a shared account, since the person who changed the password could return to it and use it as a sock account at some time in the future (not that I think they would). Just best security practice to lock it down. Syrthiss 14:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Woops, an addendum: reset the password and change the email address. :-) Nothing wrong with an indef block, it's just that resetting the password and changing the email address can be done by any user without requiring cabal admin intervention. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I generally change the password and block indefinitely. Chick Bowen 16:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User KimJongIL has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

User:KimJongIL has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 15:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Good block. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 15:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Moves reverted. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 16:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least he was mildly clever with the destination names ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Curps, User:LIJK appears to be the same vandal. I've blocked. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 16:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I also blocked KJIL or some permutation of that, who vandalized here. Syrthiss 16:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

And -k -J - IL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) now. Kirill Lokshin 16:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Alan S. Chartock

I'm being accused of abuseing my admin powers on this article. Could someone cheack to confirm I'm not in this case.Geni 18:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As an non-partisan party, I side with your comment of "This isn't Wikiquote". I can see if the section was written in an encyclopedic manner using quotes to illustrate a point, but I feel those quotes would find a better home at Wikiquote with a link to them in the article. --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 18:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the literal charge, a check of your logs seems to indicate that you haven't used any admin privileges with respect to this article, let alone abused them. However, User:Fungible has abused his editing privileges, and I've blocked him for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule. --Michael Snow 21:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Crestville

I have just blocked Crestville (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for personal attacks against OneSixOne (talk · contribs). Since then, I have had time to look more closely at the rest of his contributions and have come accross the following in the latest 100 of his edits:

• [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

The list goes on, see his contributions. I've left a message on his talk page, explaining the block (for 24 hours) and given him a serious warning about the future. I'd like to hear what others have to say about this, for example if anything should be done now, or what should be done if he continues to make personal attacks. — FireFox (U T C) 19:13, 19 May '06

He seems to do good work but he's got a foul mouth. I've put his talk page and that of onesixone on my watchlist. --Tony Sidaway 19:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:DirtyDyke

Username, vandalism, etc. Funny but still you know. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 20:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Indef-blocked. --Cyde↔Weys 20:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Trouble with User:SirIsaacBrock

Brock has committed numerous violations of copyright by copying images and text from world book and other encyclopedias, and has even claimed it as his own work. I've put a copyright violation notice on .38 Calibre, which was roughly 90% passages copied from other encyclopedias, but he has reverted away from it repeatedly.

Violating images:

• Image:Revolver.JPG
• Image:Impact.JPG
• Image:Cartridge.JPG

(all taken from World Book, and listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 May 19/Images)

Query about the images:

• [14]

Brock responds claiming he drew it:

• [15]

Violating article: [16] Repeated reverts: [17] [18] Fuller explanation of violation: Talk:.38 Calibre

I need some help in case he keeps revert off the copyvio notice, and someone needs to go through the rest of his contributions because he's demonstrated through his actions that he's willing to blatantly lie about the source of materials he adds to wikipedia. Night Gyr

He's reverted it again [19], this time claiming that it's not a copyvio because he copied from more than one place. Night Gyr 21:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The article is well researched by me and has citations to support where I did my research. I used several sources. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 06:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Defective unblock

Hipi_Zhdripi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked and now he has been unblocked, but now he tells me that he is still blocked (i.e. can’t use his account). Could someone please do something about this, reblock and then unblock him perhaps, or give him one of those 1 second blocks, or whatever is done when an unblock doesn’t seem to have taken effect. Note that in the Ipblocklist, he still appears (except his name has an underscore), so maybe Sceptre unblocked User:Hipi Zhdripi, but User:Hipi_Zhdripi (with the underscore) is sill blocked. Could someone please fix all this. Thanks. --Telex 21:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried to unblock, if it dosen't work I'll need Hipi Zhdripi's IP address. (Which can be e-mailed to me) Prodego ^talk 21:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I think you've done the trick. He no longer appears in the Ipblocklist. --Telex 21:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he can edit now. Thanks. --Telex 22:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Prodego ^talk 22:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway and The-thing

Well, since Tony doesn't feel up to responding to either one of the two messages I left him, I guess I'll just ask people here for thier suggestion on what happened. The-thing was tagging users userpages with indefblocked templates, which is fine. (Except for one tiny error he made, which was resolved on his talk page). I noticed later that his contributions started to disappear, Tony was deleting them saying "vandalism only edit". Which it wasn't, it was tagging a users' page as a vandalism account only. Tony's deletion log. I asked Tony about them but he didn't respond. A few minutes later, I noticed Tony had blocked The-thing saying "silly troll". I asked him about this and he was unresponsive again. A few things that need to be reversed are the blocking of The-thing and the undeletion of three of the userpages Tony deleted. The-thing wasn't even warned and still hasn't been given a warning about being blocked. Could someone intervene? DGX 22:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't seen any messages from DGX until I saw this--I ask him to please be more patient; waiting a mere twenty minutes for a response to a talk page message on Wikipedia seems a tad unrealistic.

Thething had gone through a whole bunch of userpages and placed block messages on them. His purpose on this occasion was clearly vandalism. See apology below.

Looking at his edits again I see that he has done useful ones in the past. I'll reduce the block to twenty-four hours. It was wrong to block a valuable editor indefinitely, even over serious vandalism. --Tony Sidaway 23:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, note that The-thing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was previously blocked for massive user talk spamming. It wasn't even "vote recruitment" or anything ... it was honest-to-God spam. --Cyde↔Weys 22:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cyde, that was something I just forgot to bring up. Yes, The-thing was previously blocked for massive spamming, which was deserved, but this situation is a little differant. DGX 22:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate you, AmiDaniel. Fine, disregard my trollish comment I commited prematurely! You will loathe the day! Anyway, looking at the contribs, the guy seems to be editing in good faith. The first block was welcoming new users en-masse, this was tagging things en-masse. While there is something to be said for WP:BOT and the edit timing, and the fact he appears to have been blocked/warned before, there is pretty good potentinal for reform. Indefinite thus seems pretty heavy-handed. But, then again, people have tried to indef block me... What, four times now?--Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 22:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That's really not something to be proud about. --Cyde↔Weys 22:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. The comment was a lot more relevant before I needed to quickly rewrite the comment for fear of a block for trolling. They're all out to get me, I tell ya! ALL OF YA! --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 22:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There were no really useful contributions in The-thing's history, and one of the deleted pages was another mistaken "indefblockeduser". Nothing lost in blocking this user; while a comment on the user or talk page or a more detailed block log entry would have been nice, there is not much reason for anyone to intervene here. Kusma (討論) 22:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it might have been better off assuming good faith with the indefblock messages, but I guess theres no big problem. Just wish Tony would open up a little more... DGX 23:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The-thing created a user page (with the blocked user notice) for a user who doesn't exist. See here. There's no link for special contributions at the left. AnnH ♫ 23:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I know, he did make a couple of mistakes. But User:IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII was blocked indefinantly and thus a indefblock tag was proper, that itself wasn't vandalism. DGX 23:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I retract my last statement. He did make a mistake. But it was not a bad mistake just a (maybe typo) mistake, not vandalism. The name of the blocked user is User:IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII, not the above link. He just must have made a mistake is all. DGX 23:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I screwed up hugely here. When I used the block log links on the user contributions pages to check for blocks of those users after he had placed the templates. They were empty, and I wrongly assumed that the user was trolling. Since then the servers have synchronized and now I see the blocks. My apologies to The-thing, whom I have unblocked. [20]. --Tony Sidaway 02:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Atlantahawk

I have blocked this user for 24 hours for incivility [21]. Please see User_talk:Atlantahawk#Blocked for my message. I found these edits: 1, 2, 3 as well as his previous massively POV and derogatory contributions to a number of Native American topics to be completely unacceptable. I may possibly have overreacted, so I have brought this up here to get feedback. ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I warned him about his earlier rudeness to Phaedriel, but then came and got rude with me...kind of stinks to block a newbie so soon, but I see no evidence in the contributions that this editor bothered to examine links I provided, or to refrain from making personal attacks.--MONGO 08:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone on IRC that looked at it said I should have blocked for longer. Hopefully he will either have cooled down or decided to go elsewhere but based on that, and the lack of any suggestion I erred, I will block him again for longer if he continues to be disruptive and incivil. ++Lar: t/c 12:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by 216.29.96.198 on Kappa Kappa Gamma page

Dear Editors,

216.29.96.198 has vandalized my entry by removing it: - Angela (DeAngelis) Atwood, member of the Symbionese Liberation Army that kidnapped Patty Hearst, was a Kappa and a sorority sister of Jane Pauley at the University of Indiana.

The material is truthful and verifiable by public sources, including the Indiana University yearbook, and sources on the web. It was undoubtedly because it is not flattering to the organization. Please warn them.

Sincerely,

(email removed to protect from spambots)

Why? You already warned them yourself (please sign messages by putting ~~~~ at the end, by the way). Warnings from admins carry no more weight than any other warning. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Complaint about block by Cyde

Taking this to User talk:J.sweeton@wnri.com. I think we've been far too tolerant of people who have been blocked bringing their complaints here. This page is for the use of administrators, and its intended use is notification about serious ongoing incidents. --Tony Sidaway 23:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Please review blocks related to Kosovo revert war and associated RCU

There's discussion of this on the parent page, but it's probably better placed here. On the the basis of the results of this checkuser request, I've blocked User:Bormalagurski and User:C-c-c-c for 48 hours each, User:24.87.36.246 for three hours, and User:SerbianMafia indefinitely. C-c-c-c protests (in what seems to be characteristically foul-keyboarded fashion) that they're "two different people" (between four accounts/addresses, mind you), but I'm hardly in a position to second-guess the "accounts are being used to subvert Wikipedia policy" judgement of the RCU. If anyone wants to shorten the blocks due to lack of clarity as to what's going on, or lengthen them due to epic incivility, they should feel free. Alai 05:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be in order. Abusive sockpuppets are eligible for indef-blocking, and I think the other users have earned blocks for disrupting the Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Are non Administrators allowed to...

Are non Aministrators allowed to comment on issues on this project page that were initiated by others? Thank you. Wallie 06:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 06:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Anyone, in fact. - Mailer Diablo 08:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Initiate them, too. It should be said, however, that this page should be a last resort not a first. The initial stop should be the talk page (or article page) closer to the source, than perhaps pick and admin who'se active and ping them with the issue. Check Special:Log to see who is around. - brenneman^{L} 12:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ferdinandlewis

User keeps removing prod, when concern isn't addressed. Yanksox 17:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Links? Mackensen (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Unless I'm wrong, nothing stops you from removing a prod without doing a thing. Furthermore, a article only gets one prod before proceeding to AfD. Unless he is stalking your prod edits, or mass-removing prods, he's in the clean. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 18:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Avilla, place it in AFD. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The article in question, Jireh Tech, was first tagged as a speedy, by Yanksox, which was removed, and then prodded by Polonium; this was also removed. The article looks like a promo. AfD might be the best course at this point, but it might still be a speedy candidate. Mackensen (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It also appears to be a copyvio (see [22]). Mackensen (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

For those keeping score, it has now been torched as a copyvio by JDoorjam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Thanks for playing. Mackensen (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the article as copyv— oh. Yeah, what Mack said. JDoorjam Talk 18:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

RMS Sockpuppet back again

Banned user User:Rms125a@hotmail.com back again, this time as 65.88.88.214. Starting revert-wars, link format weirdness, POV, usual stuff. See [23] and Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Rms125a@hotmail.com - Ali-oops^✍ 18:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I'd say so. Mackensen (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked. Mackensen (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks! - Ali-oops^✍ 19:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

SledDogAC (talk · contribs) and Iditarod

User:SledDogAC keeps reverting the article on Iditarod to a version with some blatant POV issues [24]. The reversions not only insert a huge load of wild unsourced claims, but they also undo edits that have been made later (since the version they're reverting to is weeks old). Since they found out about WP:3RR, they're only doing it about once a day. I tried to request protection for the page, but the request was deleted from WP:RPP with no apparent reason. The user also refuses to communicate through talk pages. Is there anything that could be done about this? - ulayiti (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Dudeaaro (talk · contribs)

Dudearro (talk · contribs) persists in creating copyvio articles of crimes and crime figures. Some, such as William Fischetti and Louis Werner have already been speedied as fresh copyvios, but I see a lot of not-so-recent article creations and edits to articles created by others. Can someone keep an eye on this user and track down which of his edits are copyvios? I'd love to but have to go offline now. Thanks! Kimchi.sg 19:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Dickwittington

Dickwittington (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems unquestionably to be a vandalism-only account. He was blocked indefinitely by DakotaKahn, and unblocked by Jimfbleak (no reason given). He promptly vandalized again. His main target seems to be Private Butcher (talk · contribs) — a recovering drug addict who suffers from depression, and who really does not need the added stress of having a vandal abusing him. I blocked again indefinitely after seeing some fresh vandalism, and then began to get e-mails from other users who were affected by the block. I checked for autoblocks, and undid them, but there would just be another autoblock (and another e-mail) a few days later. Eventually, I unblocked Dickwittington, quite reluctantly, but on the grounds that there was too much collateral damage.

Dickwittington vandalized again today, and was reverted and warned by DakotaKahn, and blocked indefinitely by RexNL. He then posted anonymously to Wikipedia talk:List of banned users.[25] The IP address was very similar to the ones of the affected users who e-mailed me because of the autoblock last month, and also to an IP address that used to abuse Private Butcher before Dickwittington registered his account. The address is one of those AOL addresses (195.93.0.0 – 195.93.127.255) that shouldn't be blocked for more than fifteen minutes.

Is there some way that Dickwittington can be blocked indefinitely without dozens of innocent users being affected? Unless RexNL has done something very clever that I wasn't aware of when blocking, I predict that he's going to start getting e-mails from aggrieved Wikipedians within the next few days. AnnH ♫ 20:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Not until Bug 550 is fixed, as a fix for that would probably address issues like this. Try semi-protection of Private Butcher? Erm... Nope, Private Butcher is a user. Dang. Any particular articles he's trolling about? --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 20:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that Dickwittington was the one who made this edit, he is indeed using an AOL address. That explains the collateral damage. I don't know if it is a good "temporary solution" to unblock him. I don't have the discipline to check the autoblocks every day... Any other ideas? RexNL 20:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: I just got my first e-mail from an affected user. I'll unblock Dickwittington now until there is a better solution to deal with these kind of issues. RexNL 21:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

My question is why can't we semi-protect Private Butcher's userpage for awhile if he begins vandalising it again? --Dakota ~ 21:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It is semi-protected at the moment. I semi-protected the user page on 29 April, and the talk page on 2 May, at a time when there was a lot of abuse from the 195 addresses. But Dickwittington registered his account on 23 April[26], so semi-protection won't keep him out. AnnH ♫ 21:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Ann, I see now I missed it on first look.--Dakota ~ 21:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Freakofnurture move warring

Freakofnurture (talk · contribs) has moved more than a hundred pages related to Washington state highways[27] based upon his unilateral interpretation of what the "correct" article names should be.[28] His edit summary seems to indicate that he believes that this is some sort of game, the object of which is to "pwn" whoever he's determined his enemies to be. As User:Tawker notes, move warring on these pages while the matter is pending resolution is a blockable offense.[29] As before, if nothing happens I'll assume that means it's okay for me to move the pages back. Thanks. —phh (^t/_c) 15:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Move warring is a blockable offense, as is any other kind of warring (wheel, revert, edit). My personal preference would be to leave the pages where they are *now* pending whether the parties in that proposed arbitration accept the arbitration. The statement supplied by Freakofnurture with a slightly incivil edit summary can be submitted to the arbitrators as evidence on the side of SPUI et al. Moving them back would just be another salvo in the move war, however objectionable the current naming is to the other side in the dispute. Just my opinion. --Syrthiss 15:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Freakofnurture at least appears to have a solid reference to base the move on. Is this reference in some way suspect? Kim Bruning 15:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The reference doesn't strike me as neccessarily relevant. Imagine Nevada's state highways are officially named "Nevada State Route XXX", as opposed to Washington's official "State Route YYY". Wikipedia reasonably might still prefer to use a uniform name scheme for all US state highways, so one of the official nomenclatures would have to be ignored. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats my read on the situation as well. --Syrthiss 15:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No one is arguing that the reference is suspect. The point of dispute is whether "correct" should be the principle to apply in deciding what the article names should be (WP:NC(CN) gives several instances in which it is not). Regardless, the facts of the matter are that Freakofnurture is aware that this dispute is taking place, is aware (if he keeps an eye on this page, as all administrators should) that multiple admins have said that move warring on these pages is a blockable offense, yet chose to aggravate the move wars anyway. —phh (^t/_c) 15:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Especially seeing the length of the dispute and the RFAR, moving the pages again was inappropriate. Snoutwood (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This is getting somewhat tiring. Could everybody at least agree upon not moving hundreds of pages around until it's clear what becomes of the ArbCom case? -- grm_wnr Esc 15:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. For those of you who'd like a link, here is it. Snoutwood (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest not moving the pages back, on the grounds that if moving them while mediation is pending is bad, unmoving them would be equally bad, and presumably you would like to take the high ground here (perhaps only minimally higher in this case, but still...) Thatcher131 16:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I wasn't planning on it. Snoutwood (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that was a general "dont move them" to the assembly, not a "dont move them snoutwood!!1!!" ;) --Syrthiss 16:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Thatcher131 17:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry... indentation confusion. :) Snoutwood (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that moving the pages back would be equally bad—if anything, not moving them back is tantamount to rewarding bad behavior. Regardless, if I am being asked to "take the high road" by leaving them where they are for now, then I shall take the high road (a road I seem to be taking a lot these days, with no reciprocation from the other side… but never mind). However, I'd appreciate a clarification of the situation here, because I can only see three possibilities:

• Move-warring over these pages is a blockable offense, and therefore Freakofnurture will be blocked for having done it.
• Move-warring over these pages is not a blockable offense, and therefore anyone may move them with impunity, although they shouldn't.
• Move-warring over these pages is a blockable offense for PHenry, but not for Freakofnurture.

…and I'd really like to know which of these rules I can expect to be subject to today and in the future. —phh (^t/_c) 18:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocking exists only to prevent offenses, not punish them. If Freakofnurture isn't move warring anymore, then there's no point in blocking him - for the time being. And anyhow, the idea on Wikipedia is to take the high road. Someone has to do it, and it sure as hell won't be the other guy. Also, maintaining the status quo isn't meant to "reward" any kind of behaviour. It's meant to give us time to chill out and talk about the issue rather than bash our heads together repeatedly. The encyclopaedia won't die if people are directed to the wrong article for a day or two. Johnleemk | Talk 18:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving them back would be equally bad because it would start and/or perpetuate an edit war, and the only way edit wars ever solve content disputes is when one side or the other gets worn out and quits. I express the hope that some kind of dispute resolution process (article RFC, user RFC, a policy debate somewhere, or RFAR) will lead to a settled final answer and the articles can be moved to their final names then. In the meantime, names of the style Washington State Route 599 should all redirect to State Route 599 (Washington), so ordinary users of the encyclopedia should not be affected.

Problem is it's been 3 months and neither side has tired. Infact both sides have just become more determined they're right and now it's moved beyond the point where either side will budge per vendetta that they are "right". The only recourse at this point is a binding decision by the Arbcom that is currently in progress. JohnnyBGood t c 20:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Move warring over these pages is a blockable offense, for Freakofnurture and PHenry (and SPUI, and anyone else) IMO. I personally am not inclined to block FoN now because it is after the fact, though I might have blocked him at the time if I (1) had noticed it and (2) I had been cognizant of the RFAr related to such moves. Personally I would haved probably just asked him to stop, but thats me. I think it was a good faith move based on what he felt was compelling support, based on a possibly erroneous assumption (to be decided by the arbcom if all sides agree). I wanted to thank you for your forbearance in taking the high road. As you say, too often people feel that two questionable actions balance out at a reasonable action...when really they are equally questionable. --Syrthiss 18:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say to add him to the RfAr and leave them as is, assuming the previous names redirect. Reverting all those movies would probably be messy. --Avillia 18:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because this bloody stupid move warring has been going on for so long, I'm inclined to block on sight any editor who renames any state highway article (that's not an obvious typographical error).

I would do this for the good of the encyclopedia—the editors involved are generally productive, helpful, positive contributors (mostly). It's a terrible waste to soak up their time and energy on such a bloody stupid set of wars, and I'd like to think they will appreciate an intervention from their friends and colleagues to help them break this bloody stupid habit. Is there support for such an intervention? We can save them if we make the effort! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

So you'd block me for doing this? Seems like disruption to me. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 01:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What's so complicated about this? Most pages linking to individual, state-maintained, numbered highways will be other pages related to the same state. Within the boundaries of each state, such highways are referred to by their proper names, i.e. "State Route 599" or "SR 599". However, since other highways with the exact same name also exist in other states, the parenthetical disambiguation is used. In the infrequent event that these are referenced from an an article pertaining to a different state, then specifying forms "Washington State Route 599" or "Washington's SR 599" can be used for clarification to the reader. Furthermore, User:Atanamir has a letter from the Washington State Department of Transportation supporting this nomenclature.

What more do you need? Demanding that I be blocked and reverted on proceedural grounds is ridiculous, because:

• This is not a move war.
• I moved the pages once each.
• They had not been recently moved.
• The moves were based on newly presented evidence from WSDOT.
• This "moving a bunch of roads at once is a blockable" idea is something Rschen7754 came up with so he could block SPUI and Locke Cole, with whom he was engaged in personal conflict.

Suggesting that "not moving them back (to the wrong titles) is tantamount to rewarding bad behavior" is itself tantamount to rules-lawyering of the highest order. — May. 16, '06 [03:59] <freak|talk>

Uh huh. This "I'm right and everyone else is wrong, so nyaah!!" attitude is exactly why the arbitration case needs to be taken up, the sooner the better. —phh (^t/_c) 06:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

(Translation: "don't cloud the issue with the facts"). Let me know if you have a satisfactory reason to moving the pages back. I have given several reasons to leave them at the titles I moved them to. If, however, you are firmly convinced that anybody agreeing with SPUI is full of shit, then it's a waste of time to even talk about this. — May. 16, '06 [06:53] <freak|talk>

God! Haven't you been paying attention? Or do you just not care what anyone says unless they agree with you? No one is arguing about the facts. The question is about the best way to apply the existing principles and conventions to these articles—a question for which there are valid arguments on both sides. But you've decided that none of this matters because you're right and evvv-erybody else is wrong, so you prefer to bludgeon everyone with your move warring rather than run the risk that the normal discussion process might arrive at a solution that you disagree with. —phh (^t/_c) 14:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You could go on all day about how you don't like me, but once again, do you have any rebuttal other than smearing my name? If so, spit it out. — May. 16, '06 [16:19] <freak|talk>

Well, I'm someone who doens't dislike you, and I think you made a very poor call, right or wrong, in moving those pages. The issue's been mediated, edit-warred over, and is in an RFAR. Moving those pages did nothing but exacerbate the problem. I do not understand how you can justify your moves by saying "I'm right." Wait until the RFAR is over, then follow the decision. My sentiments echo Tawker's below; however, I will also add that had I seen it happening I would certainly have blocked you for it. Snoutwood (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to provide a rebuttal other than smearing your name. However, to quote what PHenry has already said, "No one is arguing about the facts. The question is about the best way to apply the existing principles and conventions to these articles." WP:D is clear that parentheses is not the only way to disambiguate on Wikipedia, furthermore, it's not even the preferred way. To quote, "When there is another word or more complete name that is equally clear, that should be used." (emphasis mine). Thus, in these cases, the more complete name (Washington State Route 539) should be used.

Also, you state in your post: "However, since other highways with the exact same name also exist in other states, the parenthetical disambiguation is used." (again, emphasis mine) This may have been a grammatical oversight on your part, or you may be referring to your newly imposed standard for Washington. However, in the 28 out of 50 states (30 counting Washington and California), the articles are named with the state name first.

(AK, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, MD, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, PA, SC, SD, VT, VA, WV, and WI, plus D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.V.I., since I know someone's going to ask.)

An additional two are named not with parenthetical disambiguation, but with local common names: Kansas with K-xx and Michigan with M-xx.

Now I'm not saying that just because it's 28-18 (leaving out Kansas, Michigan, California, and Washington), that must mean that I'm right and you're wrong, because that's not what it means, and I'm not saying that this constitutes some sort of official naming convention, because it doesn't. What this does mean, though, is that the "State Route X (StateName)" format doesn't follow any sort of naming convention either. To rephrase your statement more accurately, "Even though other highways with the exact same name also exist in other states, the parenthetical disambiguation is not used with any sort of regularity. -- Northenglish 00:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

News media may quite commonly use the phrase "Attorney Jack Thompson" to distinguish him from "Actor Jack Thompson", but these designations are not part of either man's proper name. Given two topics with the same proper name, we disambiguate them using words or phrases in parentheses, ideally something short, and something that best illustrates how they differ from one another, e.g. Jack Thompson (attorney), Jack Thompson (actor). If we have two people with the same profession, say, two U.S. Congressmen, we would disambiguate by state, or if they were from the same state, we could go by term of office. Since each state, in and of itself, has its own nomenclature for numbered roads, we should, in the innumerable cases where these names are non-unique, disambiguate by specifying in parentheses, the name of the state where each road is located. For a road with a non-unique name that is not limited to one state, we sometimes disambiguate using a region, e.g. Route 26 (New England).

As for the highways in Michigan named "M-XX", see this clarifying post by User:CBessert (Christopher J. Bessert, webmaster of michiganhighways.org, an expert witness, if you will). Let's be clear here: M-1, etc., are not "local common names", as stated above, but rather the proper names given to them by the Michigan Department of Transportation (www.michigan.gov/mdot), which refers to them by no other names than "M-XX". However, this naming system collides with (among other things) that of various firearms, making the disambiguation "... (Michigan highway)" necessary. — May. 19, '06 [05:39] <freak|talk>

Tawker's 2 cents

Blocking anyone for a week old event seems to be rather pointless and I am not suggesting anyone in any way shape or form does such. With respect to moving it back, it is best to simply avoid any more moves until a reasonable response to this dispute has been settled. As far as I am concerned there is no right or wrong naming scheme, we have a dispute and lets settle it like the mature human beings we are not 2 year olds in a sandbox -- Tawker 03:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Even two year olds in a sandbox can work harmoniously... ;) --Cat out 13:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User page use and definition of "personal attack"

Moving this to User talk:Circeus as it doesn't seem to require administrator intervention. --Tony Sidaway 01:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio

I have been alerted in the past that I have breached Copyright. I am not knowledgeable in this area and need help. I suspect others do too. Can anyone explain to me clearly as to when an article or part of it violates this rule, giving examples. Thank you very much. Kind regards. Wallie 19:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

For text, it's really very simple--all text should be original. There are certain circumstances in which public domain text can be incorporated, but only if it's explicitly and unquestionably in the public domain, which generally means it was published (not written) before 1923 and its source is stated (we generally take a "better-safe-than-sorry" line on text that might or might not be PD, so it's best to steer clear of it altogether). But for all intents and purposes, you should only put text into Wikipedia if you wrote it yourself. Images are far more complicated, but you referred to articles, not images. Chick Bowen 23:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Chick. You are the only one who replied. I suspected I may not get many replies, as this is a difficult and complicated subject. However, some admins are quick to mention that someone has breached Copyright, but I am unsure if they are just guessing. Wallie 05:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Until you know how to drive, don't drive. Until you understand the following don't add anything you didn't create yourself and don't delete what others have added under the claim of copyvio (it is actually quite complicated):

• Wikipedia copyrights
• Public domain
• Fair use
• Reusing Wikipedia content
• Copyright violations WAS 4.250 12:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this, WAS. Doesn't this contravene "Be Bold"? Wallie 17:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really. It all boils down to "Do your own work. Don't copy that of other people." The rest of it just describes the very few exceptions to that rule. --Carnildo 23:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that not Original Research? Wallie 06:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Let me explain with excamples

Original reserch would be for example writing about your own theories of physics.

"Do your own work. Don't copy that of other people." means you can base the birth date of Albert Einstein from a website but you can't copy paste everything on the website...

Of course this is a rough explanation. It can be quite complicated...

--Cat out 12:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Excessive userboxes for deletion

I'm moving this to Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion because it is clearly not something that needs administrator attention. --Tony Sidaway 01:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I tend to see it differently. As this pertains (among others) to an Administrator and his use of his administrative authority (closing TfDs, making deletions, etc), I think this belongs here. When I asked for informal mediation, the consensus of the mediators was for me to come here, because the issue was of such scope that the mediators felt it should be dealt with here. Even granting the possibility your premise, that this issue may not need the attention of an administrator, I can't see where it clearly doesn't. I hope that the Admin community will consider acting to cool the fire under these deletions which seem only to increase divisiveness by applying unadopted policies & undermining attempts to reach consensus on userboxes.

In support, here are three administrators' comments from the discussion showing that this isn't something clearly outside the scope of WP:AN/I, since they identify policy issues, disruption issues, and adminship issues that this involves:

• BorgHunter: I think the mass TfD flooding constitues WP:POINT. Not really a very good way of making it, either, just makes everyone mad.
• Aaron Brenneman: Excessive nomination for deletion are disruption. Excessive deletions are disruption. Having some patience is a good thing.
• CBDunkerson: Mass listing of userboxes which violate no existing policy or guideline. Userbox deletion debates routinely being closed by the nominator. Templates being deleted even over an obvious super-majority consensus to keep. Such actions are clearly disruptive and even abusive of administrator powers and need to stop. If it is really so vital that we 'cleanse' the Template: namespace of all references to the value of the circumference of a circle divided by its diameter, boxes providing a link to the person's blog, boxes indicating the person lives in the UK, et cetera then we discuss it and agree on a policy to that effect. Trampling over people and deleting regardless of the outcome of the TfD discussion isn't the way we do things and must not be tolerated.

Please bring the discussion back here. --Ssbohio 02:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Every single comment you have cited above refers to excessive nomination for deletion. This is not an admninistrative matter, but should be dealt with by the normal dispute resolution process. And as we speak, there is an application on WP:RFAR concerning this matter. --Tony Sidaway 16:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde Weys

I've moved this section started by User_talk:PHDrillSergeant to his talk page, and am urging him to take this to the next step in dispute resolution. This page is not for resolving longstanding disputes between editors, but for dealing with relatively urgent incidents that may need the attention of an administrator. --Tony Sidaway 00:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a place to put a complaint against an administrator isn't it? --mboverload@ 00:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Tony does have a point... This isn't the place to complain really. What action are we suppose to take? Sasquatch t|c 00:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

A discrete complaint about a discrete administrative action, yes. A neverending diatribe more suited to RFC, no. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 00:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a place to report an administrator, but only if the user has discussed it with the administrator first. It's also recommended at the top of this page, to use WP:RFC rather than this page. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 00:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a argument on whether or not it's been discussed with Cyde. I'd also note that Please is not You must. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 00:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place to "report" an administrator. It's a place to come to for the attention of an administrator. --Tony Sidaway 01:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here, but <blahblahrfc>" --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 01:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The complaints against Cyde seem to be in accord with the instructions for the use of this page. Tony's decision to move the ongoing conversations (both this section and mboverload's above) elsewhere smack of censorship, or at least trying to quelch arguments he doesn't agree with. Tony shouldn't close arguments that he has taken part in. -lethe ^{talk +} 01:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You actions smack of wikilawyering, Tony. --mboverload@ 01:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith. If a section is created on this page that doesn't require admnistrator intervention, it makes sense to move it to a more suitable location. The section can still be located and the discussion can continue. But in a more suitable venue. --Tony Sidaway 01:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it's not going on my talk page. It says clearly this is the place to report an administrator, and action may be required against Cyde --mboverload@ 01:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have a case, then "action against Cyde" would be something that the arbitration committee would be able to take. They're thataway. --Tony Sidaway 01:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

And do you do that regularly? Can you show me other examples? It seems to me that you did this in particular to silence a whole lot of people who disagreed with you, but I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong if you show me some other examples. -lethe ^{talk +} 01:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you reconcile your sense that the Cyde discussion was inappropriate for AN/I with the open informal complaint prescription? To be sure, one doesn't want general discussion to clog a board to which many users otherwise unfamiliar with WP come to report disruptions with which administrators ought to deal; where one wants to solicit opinions apropos of the conduct of an admin, though, it would seem that a noticeboard frequented by other admins, who are likely well able to adjudge whether one would be wholly off-base to question a given action, would be a fine place for the discussion. The point is to solicit the views of the community writ large (especially of admins, who are likely to have experienced situations similar to that about which a complaint is made); an RfC, of course, effects the same result, but we are to look with disfavor upon formalistic and quasi-adversarial proceedings here wherever we can. Joe 03:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, this simple move seems to have attracted precisely the same kind of trolling that has made it necessary. ;) --Tony Sidaway 01:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a neat trick how you can tell people to assume good faith and accuse them of being trolls in the same breath. -lethe ^{talk +} 01:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

When you say things like "It seems to me that you did this in particular to silence a whole lot of people who disagreed with you", you leave me with little choice. Stop trolling. --Tony Sidaway 01:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Be mindful of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, please. -lethe ^{talk +} 01:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

How does it work where I get accused of personal attacks for saying someone doesn't like women as a joke, and you go and call him a troll without repercussion? We can't state out opinions about people's behavior anymore? --mboverload@ 01:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that there is an ungoing issue over that admin's behaviour, it seems reasonable to discuss here, not fork it off somewhere else. Given the sheer scale of endless controversy over Cyde's behaviour, perhaps his conduct needs to be examined by the Arbitration Committee. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 01:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)}

I'm pretty sure we need an RfC before that can happen. --mboverload@ 01:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Repeating for the record: There have already been two filed, one by Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, the other still up at RFC/Cyde2 --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 01:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I belive we have seperate issues. That one seems to be pretty narrow. --mboverload@ 02:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Cats out of the bag now. WP:RfAr. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 02:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I find your decision to delete this discussion a bad one. -lethe ^{talk +} 03:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. As I said in my earlier post (which was removed when Tony moved the original post), I do think some of the complaints against cyde have been unjustified or plain trolling, but the fact that so many have been made, some of which seem possibly legitimate, suggest that this issue should be investigated. And since this a recurring complaint, not just a one-time disagreement, I think this should be discussed openly and not on some obscure user's talkpage. The Ungovernable Force 05:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Was Avillia's note above too terse? People seem to be carrying on without taking in that an RFAr has now been filed against Cyde. Could this thread be moved somewhere more appropriate, please? Bishonen | talk 05:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC).

Tony, please do not call people trolls all the time. It just causes trouble. Thank you. Wallie 07:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to object to Tony's actions. PHDrillSergeant was calling for Cyde to be desysoped, which is not something admins (or even bureaucrats) can do. (A key requirement for ANI listings is that they require admin intervention. The only actionable portion of the diatribe was the part pertaining to an alleged sockpuppet of Cyde (whose evidence was not convincing; a checkuser conducted by two different users has confirmed that Cyde and Fake User are not related). People who want an open discussion on an admin's actions ought to open an RFC, not make their diatribes on a noticeboard for actions requiring admin intervention. ANI is not a part of our dispute resolution process. Johnleemk | Talk 11:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and re the "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here" clause at the introduction of ANI, the complaint was not informal. It was calling for Cyde to be desysoped, something which (rightly) is not and cannot be done informally. An RfC or RfAr should have been filed; if all that was wanted was community comment, RfCs will do the job. Having two RfCs open at the same time on the same user would be a bit unprecedented, but not wrong in any sense. Johnleemk | Talk 11:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's probably time to reconsider the "informal complaint about an admin" clause. We're getting some ridiculously petty complaints and they and their associated trolling are beginning to dwarf and severely degrade this page.

Even so, the existence of the clause does not mean that WP:ANI is the most appropriate place. One section I moved was simply a complaint about TFDs of userboxes. This is already a very high traffic page and we should feel free to keep it uncluttered by removing nonsense and hopeless rubbish. --Tony Sidaway 13:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that that clause if working just fine. The completely trivial are mostly ignored, the complaints about proper actions usually get appropiate feedback that the admins is doing a fine job. A single instance (or three) where one or two people disagreed with an ongoing discussion does not an allowance to sweep clean make. - brenneman^{L} 13:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Maintaining this page is the responsibility of all of us. Nobody needs "allowance" to tidy it up. --Tony Sidaway 16:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving this discussion to the talk page is a nice attempt at comprimise, much better than outright deletion, but I still cannot agree with the decision. -lethe ^{talk +} 16:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you honestly look at the complete bilge above and claim that it has any place on this busy page? --Tony Sidaway 16:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you want to silence complaints about Cyde. OK, it's clear that you think Cyde's actions are acceptable. But why not let the rest of us discuss the matter? You are of course free to join in the discussion, something which you have been doing. -lethe ^{talk +} 16:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is with this matter being discussed here. It is not at all clear what purpose it could serve. If there is a general issue with Cyde's behavior there should be an RfC. If the RfC has not cleared the air then mediation might be a good idea. If mediation doesn't go anywhere there's arbitration. What is being discussed here that requires the specific attention of administrators? Mackensen (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's appalling and disappointing that reasonable steps to move discussions to more appropriate locations are being resisted on transparently spurious grounds. Nobody has tried to stop discussion. There is no appropriate place to engage in these little hate-fests against Cyde, in defiance of the dispute resolution policy. However there are legitimate issues that can be discussed at other venues and where such venues exist I have made reasonable attempts to move discussion there. To call this "silencing complaints" is utter rubbish. --Tony Sidaway 19:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Schutzstaffel

I ask other admins to keep an eye on this article. There is a user making questionable edits and possible POV statements about German translations. When I attempted to compromise with the editor, he reverted my changes as "vandalism" and then filled the talk page with some very heated remarks and openly stated I was vandalising the article. I anticipate he will continue to revert any changes to his original edit (possibly breaking the 3 revert rule in the process). I'm just asking folks keep an eye out for this. Thank you! -Husnock 23:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I put a note on the discussion page of the article. German translations are reasonably clear cut. Hope that helps. Thanks. Wallie 06:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmmm....

202.40.137.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Is clueless to how Wikipedia works and has called several users bad names. He is also getting on users nerves. ForestH2

Block of user, reporting here

I'm still a new admin, so reporting this block here as well to make sure it was correct. I've blocked User:58.162.234.115 for violating remedy 1 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaZ (talk • contribs)

Oh, grr, thanks for that. Can't even sign my comments... don't know how anyone trusted me to be an admin ah well...JoshuaZ 03:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Pansophia again

Can someone please look into User:Pansophia's conduct again? He has been abusing open proxies in order to circumvent the 3 revert rule on Kaiser Permanente. I decided it would be best to semi-protect the article, so now he is logged in and continuing to revert. He's reverted 8 times today, no discussion. I think the continued open proxy abuse deserves a community ban or a very long block. Thoughts? Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pansophia for some background. Rhobite 03:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 48 hours for chronic reversion. I have not blocked for longer because I haven't had a chance to check if the IPs are in fact open proxies. If someone else has the time they should check and verify that and possibly consider lengthening the block if they turn out to be open proxies. JoshuaZ 04:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Here you go: 201.6.255.175, 210.182.62.41, and 58.239.206.239 are all in the DSBL and I already blocked them indefinitely. Thanks for blocking User:Pansophia. Rhobite 04:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Potentially Offensive Pages

What I'm talking about here is pages that involve controversial material and pictures(!)such as Penis, Naturism, et al. Is this really appropriate for a family encyclopedia? We always browse Wikipedia as a family and if I were to click on random article and a page of that nature were to load, I dont know what I would say to my 3 adorable children. I highly recommend that at the very least you remove the photos, thereby saving this dad some unnecessary explanation and embarrassment. Daddy loves you Jake, Haley, and Ashley!Family Man 07 04:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As is so often said, Wikipedia is not censored for minors. Sorry. --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel for you. Em bare ass ment is certainly the right word. But I think you need to reconsider your adjective "unnecessary". It is a wonderful opportunity to teach your loved children what you wish them to know about things like penis. If you don't teach them, they will just learn it elsewhere. Maybe from Wikipedia without you by their side lovingly explaining things. WAS 4.250 14:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a "family encyclopedia". We try to compile "all human knowledge" (impossible, but a lofty goal!). Moreover, I agree with WAS. Kids are a rather resistant to shock from nudity, especially if a grown-up can explain the situation. However, if, for some reason, you still want to avoid exposing your kids to "questionable" images, you can configure most web browsers to not display images. For Apple's Safari, go to Preferences->Appearance and uncheck "Display images when the page opens". For Firefox, go to Preferences->Web Features and uncheck "Load Images". For IE, get a real browser ;-) Have fun browsing (and contributing)! --Stephan Schulz 15:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

My son just saw the page on Hitler. Now he won't stop having nightmares. I may have to take him to a psychiatrist. My wife won't stop screaming-hold on a second....Ashley, do your goddamn homework! Anyways,...um....HELP!Family Man 07 23:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to find another place to discuss this, as our Administrators' noticeboard is certainly not the place to complain about your troubles at home. Werdna_T^c_@^b_C^m_L^t 01:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Slight problem here. After again reading the Hitler page my son is no longer "afraid" of Hitler. No, now he wants "to be like Hitler"! Wikipedia, don't get me wrong, I love ya, but....What I'm tryin to say here is are you gonna help me fix this kid or what!? How bout we go halfsies on the -Jake, put that goddamn thing down!

I gotta go.Family Man 07 01:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey look, it's the ANI troll again! Blocked. --Cyde↔Weys 01:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Bad Astronomy, I suppose

New user User:Bad Astronomer added links to his forum to about 15 different pages. He has slowed down after a few warnings, but would now appear to be claiming to be Philip Plait, I suppose, by copying Phil’s article text to his user page. He has now added links to his forum to Phil’s main article, including a few misleading re-directs and has removed the link to the actual Bad Astronomy forum. Since I’ve already exchanged words with him on the spamming; I would appreciate a second set of eyes for his recent edits. Thanks! Kuru ^talk 05:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

He's being pretty deceptive with his spam. I gave him a final spam warning and reverted his latest edits. Rhobite 05:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism Need help please!

List backing up. As does Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB2 is anyone here? - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 07:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Elliott Small's disruption

Elliott Small (talk · contribs) has unilaterally moved race and intelligence to Race and IQ Scores and created a new page at race and intelligence in order to prevent the other editors from undoing his action, as had been done shortly before. He states this is legitimate because another user previously argued for such a page rename, but he didn't notice that user soon after conceded the point (view Macgruder's concession at the bottom of this section: Talk:Race_and_IQ_Scores#The_Huge_Problem_with_this_article:_IQ). (Editors have expressed their disagreement with Elliott's action here.) There are no grounds to retain his unilateral move, and I request it be undone.--Nectar

Done, and move-protected. NSLE _(T+C) at 08:53 UTC (2006-05-21)

Bobblewik at it again (date delinking at bot speed)

Tried to discuss on the user talk page, but whatever I try, the discussion appears to be going nowhere, see User talk:Bobblewik#Date delinking --Francis Schonken 12:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him. Feel free to revert him, if you want Will (^E_@) T 12:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I endorse the blocking. The lenghts of blocks should increase with each spree. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

Is cheering people in their talk page when they vote for your position agaisnt AfD Rules? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lentisco. He makes alot of fun comments regarding me and the proposer. Yanksox 12:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've asked him to be more civil. Of course he is permitted to communicate with other participants in the discussion on their talk pages, but he shouldn't be badmouthing you like this. --Tony Sidaway 16:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

He was just blocked for this, and began his personal attack spam just after his block expired. --InShaneee 18:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Ghajini uploading images

Ghajini (User talk:Ghajini) has been uploading unlicensed and unsourced images for 2 days. After 2 messages no change has been observed, and uploads continue. Usually (Image contributions) images are uploaded with summaries like: "http://www.indiaglitz.com..." i.e. no source and license (or with false license). Perhaps one more warning by an admin or block since 2 warnings have been given. feydey 13:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC) -- Here's the log [30] with deleted images. feydey 13:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry about this guys, I will from today onwards give a specific clarification of the source, rather than a overview. Thank you User:Feydey for specifing my fault. I will improve my uploading. Ghajini 19:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

This category is getting increasingly large, if someone would like to do something about it. --Telex 15:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Just removed the backlog marker, only a few images left. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You wanna talk about huge... Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons. Although I don't really understand what needs to be done. Just thought I'd remind those that do know what to do, that they could be doing it. :-) --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I do some of that, but it is pretty low-priority. Jkelly 18:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

SirIsaacBrock

SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placing his comments out of order (at the top) at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 17#Category:Anti-Semitic people, and adding {{cfdend}} on that page (not appropriate), and has several times reverted moving his comments back into the correct order (although always with another edit to avoid 3RR). He is also trolling user pages (2006-05-21 10:36:10 onward) to garner support, and this is annoying even to me, a potential ally. Please block him for 24 hours.

-William Allen Simpson 17:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I am warning him against spamming talkpages, but it wouldn't do any good to block him now. He's also been mischaracterizing the nominator's actions and generally failing to assume good faith, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to get out the heavy stomping boots soon. Syrthiss 17:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Vlatkoto

Use of obscenities. [31]

Previous offenses: [32] [33]

 /FunkyFly.talk_   17:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I gave him a short block to get his attention and left a explanation on his talk page. Rx StrangeLove 19:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.  /FunkyFly.talk_   19:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Rms125a@hotmail.com

Banned user User:Rms125a@hotmail.com is editing again. See[34]. Please investigate. Djegan 18:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Sceptre took care of it. Mackensen (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• And back again as 216.194.3.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [35]. Demiurge 20:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Block request: mnij92

User mnij92 is giving multiple vandalism

It's Mnij92. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Who hasn't edited past their final warning. --InShaneee 18:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User: Anwar saadat

I am a newbie to Wikipedia, but looking at past archives in the Wiki Commuinity, I have clearly spotted that Anwar saadat is a POV. He is biased towards Ajith, a South Indian filmstar. For example if you see here [36], [37] and [38] he constantly changed the articles back to POV Version and got in trouble with several users including User: Zora, User: Bhadani, User:Prin, User:Plumcouch and several other users. (Please refer to them for more info). He is returning with his boastfulness of Ajith here saying that Paramasivan and Thirupathi are the most successful films of the year and changing success stories for the rest saying they 'also ran'. He is also a known vandalist here showing his particular dislike of Vijay [39], shockingly he has also labelled Vijay as a murdere of ilm producer G.V! He also has written insulting messages threatening others in tamil such as [40] where he says 'therinju pesu' which roughly translates into be careful idiot, which is not welcome socially! He has also blanked my copyright tags in order to get me in trouble look here [41] he has removed my source, my copyright and my license tag! As far as I'm notified he has been blocked a couple of times (24 hours) but constantly returns with the user ID (212.32.76.121). He constantly abuses Wikipedia. I would like to see petition here of people who want Anwar to change his ways quickly. Thanking You. :) Keep Going! Prince 06 19:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC) (P.S. He is also a stalker)

Block Him, obviously Prince 06 19:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Both articles, Ajith and Vijay are difficult to edit and in a very bad shape, since fans of each actor are constantly trying to prove their actor is the greatest - indication for that is the filmography and the edit history. It's impossible to add a neutral POV since it is constantly reverted back to fangush. --Plumcouch 19:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree totally with User:Plumcouch and it is almost as though, Anwar is the main Vijay disliker and the main Ajith lover constantly praising Ajith and hating Vijay like this [42]! Prince 06 19:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC) :)

83.30.8.56

Can anybody translate the two edit summaries by the anon here? They added Image:Wolyn1943.jpg (it's unpleasant) to both and it appears to be some sort of anti-Ukrainian attack. And here by 83.30.20.27. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson

I advised this editor to NOT touch my posts at Vote and yet his has on two occasions. This individual is not an administrator and knows better. Please block his account for 24 hours . Cordially SirIsaacBrock 20:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm backing up his actions. Your statement should be placed in order it was made, and the template that you keep adding is incorrect information (I have a link to that discussion with the proper result in the discussion). You seem to have large feelings of ownership for this category, and I'm not going to let you disrupt the discussion any further. Syrthiss 20:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Link with Talk page removed

The Talk page for "The History of Telephone Service in Catalonia" has been accidentally unlinked from its "parent" page, due to PEBKAC error. I carelessly moved the talk page instead of the parent page from "History of Telephony..." to the present title, then attempted to fix by moving the parent page to the appropriate title and selecting "move talk page".

Please either direct me to the right FM to R, or fix this. Thanks.

Twenex 21:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems fine to me, try reloading the page w/ redlinks and see if it gets better. Of couse, to fit with naming conventions, it ought to be at History of telephone service in Catalonia. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Must have automagically fixed itself, or maybe I did something myself. Oh well, either way, I'm going to make your suggested move to "History..." instead of "The History..." - Twenex 22:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

69.176.39.248 - Requesting short block.

Guy has a laundry list of vandalism complaints on talk and recently went to work on W.I.T.C.H. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 22:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for continuous nonsensical edits, it being the IP's fourth block and obviously not shared. Although it's not your usual vandalism, this should have gone on WP:AIV, really. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Meh. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 23:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Please semi-protect Dia Mirza

We have a very determined anon who feels that we must include a list of all the commercial products that this actress has endorsed. Told that we do not do commercial advertising, the anon insists that people in India are very interested in celebrity endorsements.

If we let this go, every celebrity article in WP will be plastered with advertisements. Please semi-protect. Zora 23:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've sprotected. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, requests for page protection should go to WP:RfPP. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

zombified auxiliary material -- talk pages, histories

Asymmetric key algorithm was moved (and collapsed more than a little) to public key cryptography. There are reasons it shouldn't have been so moved, but that will have to pass for the moment. What didn't happen during this was that auxiliary material (talk, etc) didn't accompany the article.

And the same happened with several articles related to symmetric key algorithms and similar titles (see the list of cryptography articles at WikiProject: Cryptography for xymmetric whatever, most of which have now been subsumed). Auxiliary material has been lost there as well. And for that matter at digital rights management as well. The intent here seems to have been merely to correct some unwanted capitalization in the article title...

Since I have managed successfully to evade any actual knowledge of the behind_the_curains machinery, I am forced to ask for some assistance from someone who does.

Overeager moving and neatening does on occasion go badly awry, as here. Perhaps it's time for a revision of the moving policy embodied in the software? Any ideas or comments on this last point? 71.249.12.89 00:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I could be of help. Please clarify the situation and I will do my best to guide you thru it. I can always consult tech manuals, blueprints, and my own computer. (With the help of a screwdriver (and hammer)Terrie Techie! 00:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like what happened was that the article was merged into public-key cryptography. --Carnildo 02:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert war at Preying from the Pulpit

Over the past two weeks there has been a revert war at Preying from the Pulpit with a user adding in massive amounts of criticism (from one source), removing information, and bolding certain sentences. I have tried to discuss this on the talk page, the user's talk page, and have now filed a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi. Criticism should go in a criticism section because "criticism that is integrated into the article should not disrupt the article or section's flow." More thoughts and opinions on this is welcomed. Arbusto 00:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This really is a content dispute, and as such you need to go through the usual dispute resolution mechanisms. Anyway, you really don't want admin involvement; admins are equipped only with a toolbox full of blunt instruments. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

IP Vandal/Sock Puppet - 152.53.20.168

152.53.20.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Probable sock-puppet of banned user - exact same edits as the last used IP of Paul Vogel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Also refers to old conversations with Vogel -- Nrbelex ^(talk) 02:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nomination by PZFUN, and Speedy keep of several articles by Slimvirgin

PZFUN nominated 36 Judaism-related articles for deletion in what, to be honest, looks like a WP:POINT (though I want to AGF), apparently supported by NicholasTurnbull, who also voted to delete, and was on most of them the only person other than PZFUN to do so. Many of the articles seemed to be legitimate, although some could use tidying; for example, there were pages about important rabbis like Dovber of Mezeritch, one of the most important figures in Hasidic Judaism. This almost certainly has to do with a recent row between PZFUN and User:IZAK, where IZAK objected to PZFUN's AfD nomination of another Jewish article, and the row led to harsh words, which led Nicholas to block IZAK, and a fuss ensued. This seems to be some sort of follow-up. I've closed the AfDs as speedy keeps, which is not to say that there aren't some that might be legitimate noms (I did find one that clearly was, so I didn't close that one), but these bulk deletions coming so soon after an argument seem inappropriate. I'd welcome other input on this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

While I would tend to agree that some of the articles nominated do seem non-notable, I do question his motivation behind the mass of nominations, especially due to the timing. --InShaneee 15:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, should a user or admin be slowed down, just because someone else has been uncivil at them? He's been doing cleanup, by the look of it. If I had looked, I might have even speedied some of the nominated articles, as they simply do not establish notability at all.

I agree with Slimvirgins Ignore All Rules speedy closure, just to keep the peace for now, but those articles really really need review. (some of the articles so speedy kept had like 5-10 delete votes on them... not normally a speedy keep :-) ) Kim Bruning 16:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that some need to be tidied, but it might have been better to do that than nominate them, and in some cases just as fast. For example, all that was really wrong with Ben Zion Halberstam (The First), a notable rabbi, was that someone had added a long list of his descendants, so I deleted the list, [43] and the article, or stub, is fine now. It's not exactly an FA candidate, but it should certainly survive an AfD. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the situation, the closes were a poor idea, IMO. They certainly weren't speedy keep candidates, they had opposition, and some of them certainly wouldn't meet standards. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 16:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the closures were a bad idea. Most of those articles clearly needed review. --Strothra 16:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I too agree. Irrespective of the motivation for a nomination, once an article is AfDed, the discussion belongs not to the original nominator but to the community writ large; where other users have expressed support for delete on legitimate grounds, the debates oughtn't to be closed (to be sure, where all "votes" were keep and where no legitimate reason was given for deletion in the nom, a speedy keep, per WP:SNOWBALL and WP:IAR is in order. Finally, the timing of these AfD is, of course, rather interesting, but we ought to continue to assume good faith; one often finds that, after a vociferous debate has ensued apropos of a given AfD, other similar articles may be AfDed, primarily because, in looking at one article one thinks to be deficient/unencyclopedic, one often finds articles that share characteristics with that which one has AfDed. Joe 16:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Many of them were speedy-keep candidates. But regardless, the row between PZFUN and IZAK got pretty nasty, and then Nicholas blocked IZAK for NPA, so it's inappropriate for those two editors to try to delete 36 articles that IZAK probably cares about just a day or so later. I'm assuming good faith here (I don't know PZFUN but I understand he's a good and trustworthy editor, and I know Nicholas is), but you can see why they might look like bad-faith nominations, and the appearance of that should have occurred to them. If the articles are that bad, someone else will nominate them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Which ones were speedy keep candidates? Like, how so? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, while you have a bit of a point, it would mean that to prevent a legitimate (set of) edit(s), all one has to do is start a row with the editor in question. :-/ Kim Bruning 16:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I take that point too. I think perhaps part of the problem here is that many of these figures are not written about on the Web, or not much, and so much of the sourcing is in books. It would help in future if the editors on these pages could make sure they add full citations for their sources, then editors reviewing the articles can at least see that someone has done careful research, even if they can't immediately check the source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! :-) Kim Bruning 17:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There are some difficulties with these personalities with reference to finding references. Most of the legacy of a particular Rebbe will be various teachings that have been passed down and quoted, and the mythologies of tales told about them. Often they will be collected in a book, but in some cases not. If they are collected in a book, it may well be in Hebrew or Yiddish - their communities are often quite closed and isolated. You will likely find mention of a rabbi (or of their magnum opus, by which they are often known, or of their title ("Kotzker Rebbe", "Skulener Rebbe", "[the first] Bobover Rebbe")) with reference to a particular teaching used in an article. On the other hand, these personalities could be treated like royal families- they are members of dynasties where patrilineal descent plays a major role in heirdom: for some of the more minor personalities, they may only be mentioned in a listing of the chain of Rebbes in a Hasidic group. In this sense, while Wikipedia has articles on even the most obscure members of some royal families, the chain of descendency of Rebbes should definitely be kept, as long as their existence in that chain is verifiable, even if no extensive references on the individual can be found. jnothman ^talk 00:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That completely flies in the face of Wikipeida:Verifiability. We can't and shouldn't have articles that are based solely on hearsay, particularly on hearsay that cannot be proven or even demonstrated in any way. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 01:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I only said it may be hard to find any verifiable sources. It is clear that these people exist. Even some facts about them may be findable and verifiable. But even those of their teachings or stories that may only be "hearsay" are still noteworthily associated with that person. Wikipedia documents myths in great detail - although their subjects may not be verifiable, the existence of the myth about that subject is highly verifiable. I certainly hope that more accurate and verifiable written information can be found, but I'm not sure where to look. Still these discussions on the difficulties of finding highly verifiable information on these personalities doesn't in any way excuse your nominating 16 of them on the basis of no references, specualativity, sounding like an ad and non-notability, when these factors were often simply untrue: see my arguments below. jnothman ^talk 01:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Nominating so many articles for deletion at once was a bad disruptive thing obviously, but I think SlimVirgin doing a mass-keep was not a good idea either. That gives the (most likely false) appearance that an administrator is using his/her adminship position/leverage a bit beyond what one should do. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

While discussing of policy is great fun, what needs to be done now is to actually get these articles cleaned up. Preferably to featured status, of course ;-) Any suggestions that might help with this? Kim Bruning 17:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel SlimVirgin's action was wise, even though obviously not conforming to standard policy, and indicated for the greater good of the Wikipedia project. --Lambiam^Talk 17:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I also think that SlimVirgin's intervention was justified; among these AfDs there were articles that were very obviously not reasonable candidates for deletion - Dovber of Mezeritch - and that casts the other nominations in a rather bad light as well. I do have one minor quibble though: maybe it would have been better to close the AfDs by explaining why the bulk nomination was a mistake, rather than by saying "the result was speedy keep" - as that was not where most of the actual deletion debates seemed to be going. David Sneek 18:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the Speedy Keep action. It seems heavy handed, given that there was no consensus, even if you ignore the original parties. Yes, it makes sense that old rabbis are notable, but their articles are not exempt from the same scrutiny and process as all others. If they have verifiable sources, the sources should be cited in the articles - they don't have to be instant Web or google sites. Same goes for the schools and camps, although one would expect those to have a google-space presence. WP rules are there to be followed even if a mass AfD nomination casts doubt on AGF. Crum375 18:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Nominating 36 articles like this is disruptive behaviour, which can only cause bad feeling with editors involved in them. The proposing editor should have considered the likely inflammatory effect on others of such a mass proposal deletion and made some attempt at communication with those likely to be affected by it, if only to make the reassurance that there were genuine grounds for making so many all at once. The articles I have checked have nothing at all on their talk pages. This situation can only be interpreted as AGF, if one also assumes that the proposing editor is quite insensitive to others. The mass speedy keep of the articles was not ideal, but it does allow a breathing space, instead of provoking a war. Tyrenius 19:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"Speedy keep" was definitely the most appropriate thing to do under those circumstances. Nominating for deletion Israel ben Eliezer, the founder of Hassidism, was so obviously contrary to WP:POINT that no result other than speedy keep could be expected. We already have a precedent when mass AfD nominations by Striver done to prove a point in a discussion on List of Muslim athletes were speedily kept. Going through the entire procedure of voting, commenting, and closing during such mass nominations is a waste of Wikipedians' time. Pecher ^Talk 19:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree totally with your point about Israel ben Eliezer, and anything like that (if any) - and in that case I would second a Speedy Keep of course. But at the same time I would probably warn the nominator and follow with a block unless the behavior can be explained away, unlikely in this case. But I think the Speedy Keeps of other, unsourced articles is improper. Crum375 19:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

In case it helps, I'm in the process of going through the articles to tidy up the writing and request sources. It'll take some time given that there are 36 of them. From what I've seen so far, some are taken in part from the public-domain 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, which is written in a style that's completely inappropriate for Wikipedia, so that explains some of the writing issues. As for the unsourced ones, if the requests for sources aren't answered fairly soon and/or if I can't find any, I'll put them back up for AfD myself, so hopefully that'll remove any lingering unease. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is PZFUN's explanation, which seems rational enough to me. But I am sure SlimVirgin acted in good faith and her constructive response above makes sense too. So let's hope all these articles are cleaned up or deleted as appropriate. Crum375 20:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm just wandering since when AfD supplanted {{verify}}, especially when it comes to established editors. This en mass wave of deletion strikes me as rather discourtious, possibly even a provocation. The question arises as to why the user in question did not place pertinent tags, pose querries on article and user talk pages? [Incidentally, I authored 30+ IDF-related articles yesterday, none have any references whatsoever. Damn, I probably shouldn't have said that.] Also, as a secular & atheist, I recognize quite a few of these names, perhaps to the (dis?)credit of the IBoE. Anyway, what I wish to bring to Kim's attention (why am I picking on him? let's just say I gots my reasons! :p) is that en mass acts which are likely to involve heated emotions, should best involve a centralized discussion prior. Basically, established editors are entitled to some fair warning when their entries are not viewed as being up to par, and an AfD isn't the first step, it is the last. El_C 21:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree, however the attitude by the previous editors has made it quite clear that non-Jewish or non-Jewish imput is not welcome, as per IZAK's comments on a previous AfD: "People should stick to their areas of expertise and not stick their noses into subjects"[44] Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 00:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It is rather striking to me, that on the one hand, you appear to agree with me on AfD being the last recourse, and on the other, you justify the need to do so by quoting material from an AFD. But what about the monolithic ("reads like an ad"?), en mass nominations? El_C 03:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel a speedy keep was the only option here. Although some of the noms might have turned out to be okay, it is clear the PZFUN decided to nominate these articles in bulk without forming an objective opinion on each one. It looks even worse since most of these articles were actually created by IZAK and were linked to his userpage. I am also a secular/atheist but unlike El C I have had no formal Jewish education and even I recognize a lot of these name. All of this gives the appearance of the worst kind of WP:POINT.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I find this discussion slightly disturbing. While it is true that IZAK and I did have a row, that had nothing to do with my abilities as an editor here. Some have said that I disrupted Wikipedia to make a POINT, but what point was that? That there are many articles, regardless of what they pertain to, that merit listing on AfD? The subtitle of WP:POINT is "dont' disrupt Wikipedia to make a point," which I did not do. I listed articles which many agreed with as meriting deletion before SlimVirgin Speedy Kept them. While the merits of SlimVirgin's actions there are debateable, I'd like to know what kind of disruption I made. And to reply to the allegations of bad faith, I will copy what I wrote on IZAK's talk page:

"Uh, I have a lot of Jewish family members, including my father. If you want to make this personal, so be it, but it is hardly bad-faith to list articles that currently meet none of the Wikipedia checkpoints, such as Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Sources, and Wikipedia:NPOV. Just by merely saying "If you were Orthodox, you'd know him" does not make something notable. Such statements need to have third-party references (ie, they can't just be on their personal page) and must be verified, in otherwords, they must be proven to exist. When an article has no sources, it cannot be assumed by a secular institution that something is indeed encyclopaedic. As for groups, there is a certain level of Wikipedia:Notability requirements; in other words, just because something is there, doesn't mean it necesarily deserves an article. There is no article on my Street Association because I can't prove it exists since we've never published anything, nor would an informal organisation of 500-1000 people be encyclopaedic. Please read Wikipedia policy before accusing me of bad faith." Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 00:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

PZFUN: I'm not sure I can take the argument, "what point was that? That there are many articles, regardless of what they pertain to, that merit listing on AfD?" as sufficient. As I noted when voting "strong keep" for many of the articles, you had completely false claims in terms of your reasons for nomination. For instance, you used on many of your nominations "No references, speculative, and reads like an ad. Not notable for Wikipedia" including on the nominations for Moshe Zvi of Savran, where there was a clear reference and the article did not read like an ad, and on Dovber of Mezeritch, which - if you put in any thought before nomination - you should have found that "not notable for Wikipedia" is clearly false as well. It is similarly strange to claim "utterly non-notable" to an organisation with a membership of 8000 (if we have high schools and small townships included in Wikipedia, surely this should qualify), and others with multiple international branches and an 80-year heritage. If you were not making a WP:POINT then you were simply being reckless. jnothman ^talk 00:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is very much WP:POINT — marking tens of articles for deletion with the monlithic, copy-paste "No references, speculative, and reads like an ad. Not notable for Wikipedia" line, regardless if there are references. What I find surprising is NicholasTurnbull's participation in these, with the equally robotic "Delete as per PZFUN." This is highly questionable, at best. El_C 03:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of them I withdrew after having further discussion, however I might bring up Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 00:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not see any withdrawals when looking now. Feel free to bring up verifiability, but until you go and borrow from the library the books referenced clearly at Yekusiel Yehudah Halberstam or Moshe Zvi of Savran, you can neither claim lack of references, or verifiability, or notability. They are clearly referenced! jnothman ^talk 01:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The mass deletion request, particularly of articles created by IZAK, smells of personal vendetta. The fact that a number of them are indeed referenced and the subjects quite clearly notable makes things worse. Speedy keep was obviously the right action under these circumstances. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I certainly would have done the same thing; likely in a less nonconfrontational manner. El_C 03:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I support SlimVirgin's move. A note on PZFUN's talkpage might have helped, but the WP:POINT was showing. JFW | T@lk 19:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is to be commended for her quick and judicious response to these malicious actions not in the best interest of Wikipedia. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, she did it to prevent all kinds of nasty people from making this kind of personal attacks against PZFUN. Unsuccessfully, it now turns out. Kim Bruning 22:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"Nasty people"? Hmm. HKT 03:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record: Haha! I doubt that I am the original writer or creator of any of the articles that were nominated for deletion by PZFUN, and which ones link to my page? Rather, I may have edited a few of them at some time or other over the years, and perhaps I placed them in their respective categories at some time or other, so it is not because of that that I brought this entire exercise into question. My concern/s remain to protect articles and stubs that contain valuable and notable information related to the general subjects of Jews, Judaism and Israel, and NOT to lose them in a hasty drive of "The New Deletionism" that seeks a shortcut to Wikipedia's normal process of seeking improvement and sources which should NOT be pushed aside in favor of hasty deletionistic tendencies which merely create a short circuit, and causes more harm than good as the potential for conflict between editors is raised. IZAK 05:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your ideals but not with your methods. Kim Bruning 22:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Why was it inappropriate for PZFUN to nominate those articles for deletion, and for me to support his various nominations? There was a disagreement between PZFUN and IZAK over a particular AfD, granted, and I did once block IZAK. I accept that. But I can't see really how that had all that much bearing on my ability to vote on Judaism-related articles, and more importantly how that renders PZFUN's nominations illegitimate. If I was forced to stay away from all subjects which I'd ever been in a dispute with a user over, I would almost not be able to edit Wikipedia, if I counted the various cases I've mediated, and the same goes for PZFUN I believe as a very experienced Wikipedian who has contributed a lot to the project. Really, I think it's awful that standards of Wikipedia article quality are somehow suspended merely because the articles in question fall within a single category, or more importantly a category which has heated connotations I suppose. The amount of bad faith cast against PZFUN is even worse, in my opinion, and is quite at odds with the culture of Wikipedia:Assume good faith that we inculcate on Wikipedia. Especially since, at the time of writing, PZFUN appears to have decided to leave the project, deleting his userpage - for merely trying to nominate articles that were substandard for deletion, in accordance with both policy and Wikipedia standards of editorial judgement. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Christopher: If an article is below par, and at the same time also has importance to a significant sub-set of editors (and hence readers) who understand its notability, the logical thing to do is to request that that article be IMPROVED but not to rush headlong into rash VfD votes which, as you can tell, enrages people. Articles or stubs that in some instances took years to collect should not be mass speed deleted willy-nilly, a symptom of the "New Deletionism" which needs to be slowed down to a c r a w l (where is everyone rushing to exactly?) Obviously some fairly wise and knowledgeable editors are willing to give these articles time and the benefit of the doubt because they know something about the subject. Assume good faith, plenty of articles will improve in good time, Wikipedia was not built in a day. IZAK 05:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Let me begin by apologising for posting here if it is not appropriate, as I am not an administrator. I was dragged into this mess by Kim Bruning, and now feel that it is appropriate that I state my case here.

I first encountered PZFUN at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First American-Romanian congregation, where PZFUN was nominating a religious group with over a century worth of history for deletion, and mine was the only keep vote. After several days of monitoring this discussion, as well as PZFUN's contributions, it occurred to me that I should mention PZFUN's recent history of nominating Judaica-related articles for deletion ought to be mentioned, viz: [45]. The strongest language used in my comment was as follows: Much as I like to assume good faith, I can't help but see an agenda here. After reading the discussion here on AN, I see that it is largely agreed that my reaction was exactly what should have been expected as a result of such a mass nomination.

I did (sort of) apologise to PZFUN, but I did so largely because Kim Bruning told me to do so on my Talk page. This in and of itself bothers me. After reading this AN discussion, I do not think that my reaction was unreasonable, and I do not think that Kim Bruning's comments on my talk page were appropriate. This was not simply a matter of sub-sorting. A user who, as far as I could tell, had no user page or talk page nominated Menachem Mendel of Kotzk, and over thirty other Judaica-ralated articles for deletion. Menachem Mendel of Kotzk is a name that I've known since I was twelve years old, and I'm not even Jewish (see my userpage; I'm Hindu). I stand my my assumption; I think that it was reasonable; I think that PZFUN's actions did violate WP:POINT, and I'm offended that I was asked to apologise for having stated such reasonable opinions in such a gentle manner. ergot 01:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll answer on your talk page, I think you did the right thing apologising. Kim Bruning 22:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ergo: Thank you for your wise words! IZAK 05:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

PZFUN and Jewish Summer camps

Why is it very hard to assume that PZFUN is acting in GF when he basically nominated the entire contents of Category: Jewish summer camps, but left the non-Jewish ones in Category:Summer camps alone? --Shuki 23:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF: "...[T]here's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions. If you expect people to assume good faith from you, make sure you demonstrate it. Don't put the burden on others.... This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." HKT 17:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

This campaign by User:PZFUN and User:NicholasTurnbull attempting to massively delete articles pertaining to one particular ethnic group is highly disturbing. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

See below, basically it was a stub category cleanup. Thank god he didn't try to cleanup the schoolsstub category. Kim Bruning 21:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Kim: By the way a number of the articles in question are clearly NOT stubs. IZAK 05:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank goodness, because even more people would have attacked him without reason, that is. Kim Bruning 21:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be routine stub-clearing. The timing (and specificity) of the multiple AfDs reflects what is most likely a personal jab at IZAK. Regardless of prior provocation and incivility, passive-agressive editing is inexcusable (not to mention that it contravenes WP:POINT). Additionally, cursory (5 second) research of some of the articles listed for AfD (such as Israel ben Eliezer) would show that "No references... and reads like an ad" itself reads like a bad joke. As such, one may fault PZFUN, beyond violating WP:POINT by deciding to particularly AfD some of IZAK's interests, for either malice or irresponsibility. Assuming good faith when even marginally reasonable leads me to assume the latter. (By the way, IZAK's recent conduct deserves extensive scrutiny, as well.) HKT 00:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• HKT: NO need to point people my way, they have their own views by now in all probability. IZAK 05:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Re MPerel - It was not a "campaign" - PZFUN merely went through the Judaism categories and found articles that didn't conform to Wikipedia standards of quality - things like copyvios, uncited sources, NPOV issues, lack of notability, etc. all of which are common standards within Wikipedia. That's why I supported his various nominations, because I think there are too many crap articles on Wikipedia. That's all there is to it - I couldn't care less whether the articles were about Judaism, or anything else (vacuum cleaners, road systems, Pokémon, sex toys, etc.), it just happened that PZFUN had found a whole load of bad articles. And besides, PZFUN is of Jewish extraction anyway, so the implication that it the move was ethnically-motivated is frankly ridiculous. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Nicholas: To be repeat: I for one do not believe the issue had anything to do with ethnicity or religion. Let's put that aside. This is a about KNOWLEDGE, FACTS, and LOGIC all of which are essential to function as a respected and honored editor. (People will definitely sense very quickly if one is genuinely knowledgeable about a subject or not as Wikipedia has many experts in many fields and they are quite capable.) Rather I believe the crux of the issues here are about Wikipedians' modus operandi and how Wikipedia functions, how it solicits articles, organizes, digests them, and then finally presents them to the world. I see the creation of Wikipedia articles as a "birthing process" and just as you cannot produce instant humans and expect them to become adults at birth, often what is required is a show of patience and nurturance allowing the material to evolve and grow. This can't be rushed! The way to deal with issues of quality, NPOV, sources, and notability spread out over more than fifty articles is not by seeking the remedy of "The New Deletionism" whereby articles are nominated en masse for deletion. Each article is different and deserves unique attention. The ones about Hasidic Rebbes were written by many Hasidic editors whom we are happy to have, even though they may have a lack of good English writing skills, they bring invaluable information to Wikipedia that cannot be found anywhere else, and we have made great strides. The ones about the Summer Camps are written by more liberal Jews some Reform, Conservative, secular, Zionist writers, basically editors who come from all walk of life, so it's false to label them all as having this or that collective failing when each article needs its own remedies, but does not deserve to be lumped together with all sorts of others not connected to it. You're not being fair when you blithely associate a discussion about Judaism with "sex toys etc" as not all of us are willing to go so far afield. To talk like that is to belittle our seriouness of purpose and challenges our ability to be true Wikipedians always trying to meet the required NPOV standards. It is perfectly correct, logical, and Wikipedian for editors to restrict themselves to areas they feel most comfortable with and not wander all over the place stepping in invisible minefields and causing inevitable disruption when none was necessary. IZAK 05:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The claim that none of the articles nominated for an AFD were verifiable is clearly erroneus, as is the claim that an objective opinion was formed for every single article, almost every single nomination summary was the same, it was a clear cut-and-paste operation. Many of the articles had sources, they just weren't on the internet, they were books that were properly cited at the bottom of the article. Even if it was true that they had no references that does not make the subject any less notable, you do not nominate an article that is about the founder of Hasidism for deletion, you request more sources, or possibly a cleanup (although many of the AFDs didn't even need that). Also the idea that being part Jewish makes his actions any more valid is ridiculous.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It seemed to me, Nicholas, that you didn't actually evaluate the individual articles and voted on the basis of their nomination by PZFUN. That is not assuming good faith, that is following in blind faith. I had assumed that PZFUN was making the nominations for the sake of Wikipedia, and had thought him sincere, but he didn't seem to put enough care into making his nominations truthful. jnothman ^talk 22:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm tough on notability (in my opinion there should not be any articles on summer camps, whether Jewish, Christian or secular) and I would have supported the deletion of many of the articles, but I declined to participate. Nominating several similar articles at once is okay sometimes, but mass nominations are disruptive. People comment on the articles that matter to them and nominating so many articles at once wears them out because they'll want to participate in many or all of the discussions (also they probably have other things on their plate, like creating articles and/or real lives). Most likely, they'll eventually resort to a copied and pasted comment or just say "keep", or they'll assume bad faith never even try to justify the articles on an individual basis. This upsets the nominator and he or she thinks that they are just voting keep because the articles are all about Jewish, Christian or Pokemon topics. Another problem is that some truly notable articles are often nominated along with the cruft, like in this case. This makes the other side think that the nominations were bad faith and makes it even less likely that they will participate in the nominations in a normal manner.

My advice is to not overload AfD participators by nominating too many articles at once. Also, make sure that there is not even one notable article in the group. Don't count on AfD to sort it out. People will probably think that all of your nominations were in bad faith and all of the articles will probably be kept because of that reason. Also, I think that people should assume good faith even if some notable articles get mixed into a mass nomination. Although some nominations may be so blatantly bad faith that this does not apply. If possible, editors should participate in the AfD as if it was a good faith nomination. If there are just too many articles to do this, the nominations should be closed and the truly bad ones should be renominated slowly and carefully. -- Kjkolb 09:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Soliciting votes

Schuminweb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is soliciting votes for a WP:TfD vote. Anyone care to block him? True to form Schuminweb is blatently breaking WP rules (if he isn't unilaterally blanking templates he is trying to tell his friends to vote for the ones he wants. Some things never change. lol FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 09:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)}

When his spamming hit at least 20 and rising, I had to take immediate action. As I was initially involved the vote I am taking no more part in the discussion. I only intervened because at 20 and rising, the spamming had to be stopped immediately and no other admin seemed to be around. But the vote is probably worthless in any case given that he has rigged it. Plus ca change. lol FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 10:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)}

As far as I can ascertain, he only asked them to give their opinion, not to vote one way or another. Without further knowledge of the situation, I'm reluctant to comment further. Johnleemk | Talk 11:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't mean anything, John. If for instance I go around and find 20 people who have said nasty things about Tony Blair and tell them an article on criticisms of Tony Blair's foreign policy is up for deletion, then I'm trying to influence the outcome of the discussion. Even though I haven't actually instructed them what to say, I'm still taking action with a reasonable hope,and an obvious intention, of influencing the final decision. --Tony Sidaway 13:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the template belongs to the WikiProject Anti-war, and all of the people User:SchuminWeb was contacting (along with himself) are listed as members of that WikiProject. This seems legitimate to me, as opposed to cherry-picking spam targets based on previous *fD votes, for example. Of course, leaving a note on the project's talk page would seem the more sensible course in future. I've contacted Jtdirl to suggest unblocking. --bainer (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That seems better, with the caveat that I suspect that there is an issue of whether the membership of that wikiproject is a suitable criterion for selection. Wouldn't you expect editors who put their name to such a project to have a slanted view of warfare? I would. --Tony Sidaway 16:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but as a member of several WikiProjects, I would certainly like to be informed if any of the project's templates were up for deletion (although probably on the project's talk page more than on my talk page). Is the topic a WikiProject writes about grounds for discriminating between it and another WikiProject? --bainer (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually providing a page for communication and coordination is precisely what WikiProjects are for. If you want all members of a wikiproject to know about something relevant to that project, put it either on the project page or its associated talk page. It will show up on people's watchlists. There is never a need to spam people about a wikiproject. --Tony Sidaway 16:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl, could you point out where Schuminweb was warned about not page spamming? I can't seem to find it, all I see is an abrupt block without any warning whatsoever. I'm assuming good faith that you did warn him to stop, and he persisted. (as blocking without asking him first would be assuming bad faith) PS which arb case did talk page spamming come up in? Regards, MartinRe 20:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Regards, MartinRe 20:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I have informed members of the Wikiproject-antiwar of votes for deletion of pages covered by the project before not knowing that this was controvercial.

While I appreciate that there is a case against informing people on their talk page about deletion votes because of vote rigging, informing people who have expressed an interest in the topic in question by joining a wikiproject on that topic seems to me to be appropreate. Yes it is true that a message could just be put on a the project talk page but users are often slow to check that page, checking their talk page more often.

I think that we need to have a debate about the issule in general. If such a discusion has allready taken place please point me to it.--JK the unwise 11:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Re-Opening closed AfD's

• User:HOTR seems to be reopening a whole bunch of AfD's ([46] and [47] for example) that had been closed as Speedy Keep relating to the User:PZFUN controversy..... I assume that he's not supposed to be doing that... - pm_shef 23:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, it probably wasn't the best way of going about it, but it's worked out OK as they've been relisted. Stifle (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yo, diff needs deletion.

(diff removed) --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 01:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't try attempting to delete this page with such a huge history. I've removed the diff for several reasons. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

But... I like the feeling. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 01:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Repeat. Click me to beat me up IRL!--Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 02:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Done Will (^E_@) T 06:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

User persistently uploading copyvio image

Rick lay95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has uploaded Image:ManualStadium.jpg three times today. So far it's been deleted under CSD I7 (bad fair-use claim), CSD I3 (by-permission or non-commercial only), and it's currently tagged with the clearly incorrect tag of {{PD-self}}. The user has a long history of uploading images with problematic information (see the flood of notices by OrphanBot and others on his talk page), and he's been warned about uploading images with false copyright information. --Carnildo 04:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted & warned user. El_C 04:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Iasson blocked indefinitely

User:Iasson has returned with the sock User:Gorbown. Since I'm sure we are all tired of having to unblock and reblock every time he does this, I have just gone ahead and blocked this account indefinitely. Please review, and reduce the ban to one year if you feel this is inappropriate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think this is in keeping with existing practice: people who repeatedly use sockpuppets to evade blocks find those blocks turning into indefinite bans. I wonder if we need to codify this common sense provision? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• No, you've done the right thing (I was considering it too). Mackensen (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• I suspect this might be an imitator rather than the "real" Iasson. Notice that they don't seem to have the weird grammar Iasson always used. Even so, I advocate indef blocking of both the real Iasson and this new one, whoever they may be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleting images

User:Nv8200p continiously deletes the image Image:Tpb.jpg in spite the fact that it is properly tagged, contains the license text as well as source information. The image was tagged for deletion by another user, but the full license text was added later. Nevertheless, User:Nv8200p still deleted the image and continues to do that. Please help to protect the image and to stop the vandalism.--Nixer 15:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The licensing is in Russian. I have no idea whether it says "This license means that the media can be used commercially and allows for derivative use" or not. Perhaps a Russian speaker can translate the license and confirm that the image is properly sourced? Jkelly 16:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Rough translation: Here is a list of my photographs found in your project [list of images]. This list is exhaustive. Other photographs from my site must not be used in your project (with free resale). If you do not have the opportunity to place a direct link to my site under each photograph, then it would be best to delete them from your project. Respectfully. Eugene.

IANAL, but it doesn't seem all that clear. The text isn't a license per se, but a note forbidding Wikipedia's use (allowing for "resale") of any images but the ones listed there; there's nothing explicit about derivative works (or even explicit permission to use the listed images, for that matter). Kirill Lokshin 16:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

So User:Nv8200p was quite correct in deleting this. We have no justification for publishing this particular photographer's tourist photos. Jkelly 16:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the letter, received from the author. If you want to verify the permission, you can e-mail the author.--Nixer 17:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's the wrong way around. If you want to upload this person's work, have them email the permissions address. Their email must indicate a license that allows derivative and commercial reuse. Jkelly 18:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Boilerplate requests for permission has some excellent examples of the kind of permission we need. FreplySpang 20:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The e-mail from the author is included in the image page!--Nixer 20:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, and it doesn't provide the kind of permission we need. FreplySpang 21:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Crazynas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Based on the recent edits looks like Crazynas' account was hacked and compromised by a vandal, and thus was recently blocked indefinitely. Should we also block his bot User:CrazynasBot too for security reasons? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, (1) I didn't see the vandalism like the main account in the history for the bot and (2) I don't know about him, but my bot has a different password than my main admin account. Crazynas is requesting an unblock on his talk page, so he may have control over his account again (as well). Syrthiss 15:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And he's unblocked by Musical Linguist as of 15:51. Syrthiss 15:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears that he loaned his computer out to someone else, and that person, well, you know... [48] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the recent contributions were not to his credit! I blocked indefinitely, but put in the block log that I might ask for a review. Then, with several browser windows open at the same time, I started typing a message to him, and looking through his previous contributions, which were fine. I was going to post a message here, asking for advice, when I saw his {{unblock}}. The six vandalism edits were completely inconsistent with his previous edits, so I had no problem in accepting his statement that someone else had been using his computer. AnnH ♫ 16:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

(trolling removed. sorry Syrthiss, YHBT, HAND. --SB)

??? Syrthiss 17:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Solomaxwell

Solomaxwell (talk · contribs) has not edited since October, then shows up today and makes this edit, then created Been Around the Block Islands. Compromised account? I have blocked indefinitely until we get an explanation. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

A brief review of his previous edits suggests the same taste for silly vandalism. So compromised brain, not compromised account. Keep him blocked. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

User:PIO

PIO (talk · contribs) (somtimes 151.50.xx.xx, Jxy) has been making very strong POV edits in regards to Josip Broz Tito, which has been protected as a result (rv war). he has now moved onto other topics like istrian exodus where he has basically been making the same edits. I have repeatedly tried to get him into a discussion on the first topic, but whenever he is proven wrong he has a "temper tantrum" or ignores it. I have warned him before on his talk page, but he continues. --Zivan56 21:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)