Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive42

Rouge Admin

Has anyone seen the Wikipedia Rouge Admin game? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.200 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Jimbo Wales - mostly just wanders around :)" My God, it's exactly like real life. Excellent! No highscore chart though? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There ought to be a MMORPG version of this. Oh wait... -- grm_wnr Esc 19:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've always wondered about this: if we have "rouge" admins, do we also have foundation admins? Eyeliner admins? Eye shadow admins? Mascara admins? *ducks under barrage of rotten tomatoes* ;) RadioKirk talk to me 21:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The Foundation admins are sysops at http://wikimediafoundation.org. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 13:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I knew someone was going to mention that... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 14:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

We should use this to train new admins. Sasquatch t|c 21:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, no stewards in the game. :] Kimchi.sg 13:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth I underwent my rouge training in Nethack, having Ascended ... five or six different classes, I kind of lost track. --Cyde↔Weys 14:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, bringing back the old times, I had v 1. something of nethack as a game on my first computer--an 8086 with a 20mb hard drive. The later versions never seemed to carry the same luster. A simple hex editor and you had all the hit points, etc you wanted! Still not enough to win the game, but I'm not sure if that makes me more or less of a loser. :) I'll have to try the rouge game. - Taxman ^Talk 22:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I've caused a problem at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

To make a long story short, I think I forgot to include "noinclude" when nominating Template:User Golfer woods for speedy deletion. It's been deleted, so I would have guessed that the user pages would no longer be listed as candidates for speedy deletion and that the problem would now be moot. There are still 4 user pages up for deletion, though (oddly enough, User:Maphi, who has the said template transcluded, is not up for deletion). I've tried a variety of refreshes and purges, but nothing has worked. Ardric47 05:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but null edits (via the popup tool) seemed to work. --AySz88^-^ 06:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought the need for null edits went away when they fixed some problem or problems recently, but I guess not. Ardric47 06:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears to depend on exactly what kind of null edit is needed. A change to the category on a template that is transcluded will repopulate the category very quickly. I've noticed however that if something is deleted with the category still intact, the article will continue to show up in the category for a while (forever? I haven't gone back to look) and may need a null edit if its a concern. Syrthiss 11:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That would explain a few other, unrelated, things that I've been wondering about. Thanks! Ardric47 23:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know null edits should never be necessary, however the time required for such problems to fix themselves varies depending on the length of the job queue, see Special:Statistics. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This was not a job queue issue; the job queue had been empty for a long time. Ardric47 05:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent page move to Yogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath

There was a recent page move that was put into effect from Sidhoji Rao Shitole to the above page. The result was that the edit history of the above page was wiped out - which was a mistake. The page move should have been a simple redirect, but the admin who put it in didn't read the discussion page carefully. As a result, 4 months worth of edit histories were wiped out, and a previously protected page (Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath) was replaced with a mock-up that was thrown together on the redirect page Sidhoji Rao Shitole. I'm requesting that the edit history of the Yogiraj page be restored so that the full record of 4 months worth of edit history not be lost. Hamsacharya dan 14:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hamsacharya dan is being a bit misleading here. The consensus (4-1) was specifically for a page move, with only himself calling for a redirect, as can be seen at Talk:Sidhoji Rao Shitole. There are, I believe, no objections to merging the page histories, provided that the intent is not to resurrect old disputed content. However, a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hamsacharya dan might be in order before determining whether restoration of the old edit history would be a wise idea. Most of the complaints in this RfC involve Hamsacharya dan's attempts to subvert consensus and moderation through edit warring involving this specific article. —Hanuman Das 18:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that we agree that merging histories is in order. Hanuman Das - I have a copy on my harddrive of the old Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath page. If I wanted to, I could have restored it any time I want to. I'm asking for the edit history to be restored for record, not so I can start messing with the content. This is not about you or me or edit warring. And it was 3:2 not 4:1 on the simple redirect. And the 3 was you and the other "2" usernames that you used to sockpuppet around with. To all admins: By all means - please take a look at the requests for comment page - that way everybody on wikipedia will see how much of an idiotic rivalry this is. Hamsacharya dan 07:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian views of Hanukkah

Hi guys, I would very much appreciate it if someone went over my closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian views of Hanukkah. This has gone to something of an argumentative Deletion Review and I would welcome some experienced eyes having a look. I am fairly sure that I made the right decision but, rather unsurprisingly, some people are very upset with the result and are highjacking the review to this end. I do not wish to appear to be vote chasing, but the existence of the process implies that I have made a pretty major error of judgement, something I take very seriously, and I would like some neutral eyes to evaluate it. Thanks for reading. Rje 20:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like you called it right to me. The article lacked sources and looked mainly like original research. It was not clear that there was a viable topic. The AfD itself had a consensus to delete. Metamagician3000 05:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Roman military tactics

Could someone take a look at this article? Is this "license" Wikipedia-compatible? If it is, should it? —Ruud 02:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, images should either (A) be under a free license, or (B) meet the fair use rules. These images are probably neither, since the permission in question (if it indeed has been given at all) sounds suspiciously like a "for Wikipedia only" or "for educational use only" type of permission. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the actual permission here it is definitely not broad enough for these to be considered free images. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The man told me we could use them if we included a disclaimer of sorts. We did that so what's the problem then? Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 12:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-Admin Closing AfDs?

I am concerned that User:Mostly Rainy is closing AfDs without being an Admin. Contribs: [1] --mtz206 (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Where the outcome is uncontroversial, and does not involve deletion, non-admins are welcome (encouraged!) to close AfDs. Flicking through the constibutions this seems to be what Mostly Rainy is doing. If there are specific closures that go against this principle please provide examples. The Land 12:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok - I didn't know that was allowed. No prob. thanks. --mtz206 (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Try it yourself sometime ;-) The Land 18:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

He/she does not appear, though, to have placed the AfD result notices on the talk pages of the respective articles; I'll try to get them all but someone should check to ensure I've not missed any. Joe 21:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

More details on this procedure can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-Administrators_closing_discussions. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I too closed a fair number of Afd discussions before I became admin. It certainly helped reduce all of the things I needed to learn once I got the new shiny buttons. --Cyde↔Weys 01:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Me too, I closed AfDs as a non-admin when they were still called VfD, and before they said that non-admins can only close unambiguous votes. Back then, the only limit non-admins had was that we couldn't close Delete votes (for obvious reasons). I closed a lot of "No consensus" votes, but I'm sure if non-admins did those now, they'd get a bit of a talking-to. Ah, the good ol' days!. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

USER:69.250.94.172

69.250.94.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) If you look at these contributions you can see a pattern of vandalism, and trollish taunting. I would like to see a short block to alert this user that leaving stupid statements about an AfD is not tolerated. Dominick ^(TALK) 01:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User was not warned, I've pointed the user to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, if the user continues then a block might be warranted. JoshuaZ 01:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Sturm

I can assure you that I hate to type this message, but it looks like the discussion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Sturm is rapidly spinning out of control. I sent a message to one of the more flame-happy participants and reminded his of WP:NPA, but I have a feeling that will have only limited impact. One of the participants also reported that the subject of the article in question (a radio host) reported on the condition of the AFD on his radio show and encouraged listeners to join in the "vote". Needless to say, I see this AFD becoming a large vandalism target very soon. I'm going to keep my eye on it, but there's really only so much one person can do, (especially a non-admin), so if others (especially you admins) wanted to keep an eye on things too, it would be helpful. TIA --Bachrach44 01:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Rappy30V2 and User:216.164.203.90

I have just blocked User:216.164.203.90 indefinitely for creating User:Rappy30V2 (also blocked indefinitely) to continue violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. See here and both users' contribs for evidence, and feel free to review. RadioKirk talk to me 01:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's rather unusal to block an IP indefinitely. Is there an urgency to do so? I'm not familiar with the history of that account, but it mentions something about vandalism experiments or whatnot from a known user? Anyway, I am a bit uncomfortable with the block, but I don't see any urgency to unblock it at the moment...we can say, wait 24-48 hours and do the unblocking, and temporarily let the indefinite block stand while some discussion takes place. Does this sound good? --HappyCamper 01:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The IP was just blocked for a week, so I think a month is in order as the person just continued where he left of. But I agree, the IP could move to another user in the future, so indef block seems not right. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I considered that when making the block; however, I've mentioned to others that "indefinite" and "permanent" are not synonymous, and I'll act the fool for the moment and remind those who already know this fact (sorry...). :) RadioKirk talk to me 01:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, and based on his behaviour, I do not mind the indef block, I was more thinking ahead towards others in the future that could get that IP-number. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no worries :-) I did a reblocking for a month. Actually, I am contemplating the unusal step of protecting the talk page as well. It seems that the IP has an inclination for attracting attention for the purposes of disruption. What do others think? --HappyCamper 02:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Not yet, please. RadioKirk talk to me 02:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well, we'll leave things at that then. Oh! I missed the note that the account was aslo blocked indefinitely. That's a good call I think. --HappyCamper 02:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks primarily to this lovely series of attacks on Wikipedia, User:Rappy30V3 also has been indef-blocked as yet another sock, and all user talk pages have been vprotected per WP:NPA and WP:POINT. This editor is right about one thing: we can't stop him forever, nor do we need to—only until he grows up. :) RadioKirk talk to me 22:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/85.91.128.141

The anonymous user is a sockpuppet of User:Хаха (see evidence, [2], [3]). The user should currently be blocked for 24 hours for 3RR on List of cities in Bulgaria. However 85.91.128.141 is evading the block, please block the IP address.  /FunkyFly.talk_   02:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears this one's already being dealt with, for the moment. RadioKirk talk to me 15:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

American Idol vandalism

Can an administrator please protect the American Idol page from IPs and inexperienced users? I am having difficulty controlling continued vandalism without disobeying the 3RR. Thank you. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 02:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You need not worry about the 3RR if you are removing vandalism :-) Keep up the good work! --HappyCamper 02:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Request Formal Vote Oversight

Back in the various flamewars on Talk:Tsushima Island, SlimVirgin oversaw a binding formal vote for that devisive renaming controversy. Currently, whether Wikipedia articles are 'ebook, eBook, or e-book', while not as devisive, are fundamentally costing producivity pending an outcome. Guidelines1, Policy2, are singularly unhelpful. We've been progressing slowly and steadily, but it would be good to have this made into a binding vote as it is clear our world itself (See 2.) is unsettled on this issue. But we have an encyclopedia to write. I've pumped for increased traffic. All we need is meet guidlines under YOUR(?) guidance. Can you lend a hand? Best regards, // FrankB 03:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No binding decisions might be helpful. -M^ask 04:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please block Middle East Editor

Please block the user Middle East Editor. This user's only contribution is to repeatedly revert the content of the Alireza Jafarzadeh article from a well referenced version to a poor quality version with little detail. I have posted several escalating vandalism warnings on the user's talk page, however Middle East Editor has not bothered to edit a user page so the warnings are unlikely to be noticed. There have been several attempts to improve and expand the Alireza Jafarzadeh article in the past, each thwarted by revisions from Middle East Editor. The article is protected against anonymous editors, but still vulnerable to this serial pest. The line has to be drawn somewhere. --Dave 11:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Content dispute, edits are extremely sporadic (he edited on the 22nd and 24th, and that 1 edit per two days was the most frequently he's ever edited), no reason to take administrative action. Just revert him. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

New Category for all to use

One of the things that I've lamented since I got to Wikipedia is that "Requested Articles" and "Requests for expansion" are off in a corner and not altogether well maintained. I got an idea the other day, though: Given that categories are really easy to see, really easy to search, and really well indexed, and amazingly easy to depopulate and populate, why not use those? Furthermore, there is no project page needed. Therefore I have created Category:Red list. A lot of us keep lists of articles we want to write or articles that we mean to get around to researching. Sometimes we want those to be private and don't want people to sneak in and "steal" our topics. Most of the time, though, we don't care who writes the article: we just want someone with an interest to do it. In the latter case, all you need to do is apply the category tag to the redlink list that you've put in your user talk space, and then folks'll be able to see what they can do to help. I'm not a programmer, and I stink at category manipulation, but if we can subcat this appropriately (Red list:Literature: Poetry: 17th century), it would be even more useful. This will work, if we use it. Geogre 12:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Lost history of Category:GULAG in move to Category:Gulag

Apparently it was recently deleted with move done by copy-and-pasting. Please restore the history. --Malyctenar 13:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It can't be restored because pages can't be moved within Category namespace. I'll copy and paste the page history onto the talk page at the new location: this is the best we can do, and it's the same as for the transwiki process. -- Francs2000 13:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

24.12.158.51 continues vandalism the day after block expired

I have reported this user (24.12.158.51) multiple times under all his sock puppets (see User:Atticus765 and Sock puppets of Atticus765). After showing no reaction to warnings on his talk pages, he was finally blocked for a week on May 16 and continued to vandalise the exact same pages as before the day his block expired. I for my part am sick and tired of reverting his changes every other day, and I think admins would do me, the other editors and this website a favor by blocking him permanently. --HarryCane 14:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments on a talk page appear to have been altered to change their meaning

Hi. It looks like some comments I left on User talk:Davins111 may have been edited by another user in an attempt to change their intended meaning. Is there a warning template I can leave that would be appropriate for this? If this is not the right venue for this question, please do point me in the right direction and I would be happy to go elsewhere (or nowhere). --Takeel 14:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Davins111 altered them. I have now restored them and warned them against changing warnings left on their page. Syrthiss 14:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I see now. Thank you. --Takeel 14:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User IP 38.100.80.101

Began harrassment with insults and foul language in Persian on May 23 at 20:44 UTC IP number 38.100.80.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This was on the Kurdish People Discussion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.160.15 (talk • contribs)

Platypus

Could an admin please take a look at this article and the abuse going on by several new accounts. I have reverted and warned with no affect. Also, one of the accounts User:Otheruses has now turned to vandalizing my talk page with vandalim. Thanks. --Hetar 15:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

On my way (I am not an admin however), but I have a look. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Along with sockpuppets. See block log. — FireFox (U T C) 16:07, 25 May '06

This is part of the stately set of User:Duck-billed platypus socks that also attacked Echidna and User:UtherSRG. Femto 21:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage

Could someone look into the names at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage and approve those who qualify? I've been waiting patiently. (I have at least 3128 edits, if numbers are a big deal.) Thanks. --Elkman 16:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

All listed have been added. Naconkantari 17:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Description of deleted image

An anon is claiming on my talkpage that the image Image:Fredandjack.jpg "had source info and qualified as public domain", and is hinting that "OrphanBot's deletion of it" constitutes vandalism. OrphanBot's logs indicate that the image was tagged as "no license", so could someone check to see if the image description page had a plausable claim that the image was in the public domain? Thanks. --Carnildo 19:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

image from atlantasundaypaper.com {{no license|month=May|day=3|year=2006}} Removed from the following pages: #[[Fred Toucher]] --[[User:OrphanBot|OrphanBot]] 07:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Jkelly 19:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there was never any other information in the image description page history. Jkelly 19:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Carnildo 20:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Along the same lines, could someone temporarily undelete the image description page for Image:USSCobia.jpg? It appears that OrphanBot made a mistake when tagging it, and the history will let me figure out what the bug is. (The deletion was not a mistake: the image was licensed under a no-commercial-use Creative Commons license). --Carnildo 22:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Two revisions restored. Jkelly 22:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Found and fixed two bugs related to this. One would cause OrphanBot to tag something as "no info" if a Creative Commons license was selected in the license dropdown, and a license tag was entered at the end of the upload summary. The other would cause OrphanBot to not tag an image if it only had a license tag that takes one or more parameters (such as {{Non-free fair use in}}). --Carnildo 22:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Redeleted. Jkelly 22:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock backlog

There's currently 85 talk pages in this category. I blocked a user earlier today, he appealed using {{unblock}} but given this backlog it's likely that his block will expire on its own before someone looks at it. I've unblocked a token few but I'm going to bed now. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with clearing the backlog is that I dealt with two (denied a stupid request, listed an open proxy who claimed to have been closed on WP:OP), and then the next two I looked at were shared IPs that had been blocked for long periods of time and claimed collateral damage... while my instinct is to unblock, I don't like to do it without discussing with the blocking admin, and I don't have the time to do that right now. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Turns out that someone edited {{sharedip}} to included the unblock template. I rolled that back so you should see a lot less in the category now. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 23:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There are real-time reports of each use of the {{unblock}} template in the #vandalism-en-wp IRC channel, as well as #vcn-unblock, if any admins who use IRC would like to keep track. The main problem is, vandals tend to continue using the template, even when multiple admins have refused to unblock, and it grows to a point that you begin ignoring the reports. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• The other problems is that people don't remove the template once reviewed. So users remain in the cateogry. --pgk^(talk) 06:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'll try to have a look at them when I'm free (i.e. about 30 mins)... NSLE _(T+C) at 06:35 UTC (2006-05-26)
  • Cleared up to P, not including IP addresses. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:26 UTC (2006-05-26)

Accounts are cleared, apart from a couple where I'm waiting on input from the blocking admin (Tormender and Wellstone, so don't bother with those). Just the 24 IP addresses to go now. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Backlog cleared, thanks everyone. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Page move request

Can someone move Apt Pupil (movie) to Apt Pupil (film) (which is currently a redirect). Thanks Arniep 02:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. :) RadioKirk talk to me 03:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFPM springs to mind --pgk^(talk) 12:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to me it doesn't. If it's an uncontroversial move over a redirect - and the admin checks the page and talk first - why make the user go through that bureaucracy? Of course we have the right to say "it's controversial, go over there" or indeed not answer at all, but this kind of boring stuff is actually what we're here for. --kingboyk 13:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur; that's why I went ahead and did it, because it was uncontroversial and followed the convention anyway. :) RadioKirk talk to me 13:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Arniep 14:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Was there any particular reason for deleting the resulting redirect? Normally these are left alone, in case somebody wants to link to them again. — sjorford++ 16:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If there was, I can't recall... I've restored it, thanks for catching that. :) RadioKirk talk to me 16:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

what if...

What would happen if the communism vandal decided to create a new account, and started using vandal proof to revert vandalism for several months without exerting efffort, then used this history of vandalism fighting to run for adminship, then finally revealed his true wicked nature after it was too late, and went on a vandalism spree deleting every single image on wikipedia and replacing them with the hammer and sickle? could anything be done to stop this?--152.163.100.200 02:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

*cough*WP:BEANS*cough* RadioKirk talk to me 14:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

He would be blocked and desysopped within minutes, and the vandalism quickly repaired. The usefull work he had done in the prior months to become an admin would by far outweigh the work we'd have to do to undo the vandalism. Shanes 02:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Troll alert. This user previously posted the following suggestion to Village Pump:

"I've noticed that approximatly 99.9999% of wikipedia vandalism, by ip users seems to come from the same ip range,

NetRange: 1.0.0.0 - 255.255.255.255

I suggest that if it were blocked, nearly all vandalism could be ceased indefintly."

Arniep 14:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's a "troll" with a sense of humor... RadioKirk talk to me 14:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

They seem to have a history of vandalizing this page [4], [5]. [6]. Arniep 14:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually the entire edit history seems to be suspicious [7], [8], [9]. Arniep 14:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

My IP is 127.0.0.1. I dare all the hackers out there to run a DoS attack on me. Come on, I double dare ya! --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Okay, old threat, I know.

New system log

Anyone know what is up with the new "oversight log"? Prodego ^talk 02:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It has to do with the new Special:Hiderevisions page, which is currently being developed. (more info) Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics & Copyright

Are song lyrics copyrighted? I ask because a user added the lyrics to No More Tears (song). (I haven't recently checked his other contribs yet). I do know of how many sites that have song lyric listings out there (which caused me to question if it is so), but I also know that just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's legal, therefore I thought I would ask before reverting. Thanks a bunch! Charlie^{( @CIRL | talk | email )} 02:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of song lyrics cannot be posted on Wikipedia, because they are not compatible with the GFDL. Even those that are compatible, which for the most part means in the public domain, would belong at our sister project Wikisource. And if you are unsure if something is in the public domain, please do not assume it is, because it most likely isn't.--Sean Black 02:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I'll remember that in the future --Charlie^{( @CIRL | talk | email )} 03:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You can quote any copyrighted text as long as you do it sparingly, that falls under "fair use". Haukur 12:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo

For harassment involving citation of an external website dedicated to the harassment of Wikipedians [10], Terryeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked by me for the maximum of one week permitted under his personal attack parole [11]. I think that in this case a considerable extension of the blocking period is merited.

Thoughts? --Tony Sidaway 03:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Support...block all time wasting trolls.--MONGO 04:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is a sufficient pattern of editing the talk pages disruptively too, suggest asking Arbcom to modify the article ban to include talk pages. Thatcher131 11:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that all that Terryeo is now doing is arguing with other editors on the talk pages of Scientology-related articles, having been banned from editing the actual articles. He has shown no interest in editing anywhere else in Wikipedia. I'm not advocating any particular course of action here, but I have to ask the question: what are we gaining from his continued participation in this project? -- ChrisO 18:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

American Idol (Season 5)

Can I get as many admins as possible to add this to their WL? We have a situation where a bunch of IP users are trying to add a "Finale Rundown", which is not on any of the other Idol articles. Plus it's very ripe to vandalism right now anyway. Thank you. --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Changes in semi-protection templates

It would be nice to have more participation in the ongoing discussion at Template:Sprotected. The template has been rewritten a few times in the last few days but there isn't a strong consensus on a particular version. Some editors want to make it primarily or exclusively a talk page template. Haukur 12:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

blink-182

A troll (REDROCKET) keeps changing "blink-182 was" to "blink-182 is" on the blink-182 article. "blink-182 was" is correct because the band has been "indefinite hiatus" since early 2005 and months later on a news article, the singer (Tom DeLonge) said that he hasn't spoken to the rest of the members since then. I've tried discussing this on the article's talk page, but no one replied yet. After I keep changing back "blink-182 is" to "blink-182 was", the troll later keeps changing it back "blink-182 was" to "blink-182 is" back as well. So, please ban the troll as soon as possible and thanks for anything you could provide. 64.142.89.105 13:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've left a note on the user's talk page. Meantime, I need to remind you of tho things: calling someone a "troll" over a content dispute violates Wikipolicy against personal attacks; and, Merriam-Webster defines hiatus as "an interruption in time or continuity", suggesting a temporary state. I personally would be inclined to use "is" until band members announce they're done. RadioKirk talk to me 14:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Update and request for input

This edit war continues and I'd like some input. The reporting user above (64.142.89.105) and a second user (65.222.216.15) appear to be tag-teaming in an effort to push the POV (see this edit summary). Each user has reverted an attempt to find a compromise that removes the "was/is" argument from the equation. I highly suspect these users know each other (at the very least)—one IP resolves to the South San Francisco Bay Area, the other to a North Bay company that serves the South Bay, and they revert nearly in turn, likely to avoid WP:3RR. Their contribs, if nothing else, show nearly identical interests. See also my attempt to find a compromise. RadioKirk talk to me 19:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Second compromise attempt. RadioKirk talk to me 01:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

school threat

Can I get some admins to weigh in on speedy deleted article Mike ponting by Satancheese (talk · contribs) describing a school shooting today. Possible personal attack article, possible threat. In particular, do we inform the school? - BanyanTree 14:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I know it's different in the US, but the chance of an English schoolkid getting his hands on "an SMG, 2 AK-47s and a Spaz Shotgun" is between none and bugger-all. I'll give the kid a warning but personally, I wouldn't inform the school. Kids are always writing nonsense like this, it's more sad than just when someone rats on them and gets them suspended or expelled. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've blocked the creator, User:Satancheese per WP:U: "Names of religious figures such as "God," "Jehovah," "Buddha," or "Allah", which may offend other people's beliefs". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for your input. There was an actual plot recently by schoolkids in the town next to the one in which I grew up and I take this and responsibility to rat quite seriously (as a person, if not as an admin), but the English school bit had given me pause. I am leaving it be. - BanyanTree 15:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I really hope I don't feel like a fool tomorrow, but if someone was planning a shooting, they wouldn't post it on wikipedia. Most likely someone who doesn't like the supposed perpetrator put it up to stir up trouble. This is nothing more than the high-tech equivalent of writing on the bathroom wall. I think Sam's actions were appropriate and proportionate. --Bachrach44 16:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to Elitism

I have indefinitely blocked Great Young Jake Remington (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Raging Lavas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Ligas Teacher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who all added the {{delete}} tag to Elitism, and have no other edits. Great Young Jake Remington left an edit summary of "Still here, and I won" [12]. Vandal may return with more socks. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's the North Carolina Vandal, bragging that he has a new IP range (63.19.128.0/17 no longer blocks him). If anyone has ideas on how to deal with this pest, I'm all ears. Antandrus (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been trying to help, but this one is a bit much. I think one of y'all is going to have to figure out how to shut it down. Kukini 15:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* The page is protected... again... RadioKirk talk to me 15:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Question...is there a way of protecting it from new users? Perhaps leaving it open to editing from users with a longer history might work. If you just did that, my apologies. Kukini 15:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I just put in a request for checkuser ([13]) since range blocks are the best way to stop him. Thanks everyone. Antandrus (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

And remember: any username containing "Jake Remington" or something resembling that should be blocked without prejudice. 19:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Deadcorpse

The contents of this user's userpage concern me. The misattributed quotes, composed of attacks on politicians, Jews, etc. - it's inappropriate contents for an encyclopedia. Perhaps it should be deleted? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've cleared out the trolling and deleted one edit with a threat as a summary.Voice-of-All^Talk 18:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Jew

Can someone please make sure the right thing happens at Talk:Friedrich List#Restored the section about List's view of Jews? WAS 4.250 19:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Cite.php broken?

Seems like cite.php and the references tags are not working. Here is an example from Bangladesh:

1. ^ ([[#CITEREFBharadwaj2003|Bharadwaj 2003]])
2. ^ ([[#CITEREFXinhua2006|Xinhua 2006]])
3. ^ a b ([[#CITEREFEaton1996|Eaton 1996]])
4. ([[#CITEREFBaxter1997|Baxter 1997]], pp. 23-28)

Note that, this is a common problem to all of the pages that use the cite.php style references.

--Ragib 20:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I just did a null edit on The KLF which has ~80 cite.php refs and it's fine. Bangladesh does indeed look to be broken though... ?? --kingboyk 20:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Check out Rabindranath Tagore as well. I should elaborate that references pointing to {{Harv}} style notations are not showing up. --Ragib 21:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly not all articles using cite.php; History of Earth's references are working fine. I agree; perhaps it is somehow related to {{Harv}}. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is something wrong with {{Harv}}; in fact, it looks like there is an error with the {{wikilink}}. AndyZ _t 22:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it has nothing at all to do with cite.php, take a look at the {{wikilink|1=WP:LEAD|2=lead}} of Mormonism, which also shows the same thing. Not sure what's wrong though.. the last time this template was edited was a lot earlier this May, Template:wikilink was last editing in April; there are no recent changes to explain why it isn't working. AndyZ _t 22:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That leaves me perplexed. I'm more than 100% sure that the articles which use {{Harv}} style listing for references worked fine with cite.php, right until a day or two ago. The articles I mentioned are all FA's, and the Tagore article was on the main page on May 7. I think something broke with Harv style notations/references because only articles with that style seem to be affected. See also, Kolkata. That too had Harv style references and showing the same garvled refs. --Ragib 23:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think: |<nowiki>#</nowiki>CITEREF{{{1|}}}{{{2|}}}{{{3|}}}{{{4|}}}{{{5|}}} is generating the problems, for example: {{wikilink|Bangladesh#History|this link}} works, but {{wikilink|Bangladesh#History|this}} doesn't. But I have no clue why, since it was working before. AndyZ _t 01:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It might be related to this. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that would explain it. The <nowiki> tag has to be removed from {{Harv}} then. AndyZ _t 01:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was a lot easier than I thought it would be- (I hope) it now works. AndyZ _t 02:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

68.4.58.77 + User:1028

68.4.58.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 1028 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

diff, diff, diff. I don't know what to call this, vandalism? crap? Reverted all three times, user is up to test4 (one warning was made for three vandalisms on my talk) but I figured I'd leave it here to see if an admin wants to do more. User was already blocked for vandalism, now he's doing the same thing again (some people just don't have the capacity to learn from one's mistakes).

Thanks, — Nathan ^(talk) 06:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think an indef block for 1028. I see endless vandalism warnings. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 07:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If nobody gets back to me, I think I'll just do it. Agreed? --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Totally. This user has been harassing Academic Challenger for a long time, too. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll get rid of the user merely by blocking this particular account, but at least it's a gesture. Bishonen | talk 21:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC).

I think the IP might get hit in an autoblock if I block the account since I suspect they are the same person... I'd like someone else to support this before I go and do it. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

After this edit I have no problem with an indef block of 1028 and a healthy block for the IP. JoshuaZ 01:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If I make one more vandalistic edit, then block me indefinitely, but if I don't make one ever again, don't block me. 1028 03:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Major collateral damage

Major collateral damage... Special:Ipblocklist. Could someone in the know about this case please handle this? NSLE _(T+C) at 02:14 UTC (2006-05-27)

I think we got 'em all now. Thanks! Antandrus (talk) 02:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Blatant Funny Bunny Sockpuppet

If blanking User:Funnybunny's page isn't a problem, then the username is. The Gerg 03:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• 02:13, 27 May 2006 Kungfuadam blocked "Blatant Funny Bunny Sockpuppet (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (vandalism)

--Ryan Delaney ^talk 07:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpupet vandalism, acting strangely like squidward proxy, on Today's FA

I don't know excatly what is happening here, but if you look on the history of todays featured article which has been protcted, 5 or 6 users with very few contributions, most likely sockpupuets, have made the exact same vandalizing edit, with the exact same edit summary. They blank the page, and then put a vandalzing pic on. This is just like the squidward bot. I'm not sure if this is another vandalism progarm staring up, but whatever it is, admins need to take a look. Tobyk777 03:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a well known vandal, and it's coming from the semi-static 172 AOL range. All we can do is watch, revert, and block, and we've been doing just that for the last several hours. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And when the heck will we finally only allow AOL users to edit when logged in? Wondering and waiting for years, Infrogmation 06:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

In this case not sure it would help, some of the users I looked at had been created a couple of weeks ago. --pgk^(talk) 10:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, they're playing with the block system to make things work better, but I don't know that it would solve this problem. However, the AOL vandals have been out tonight in force; I've had to unblock collateral damage on WBardwin 5 times so far. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll

There is currently a poll running at Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll (or at least, it's about to start). May I be so bold as to suggest to admins that we monitor the poll, then start enforcing what is decided? We all have better things to do than worry about things like the naming conventions of U.S. State routes. The amount of effort wasted on this topic should have been expended on the article content itself. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

65.184.17.216

This user is making some rather strange allegations. On their talk page they claim that User:Cumberbunds IP resolves to User:Gwernol [14].

On Talk:Stephanie Adams they claim that they are in a "in a circle with Jimbo" and can't be blocked [15]. Later on the same page they make some wild claims in the first paragragh. I assume the user they are referring to is Gwernol [16].

The on User talk:TigerShark they say that he will be removed as admin [17]. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed this user making some unlikely claims - of being an admin who can't be bothered to log in, of knowing the IP addresses of people who have logged in, and so forth. FreplySpang 19:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

June 6

According to my (1+ edits) marking tool for the new user log, for users around May 3rd and below, 90% have absolutely no edits. I wonder if this is some sort of sleeper attack. I am considering blocking inactive sleepers. Maybe I'll make a bot that dumps them into a list on a subpage of mine.Voice-of-All^Talk 09:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite possibly. However, a lot of legitimate people register long before they start editing, and I don't know how you'd be able to tell them apart... Petros471 09:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

They could always request an unblock. Hmmm....perhaps I'll focus on even older accounts, and maybe the names might also gives some clues to be sure.Voice-of-All^Talk 09:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I noticed that the very recent newbiews and the ones who could easily edit semiprotect pages have about the same percent (73-78) chance of having edited anything. It seems like either they may an account and get started or just sit there, by and large.Voice-of-All^Talk 09:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Does the tool count deleted edits? On new pages, very little of the obvious nonsense comes from established users, so... --Calton | Talk 09:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that most (the vast majority, really) of registered usernames go unused. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Unused for editing =/= unused. There's a lot that are created just to log in and avoid IP messages... Shimgray | talk | 10:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, we even encourage them to do so. I'm sure many accounts also exist so the user can select their own preferences (like a choice of skin, for example). --bainer (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Will it really matter if they are blocked yet never edit, they can always request to reactivate it. I don't know.Voice-of-All^Talk 19:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

See the related discussion at Wikipedia:Usurpation. Thatcher131 11:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

A new speedy template

I added one (Db-nn-webcomic) for non-notable webcomics (because there are way too many nn wecomicds on AfD). Please add it to the CSD page. Thank you. Raichu 16:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no CSD criterion for webcomics. The template should therefore be deleted. Ral315 (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you come up with the criterion and propose it, then make the template to make it easier once articles are regularly being deleted under it.--Sean Black 17:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and given this, I've deleted the templat. Anyone who wishes to comment and/or criticise this action is welcome to do so here, on my talk page, via email, IRC, smoke signals, or whatever form of communication they prefer.--Sean Black 17:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, do we need a speedy deletion template to place on inappropriate speedy deletion templates? Joe 17:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No, because that would just lead to edit warring over if it should be used on CSD T1 and T2. --Carnildo 20:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Nikitchenko

Nikitchenko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken to attacking other editors, in some cases using the Hivemind site, which is expressly designed for harassment of Wikipedia editors. After a brief block by MarkGallagher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) he has come back and started editing abusively, including three quotations of the hivemind site, which he describes as a site that "works towards exposing abusive WIkipedians, specifically admins and arbitrators" [18].

I've blocked him for forty-eight hours for this repeated harassment. In view of his appalling behavior, I recommend that we block him indefinitely. --Tony Sidaway 19:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest we move this conversation to WP:ANI#User:Nikitchenko linking to Wikipedia Review? Purely because I got there first :-). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do so. I'll make any further comments on that page. --Tony Sidaway

Image protection

Would another administrator with the technical capabilities to save a .svg image upload Image:Flag of Indonesia.svg and then protect it? The flag is on the main page right now and should once uploaded and protected, should be tagged with {{c-uploaded}}. Right now, only the image page has been protected, but because it the image is from Commons and has not been uploaded onto Wikipedia, any changes in Commons would be reflected here, leaving the image up for vandalism. Because my computer can't support saving .svg files, I've temporarily uploaded the flag in a .png file format, protected it, and changed it for the time being. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Flag of Pakistan.svg needs the same thing; I've changed the image to a .png version until this can be done. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for quasi-protection

Hello, all: I've written up Wikipedia:Quasi-protection policy, a proposal similar to semi-protection that would effectively limit sleeper accounts used to vandalize articles linked from the Main Page. I know that I've written a lot, and at first glance, the proposal may seem daunting. However, I truly believe that this would immensely improve Wikipedia and implore you to read it through and offer your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Mailing list for unblock requests?

Currently a lot of requests for unblocking (both from people hit as collateral damage form other blocks and people blocked for cause) come in to info-en, the regular mailing list, and to random admins' email addresses. This is not really an ideal situation. The mailing list just isn't the place anymore; posts from users who aren't subscribed get stuck in moderation, and admins who are happy to do blocking and unblocking but don't care about hundred-post licensing debates don't subscribe to it. The info-en address has limited staff, and isn't meant for this sort of request, and a random admin may or may not be around to answer.

Is there any support for an admin "hotline" list, publicly accessible, to be linked from the block message, where blocked users can go to complain and get a pool of interested admins to answer?

Note that this is not meant for users to be able to "shop around" for an admin to unblock! Just that a lot of users are pretty clueless when they find themselves blocked, especially if they're on a shared or dynamic IP; anyone blocked for cause should have the blocking admin consulted as usual. Is there support for this? Anything you'd change about the idea before implementing? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Love it! FreplySpang 00:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Go for it! --Tony Sidaway 00:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Great, non admin here but reader of a now and then very busy wikien-1. Garion96 ^(talk) 00:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

An excellent idea. --bainer (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This will be helpful. I've recently been watching the Category:Requests for unblock, which had grown very long until cleared out. It isn't a very effective way of notifying disinterested admins that a user requests an unblock. A dedicated mailing list is much better. -Will Beback 00:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem with Category:Requests for unblock is it gets loaded down with old requests. Is there a way separate out fresh requests (maybe do a subcategory by date)? NoSeptember ^talk 02:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if more admins looked at it and dealt with them in a timely fashion it wouldn't be a problem. I'm not sure I like the idea that we look at te new ones and assume all the old ones are done and dusted so Ignore them. --pgk^(talk) 08:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Very nice idea. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 01:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely, please. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:28 UTC (2006-05-28)

Mentioned before, but worth mentioning again; there is an IRC bot that reports these as they happen, and if watched, it can result in a near instantaneous action. I caught at least 5 autoblocks for WBardwin via it last night. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to add it to one of the other channels, such as #wikipedia-en-admins? Essjay (Talk • Connect) 09:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't subscribe to that cess pool called a maling list, so I only rarely know of these unblock requests after I've braved the archive. I have had people I've blocked contact me via email, and have attempted to communicate with all of them, even having unblocked some after discussion. Another method for blocked users to appeal would be very useful. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-stop e-mail

I've been getting non-stop e-mail from Wikipedia/media telling me that an IP address is requesting that my e-mail address get changed. Could the IP just get blocked so I don't have to get these e-mails anymore, or does that matter? In the e-mail, it says I could just ignore it if it wasn't me and continue using my password, but it's just getting ridiculous now. DGX 01:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggest that you temporarily disable Wikipedia email. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:49 UTC (2006-05-28)

Ugh.. might as well. DGX 01:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This happened to me a little while back. A Bugzilla entry was filed and apparently there is now support for throttling of password requests implemented in mediawiki (although not yet live on Wikipedia). See [19]. —Stormie 11:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Drawball

I'd like to have some more eyes at the Drawball article. It's full of useless unencyclopedic unsourced subtrivia, and any attempts to remove it are reverted by anons, who come to "dick-wag" their online group's latest escapade. Please see:

• My post at the VP
• Talk:Drawball

Contributions to the article as well as on the talk page would be welcomed. The list of logos and tags absolutely reminds me of the worst of the rubbish that was on the List of YTMND fads. If this constant rubbishness continues, I'd really like some semi-protection on it, but that's for later. I really cannot be bothered to police this article myself. - Hahnchen 02:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD listing

I need a few admins to double check a recent addition I've made to the AfD listings at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elder Scrolls-related articles. It was a list of several articles, so it seemed better to condense them down into one page for voting — atypical, I know, but probably wiser. I'm still working on adding AfD notices to all of the pages listed, but in the meantime, would someone look this over and see that it's checking out all right (or advise a better way to do this)? Thanks. Tijuana Brass^E@ 05:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood

Instantnood--a case for a temporary ban from Wikipedia under his General Probation?

Instantnood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been a frequent client of the Arbitration Committee and the administrators who voluntarily enforce their remedies:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_3
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al.

Unfortunately the scope of the specific remedies in his cases do not yet seem to match the scale and inventiveness of his disruption. Typically he will choose a dozen or so articles, edit war on them over some detail of nomenclature, get banned and move on to another set of articles where he'll edit war on the same point.

This absorbs an appreciable amount of administrator time and it can be rather demoralizing to realise, a couple of weeks later, that one has only succeeded in moving the venue of the disruption. It has also become all but impossible to track the articles from which Instantnood has been banned as a result of remedies in those of his arbitration cases that reached completion (2 and 3).

A General Probation applies in Instantnood's case. I propose to use it in the hope of convincing Instantnood that he cannot continue in this way.

The probation reads as follows:

Instantnood is placed on general probation indefinitely. Any three administrators may, for good cause, ban him from the site. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3#Log of blocks and bans.

I open this to general discussion. My own thoughts are that a two week ban from Wikipedia might serve to convince Instantnood, a certified Wikipediholic, that he cannot continue to edit war indefinitely. But I'm not set on this. Perhaps there is a better way of handling this. --Tony Sidaway 01:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, as this is an arbitration-related proposal and I happen to be an Arbitration Committee clerk, I think I should point out that unless I sign an edit here "For the arbitration committee" or something similar, I am not acting as a clerk or on the instructions of the Committee. This is just me, a Wikipedian with a mop and bucket, trying to work out how to keep Wikipedia running. --Tony Sidaway 01:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that there's a better way to handle it. I will say that I would support a two-week ban on Instantnood, but I agree that if there is a better way to handle it, we should do it. I'm just not sure what. Ral315 (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Stop wasting administrators' time. Instantnood is clearly just gaming the system. Being able to move to a new set of articles when the disruption gets to be too much on previous articles to violate his probation is absurd. --Cyde Weys 01:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support makes three - blocking for two weeks presently. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phil Sandifer (talk • contribs) *** 16:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC).

my non-admin comment as his foil.

I've said before I don't like the idea of a permanent ban. He's been banned for two weeks before without any change and immediately resumed the same behavior - so I'm not convinced it would change if done again. The page bans work, sort of, but are becoming too numerous to track. And he still filibusters on the talk pages. There really does need to be some behavioral tweaks to his sanctions.

I proposed before the idea that he be prohibited from doing the same revert twice. So if he makes a change, and someone reverts it, he should be allowed one revert (with a talk page note), and then be forced to drop it. It would force him to seek other editors to form consensus.

Otherwise, the deal with moving the same edit war to different articles has to have some force behind it. If there is a style change, (eg from today: parentheses, flag images, or the spelling of Macao) that he's known to obsess over it should be said to him in some authorative way: "Someone else needs to make these changes if you feel they need to be made. Don't make this same edit in a different article."

I also worry that a general, permanent ban would result in sock puppetry. In a previous ban of a week or so, it was so important to vote in a poll somewhere that he created a sock to do it. SchmuckyTheCat 02:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I proposed before the idea that he be prohibited from doing the same revert twice. So if he makes a change, and someone reverts it, he should be allowed one revert (with a talk page note), and then be forced to drop it. Not likely to be effective for determined edit warriors. We can propose all sorts of "soft" limitations and if they continue to be ignored, what'll be the last available resort, other than the block button? Support long-term block, perhaps not indefinite, but something like 6 months to 1 year. This is a textbook case of edit warring. Kimchi.sg 02:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I also worry that a general, permanent ban would result in sock puppetry. He won't be the first, or the last, banned user to resort to sockpuppetry. They'll be blocked as they come. Kimchi.sg 02:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually the idea of a limitation on reverts (a revert parole) sounds pretty good. I wonder if it would be a good idea to put the idea of a revert parole remedy in this case to the Commmittee.

Examples of revert paroles in other cases:

• TDC: "TDC is hereby limited to 1 content revert per article per day and must discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page for one year. He may be briefly blocked for up to a week for violations. After 5 such blocks the maximum block time increases to a year."
• Lou franklin: "Lou franklin shall for one year be limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page."
• Leyasu: "Leyasu is placed on standard revert parole. He is hereby limited to a maximum of one content revert per page per day for one year. Each revert must be explicitly marked as such."

A revert parole can only be imposed by the Arbitration Committee, but any arbitrator can propose a motion in a previous case. If on discussion this emerges as a possibility, it should be easy to persuade the arbitrators to consider such a remedy. --Tony Sidaway 02:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of whether Instantnood's conduct is disruptive

I have moved this to its own separate section for reasons given below. --Tony Sidaway 17:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I have seen no evidence to support this. Could you supply diffs? I checked at random 7 of his edits of 16 May. Six were fine (one was beyond my technical ability). A theme of his editing is applying accurately the differences between nation, state, sovereign state and country in relation to "Chinese territories". As I said on 7 May I had checked his edits on Macao, China, List of bridges, and Hong_Kong_national_football_team (some of the articles I believe he has been unfairly banned from). His edits endeavoring to use correctly the various terms for "country" were fine and no one has said they were not. I doubt the issue will be resolved until it is acknowledged that his use of the terms is well informed.Mccready 03:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

His edits endeavoring to use correctly the various terms for "country" were fine and no one has said they were not. Flatly untrue, as a quick glance at the edit histories and summaries would show. Take a look (especially at List of bridges), and see if you'd like to amend that statement. --Calton | Talk 04:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Calton, the link you provided gives Wikipedia does not recognize the action specified by the URL.. Yes I am happy to rephrase: no one has satisfactorily demonstrated his use of various terms for "country" is inaccurate. If other wikipedians could take the time to check this we would be moving forward. Mere gainsaying doesn't help - we need to analyse particular edits. Mccready 04:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the point of his ArbCom restrictions. Hint: "Correcting Instantnood"? Not one of them. Suggesting "accuracy" has a thing to do with it is just as mistaken as your claim that no one objected to his edits. And given your track record on Animal rights, I can see why you're misunderstanding consensus or collaborative editing. --Calton | Talk 08:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The links works for me -- in both senses. After you've gone to List of bridges, reviewed the history, and noted the repeated removals of Macau and Hong Kong from under the heading "China, People's Republic of", perhaps you'll explain how this falls under the themes you identify. Alai 05:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if the statement "Hong Kong is <Whatever Instantnood defines it is>" is etched in stone by the hand of Almighty God, that will still not excuse the fact that he is edit warring to insist on the placement of The Truth. Edit warring over anything is Bad. Period. Kimchi.sg 05:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Guys, my comments are about whether he uses the terms correctly. I think we as a community owe him a judgement on this. I say he uses them correctly. No one has posted a diff showing and arguing an incorrect usage.Mccready 05:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

We do not owe any edit warriors a "judgement" for whether their preferred version is correct. The question we are to look at, which all your replies have neatly sidestepped so far, is not whether he is reverting to the "correct" version (whatever that may mean), but Has Instantnood been disruptive in spite of specific remedies imposed in his prior Arbcom cases? And to that question (which is the only question that matters here) the answer has to be an emphematic yes, necessitating the invocation of the general remedy. Kimchi.sg 05:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to rephrase: I think a good resolution of the issue depends on a judgement by the community that he has used the terms correctly. I have to disagree with you Kimchi - on the evidence I have examined in detail, and I restrict myself to that alone, his edits have been correct. If we avoid the meaning of correct why are we trying to create an encyclopedia? If someone could post a diff where he was incorrect I'd be happy to look at it. I make no comment on edit warring except to say I disagree again - it is not the only question that matters here. We do the project a disservice if we don't examine carefully what appears to be the root of the problem - his usage of terms like state, nation, country, nation state, sovereign nation, sovereign state, etc. and his objection to others who use the terms loosely or inaccurately. Mccready 06:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct information can be added by people other than Instantnood, and through ways more polite than that which he has used to date. Since you insist on dragging the "correctness factor" in, I will comment no more on this. Kimchi.sg 06:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The revert restriction has a lot of attraction, since excessive, often-trivial reversion is a large proportion of the problem -- such as a stub tag being reverted back to a redirect to the same template (the mind boggles). The "filibustering" can be vexing, but less out and out disruptive. Rather than throw this back straight at the ArbCom, I think there would be some merit in sounding IN out to see if he'd be prepared to agree to voluntarily restrict his revert activity in the manner described, as a means of addressing people's reasonable concerns as expressed here and elsewhere. Alai 04:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Alai. I've not formed a good impression of Instantnood, based on his frequent vexatious posts to WP:ANI - this, for example. And I'm not a big fan of people who get obsessive about the difference between a state and a country (Instantnood's hobby-horse), or the status of the "traditional English counties", or the "correct" name for the Republic of Macedonia. It seems to me that half the problems on Wikipedia are caused by nationalists who won't let things go. Having said that, Instantnood is not an outright troll - I think he's getting worked up to a ridiculous extent over trivia, but so are some of the people who are opposing him. He does seem to make some good changes and additions to articles. I'm pessimistic about the effect of asking him to voluntarily curb his aggressiveness, but it's worth a try. I don't think the time is right yet for a long ban, but I'd support a short (week or two) ban as a shot across the bows. --ajn (talk) 06:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not an Admin, and I just strayed over here following a Talk page comment on Alai's Talk, but for what its worth: Where are the diffs? I find it amazing that an Admin can come on here and just make serious, sweeping allegations about a User without a single example of their alleged disruptive behaviour. And even more amazing that other Admins (I assume that you are Admins) just pile in with more 100% opinion and 0% evidence.

I know very little about Instantnood, although I do recognise the name, in fact I feel certain that I have seen it on hundreds of edits, but I must say that it has not stuck in my mind, which I can only assume means that I have never had a problem with the guy. Given that he is allegedly a big "traditional counties" fan then I find this remarkable, because I have had to deal with several such trolls, but Instantnood ain't one of them.

In my few visits to this notice board I have seen this trend before: Admins firing a massive broadside at Users without a shred of evidence. This is thoroughly unsatisfactory: please remedy the situation. --Mais oui! 07:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read the arbitration cases at the links below, with particular attention to the findings of fact, the remedies, the enforcement provisions and (above all) the logs of blocks and bans. See also numerous recent complaints about Instantnood's ongoing disruption at WP:AE.

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_3
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2

--Tony Sidaway 16:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

To repeat what I wrote above, take a quick glance at the edit histories and summaries, especially at List of bridges), and see if you'd like to amend that statement.

Given that he is allegedly a big "traditional counties" fan.. He's not, as far I know: that was merely an example of a type of intransigent edit warrior, perhaps one you already know about.

I can only assume means that I have never had a problem with the guy Taking specifics and applying them generally is not sound logic. --Calton | Talk 08:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should be fighting the arbitration case again. There are ongoing complaints about Instantnood's edits, and it isn't as if his actions, where valid, couldn't be performed by someone else. The problem is that his behavior is disruptive. That is a given. The question is how to deal with it. --Tony Sidaway 16:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

To this end, I am inserting a new section head before Macready's "Tony, I have seen no evidence to support this." Should there be doubt that Instantnood's behavior is problematic, then the cases should be appealed to the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo Wales. It is in general the job of administrators to enforce remedies, not to discuss their appropriateness. --Tony Sidaway 17:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved below 2 comments from previous section. Kimchi.sg 03:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony, could you provide a couple of diffs where Instantnood has been disruptive? Thanks. Mccready 02:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to the copious details provided in the arbitration cases detailing Instantnood's disruptive behavior. --Tony Sidaway 03:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume he means edits that "violate" his probation, not the ones that led to it being imposed. Though the examples cited to date seem pertinent enough to me, and highly similar to the earlier AC'd behaviour; I'm not clear what more McC is looking for. Alai 03:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

A fight. --Calton | Talk 04:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The arbitration cases detail, in the records of blocks and bans, behavior by Instantnood that was disruptive after each of the two cases that ran to completion. I assume that Macready hadn't known to look there, and so suggested that he do so. --Tony Sidaway 04:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the block-ban-log, yes. I was forgetting they were on the same page, though it's a tad confusing to refer to them as "the cases", given that the cases per se are long since closed. Alai 04:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony, my previous request has been moved. Could you supply recent(perhaps 13-16 May) diffs you feel are disruptive, so that the community can examine the request for a temporary ban. ThanksMccready 04:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As I suggested to Mais Oui, look on WP:AE, specifically this. --Tony Sidaway 05:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, this was not a request for a temporary community ban. It was a community discussion concerning a temporary ban to be passed under the terms of Instantnood's General Probation. As such, it had passed the "three administrators" threshold by 1655 UTC yesterday, and Phil Sandifer implemented the ban. --Tony Sidaway 05:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a revert parole would be the way to deal with Instantnood's revert warring, better than simply blocking him. Meanwhile, User:Alanmak's anti-social behavior and extensive edit warring needs to be dealt with, since there are multiple sides to the problem. --Jiang 10:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at that users' contribs, but I've asked him to modify his userpage, as likely to add fuel to the fire. (It's practically a declaration of revert-war, and an unduly personalised one to boot.) But Instantnood is a distinct case, in that his arbcom ruling expressly puts him in the "last chance saloon" (or temporarily evicted from it, given the above), and we won't be at that point with other users until other steps are taken first. If you'd be willing to approach him with regard to a voluntary revert limitation with a view to avoiding future such agro, you'd be doing us all a favour (himself included). Alai 18:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have again spent a good deal of time on this and have tracked down the following diffs from about 16 May (they weren’t diffs in the 16 May report) [20][21][22][23]a very reasonable editcorrecta useful edit cutting down on verbiage. I didn’t understand the first, but the remainder are examples of Instantnood’s endeavors to use correctly various terms for the assemblage "country, state, nation". I think the issue will be better handled if it is acknowledged that his use of the terms is well informed.

My research also uncovered this [24] going back to February 2005. Instantnood’s arguments are persuasive. Mccready 12:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

To repeat: Perhaps you missed the point of his ArbCom restrictions. Hint: "Correcting Instantnood"? Not one of them. Suggesting "accuracy" has a thing to do with it is just as mistaken as your claim that no one objected to his edits. And given your track record on Animal rights, I can see why you're misunderstanding consensus or collaborative editing. --Calton | Talk 02:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Calton, ad hominem attacks don't advance the discussion here. Which edit on Animal Rights (apart from the one error I have acknowledged) did you have a problem with? Please reply civilly on my talkpage if wish.Mccready 07:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. And Mccready, did you know that Heart Mountain in Wyoming was transported to its current location by the largest landslide ever discovered, approximately 50 million years ago? Which is a statement as completely relevant here as your blather about "ad homs". To repeat, you do understand the point of Instantnood's ArbCom restrictions, right? You do understand that "correct usage" has nothing to do with that, right? You do understand that unilateral declarations of "correctness" do not trump collaborative editing, right? You do understand that the issue is Instanood's conduct, right? You do understand that your claim that "no one objected to his edits" is flatly wrong, right?

Which edit on Animal Rights ... did you have a problem with? "You"? Way to reframe a question. I refer, of course, to your constantly reverted -- by more than one editor -- rewrite of the intro. --Calton | Talk 08:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about whether his use of terms is correct. It's whether his conduct on the wiki continues to disrupt. --Tony Sidaway 16:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If his edits are correct I would say that reverting them is the disruption. I would say his conduct doesn't amount to disruption. It amounts to trying to correct misuse of the terms. Mccready 07:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"If..." A multitude of sins is covered by that simple word. --Calton | Talk 08:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This appears to bear so little resemblance to problematic edits, and general pattern of behaviour, being discussed as to be strongly suggestive of deliberately missing the point. Alai 15:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I just came to notice this discussion following a link on a talk page.

Instantnood's actions are no doubt distruptive for me, for example, he insisted on some styling (e.g. comma vs bracket) issues, which others find it incorrect. Like in [25], [26], other editors are against his edits, yet he never give up reverting them to his own version. And on the image of Hong Kong, the old HK Image, which is in png format, Image:Flag of Hong Kong SAR.png is rendered redundant by Image:Flag of Hong Kong.svg. Though Instantnood still try to reinstate the old flag (like in Hong Kong, China at the 2004 Summer Olympics [27]), which was retired, in various articles, citing something incorrect about the new flag which he himself couldn't tell what that is. These are just few of his recent examples of causing disruptions in Wikipedia. His continuous disruptive actions is requiring a few editors to constant monitor his edits (sort the construtive ones from the disruptive ones) and fix them by reverting those pages.Hunter 11:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If it is the reverts that are desruptive, while the content of my edits are useful ones, then what we actually have to figure out is why these edits keep being reverted by a few editors, namely user:Alanmak, user:Winhunter and user:SchmuckyTheCat. User:Jiang has already pointed part of the key problem in his comment above (10:56, May 18). What I have been facing is that the other party I am facing do not bother to discuss, and even if they discuss, they don't provide evidence to justify their position. If they do not actively edit the articles (and categories and templates, same below) themselves to realise their point of view, there wouldn't be anything necessary to be reverted.

Another thing that is disappointing is that user:SchmuckyTheCat has requested for administrators' action against me at WP:AE for a few times. Yet everytime he filed a request, he provides only one-side evidence, and administrators act only based on what one of the two sides have filed. Such mechanism is far from satisfactory.

Last be not least, user:Phil Sandifer, who cast the third vote without signing and subsequently blocked me ([28] 16:56, May 17), was previously user:Snowspinner, was user:SchmuckyTheCat's advocate in the case he and I were involved. Would she/he be a suitable person to have do this, given his impartialness and neutrality over this matter cannot be ensure? — Instantnood 20:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Community bans

Introduction

Following discussion on the mailing list - someone mentioned that community bans are going to become more common as the number of editors increases, and the arbitration committee is less able to deal with a volume of cases. The current situation is that any admin can community-ban a user, and the user's only comeback is to appeal to the arbitration committee. There's currently a bit of minor wheel-warring going on over one user who I'm satisfied ought to be banned, but others obviously disagree (I'm not the banning admin, but I have a low tolerance for people who are only here to push a particularly strong point of view). Might it be useful to have a formal process for community banning along the lines of general probation? A page for admins to list users they wish to community-ban, the agreement of another two admins required before the ban, and possibly a lightweight review process along the lines of deletion review rather than having to go straight to the arbitration committee? There clearly are users here whose presence is intolerable, and who need to be got rid of quickly, but there needs to be slightly more transparency and fair process than there is at the moment. --ajn (talk) 08:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. Currently seems to be no clear definition of what IS a community ban, how does it happen, how does it get labelled as such. See Wikipedia talk:List of banned users#Community and my as of yet unanswered question there. --woggly 08:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It would probably be better than the present system, in which admins ban the editor themselves or ask people on this page what they think before or after banning. We may need a screening process to prevent abusive nominations for banishment, though. -- Kjkolb 10:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, heck yes. I'm getting very wary of the community bans. N.b. what's going on is community ban, not community block, and the distinction between the two is eroding faster than the world's beaches. I remember the Lir and Michael days, when it took the most monumental, tectonic motion to impose an actual ban. Now, it seems like we're getting free with the "indefinite block" button. It's not that I can point to one or another, although I think Secret London is right that an IP must never be blocked indefinitely, since no one knows who's going to own the IP in 3 months. I'm not sure this is the place to draft and work out the procedure, however, as its readership is already pre-selected to the grumpy and the injured. More light is needed, I think. Geogre 13:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin-only discussion page, Arbitration Committee

I was thinking of having only admins able to add nominations - if the page was permanently protected, that would do it. Other users wanting to nominate someone would only have to persuade an admin of their case. An appeals process ought to be open to all (apart from the community-banned user, of course - but if the grounds for banning are that the community's lost patience with a disruptive user, an absence of any third party support would just show the community ban was justified). --ajn (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Increasing the size of ArbCom did not solve the workload issue, and community bans will work only in the cases were there is agreement. Perhaps the solution is to create more than one ArbCom committee, to spread the workload. Rather than turn ArbCom into a court of last appeal and have ad hoc community bannings to take over the workload, I'd rather have several committees that are capable of handling the caseload (see NoSept/Arbcom restructuring). We have plenty of people willing to do the work, and we don't need 12 ArbCom members ruling on every single case. NoSeptember ^talk 10:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ad-hoc committee of three

The problem at the moment is that from the perspective of the banned user, one admin is able to ban them, and they have no comeback beyond a lengthy and bureaucratic ArbCom case. The admin may be someone they have had long-term involvement with - if someone's doing a lot of edit-warring, there may be dozens of admins reverting, warning and protecting pages. What I'm proposing is that effectively an ad-hoc committee of three admins bans them, and there is some form of lightweight appeals process so if they have anyone willing to speak up for them, the ban can be reviewed and altered if that's necessary. Most of these bans ought to be uncontroversial - three admins to ban, a week for review, and I really think that in most cases people will get the message and ArbCom won't be involved. --ajn (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Having some sort of way for the community to test whether a community ban has consensus is a good idea. Right now we just have the comments of those who choose to chat on the notice boards, those comments are limited in number and may not really reflect what the (admin) community as a whole thinks. That is one reason why having even one admin who thinks a ban was incorrect should be taken seriously as proof that consensus does not exist. If that one admin is in the wrong, the onus must be on the community to prove that consensus is really there, despite his objection. NoSeptember ^talk 20:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The current system and Wheel warring

In the past there have apparently been some mass community motions to ban someone, but nowadays some admin usually does so long before that could happen. Currently 'community bans' are when there is no admin willing to unblock someone. If admins disagree then only the ArbCom can make such an action permanent. Personally I think that's a reasonable structure. --CBDunkerson 10:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

CBD is correct. We only have a community ban if no admin is willing to reverse someone else's block. With 900 admins, a dedicated troll can get hs ban overturned by someone. The problem with this structure is that it promotes the accusation of wheel warring. The admin that removes the ban will be jumped on by those who imposed the ban, and the third admin who puts the ban back again will also be accused of wheel warring. Perhaps we should say that reducing a ban (from indefinite to something less) is acceptable as long as enough time remains on the ban for the community to discuss it before the ban expires. But in the end, I would prefer a system that does not lead inevitably to the accusations of wheel warring, which the current system has the potential to do. NoSeptember ^talk 11:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is that if admin A thinks a community ban is in order, and admin B doesn't and unblocks, that's wheel-warring. And there's something like that going on right now with a user who is making a lot of noise on the mailing list. If we have a firm agreement that if admin B unblocks, that's OK and it's the end of the community ban, fair enough - but that's not the procedure at the moment, and that's not what's happening. Also, even if admin B unblocks, admin C will be along in a while to decide that another community ban is in order, because these users are not generally ones who change their behaviour. I think we need a firm and fair process to decide that the ban genuinely has community support, and that it should stick. --ajn (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The general idea of "community bans" is that they are outside process. One problem is that we are mixing up several different processes. Some poeple such a WoW have a genunine community ban. In other cases none of the ~100 admins who actualy deal with this kind of blocking really want to do the unblock. In yet more cases it is simply a missnamed IAR block.Geni 20:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

removed trolling

Wikien-L

Historically, wrongfully banned users have appealed to the WikiEN-L listserv over indefinite blocks hoping to get a consensus of admins in favor of reducing or lifting their ban. It's not a "one admin bans you, you have to appeal to Arbcom" type of issue. — Philwelch t 17:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This is what I don't get. My understanding is that you don't need a consensus to remove a community ban; you need consensus to make one. The banning policy says:

• "The Wikipedia community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself. Some editors are so odious that not one of the 915 administrators on Wikipedia would ever want to unblock them."

This gives me the impression that community bans occur when not a single administrator objects to an indefinite block. Apparently, that is more controversial in practice than the policy page indicates. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's messy. Just like any other consensus-based decision on Wikipedia, it's less a matter of no one objecting and more a matter of no one wanting to stick their neck out to actually unblock, hence the "not one of the 915 administrators would ever want to unblock them". — Philwelch t 18:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I can think of at least one example where an administrator did stick his neck out and unblock the "community banned" user, only to find himself accused of wheel warring and the block re-applied. I wonder how many community bans would be enacted not because the editing user is that odious, but because admins don't want to involve themselves in a block war. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought a block/edit/wheel war could by definition only happen if someone reverts an action at least twice. So if admin A blocks and B unblocks, that's one revert, not a war. If A reblocks, maybe it's a war if you count A's reblock as a second revert. If C reblocks and B re-unblocks, that also might be war. If C reblocks and D unblocks, not a war, etc. Phr (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That's precisely my view. As I've just said on the mailing list, I actually think community bans should be used more frequently than they currently are, but I'm not keen on controversial community bans leading to wars between admins. As I say above, if we're going to have clear agreement that unblocking a community-banned user is OK, and that the original banning admin should accept that decision without reapplying the ban, that would be another way to deal with it. --ajn (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ryan Delaney says, "apparently, this is more controversial in practice than the policy page indicates." I don't think that's true. We indefinitely block dozens of users a day (sometimes hundreds) because of extreme vandalism, legal threats, persistent copyright violations, etc., without objection from anyone. The percentage of these blocks that are controversial is miniscule, and any change in policy should reflect that. I'll concede we may need to change the way we deal with users who have some good edits but are very difficult, but that shouldn't make us unnecessarily change the way we deal with pure trolls. Chick Bowen 18:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Motions to overturn to go to the Arbitration committee

The problem with community ban proposals is that currently even a single administrator can dig his heels in and repeatedly unblock. This has happened a few times. In instances where there is a very strong consensus to ban a problem user, I propose that the dissenting administrator, or any other party, must use a lightweight procedure to overturn the ban. A proposal to overturn should be made on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, and if four arbitrators agree to the proposal then the community ban is overturned. Unblocking against general consensus of administrators on the wiki is of course an abuse of administrator powers, so there would be a strong incentive to administrators to follow this route.

The procedure still favors unbanning by only requiring four arbitrators to agree with the motion to overturn. If the ban is overturned, the case may still optionally be taken to arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 19:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• It's a bit misleading to say that your procedure is "lightweight" and favors unbanning because it only takes 4 arbitrators to overturn. Arbitrators are not morons, not a single one is going to overturn a case against a legitimate troll (which is as it should be). It amuses me that you would require 4 arbitrators to undo a blocking action that was endorsed by 4 to 8 admins on WP:ANI (many announced community bans only get limited discussion). We must not presume that consensus for a community ban has been reached just because there was not a lot of discussion.
• Your plan also seems to call for Arbitrators to routinely make final decisions without ever conducting a case. That would essentially change the whole Arbitration process. Instead of imposing sanctions as they do now, you would have ArbCom merely be the reviewers of sanctions imposed by others.
• Community decisions should be decided by the community, and ArbCom decisions should be decided by ArbCom. Trying to mix the two as you have is not a good idea. If there must be a review of a community decision because there are admins with opposing views, then have some sort of admin consensus proving procedure, to make clear whether consensus exists. Or else, go to ArbCom through the proper procedure, with a properly formed case. NoSeptember ^talk 19:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Any individual admin can claim that a user is banned by the community. To make it so easy for the user to be blocked, then so difficult for the block to be reversed, is a Bad Idea(tm). I would rather see the bureaucratic resistance flowing in the other direction. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Donating

I owed 50 euro to another Wiki user, but he refused to take the money; instead he asked me to donate them to Wiki. This I did, but I received no receipt of my donation. I need a receipt to show the user in question that I donated the money. The only notification I have is when I log onto my PayPal account, but he can't verify that info. I could take a screenshot, but that's not a good method. Is there a way to verify this info? The "Thank You" page said the following: "An email receipt will be sent to you shortly. Please print this out for your records." I received no such email; not on my Wiki account email and not on my Paypal account email. I also emailed [email protected], but I got no reply from them. Grr, what is this? It looks so amateurish! --Candide, or Optimism 16:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Contact the Foundation for any financial concerns. English Wikipedia doesn't do money. --Tony Sidaway 06:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Your description is of a problem is with Paypal who has claimed to transfer funds to a third party who does not acknowledge receipt of the funds. WAS 4.250 12:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If it helps, I donated to the Foundation last year and got a card from them in the snail mail at the end of the year, so they apparently kept the info on file. You could ask for a receipt from the Foundation. They are a 501c3 nonprofit and probably have a way to generate one, and since a 50 Euro donation is involved, it's not that burdensome a request. I suggest leaving a message for Danny. Phr (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

legal threat

FROM anon :) Dlohcierekim 10:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked a week as I'm unsure if it's static or dynamic. If it's dynamic please reduce the block. NSLE _(T+C) at 10:46 UTC (2006-05-29)

It's belongs to NTL Nottingham Will (^E_@) T 16:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The people at NTL do respond to abuse concerns, although they are extremely slow about it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Girls' Bike Club

This keeps being deleted as "patent nonsense", which is it not (it is neither random strings of characters, nor particularly confusing - merely incomplete). It has been deleted out from under me twice as I enter information (including information on the cultural relevancy of the text and the authors), VERY shortly after creation. I'd saved it so that I could work on sections individually, but I suppose it's a bit much to ask that someone let an article live for 10 minutes before outright deleting it....

Anyway, could someone please move some version of it (I don't really care which) into my user space so that I can finish the stupid thing without it being deleted? Alternately (preferably, but I don't have high hopes of this), could it just be undeleted? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquez (talk • contribs)

Giving you the benefit of the doubt. :) RadioKirk talk to me 04:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind a friendly piece of advice, it does look a lot like nonsense at the moment. Perhas you should put the article in its proper context - what is the GBC? --Bachrach44 13:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Jacquez, you may also wish to tag the article "in progress" or something similar, just to be safe. RadioKirk talk to me 16:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Bachrach44 - well, there WAS context at one point, but it was in an earlier version, so now I've got to add it back in. Heh. RadioKirk - thanks - I'll work on it in the user space until I think it makes sense, and then if it gets deleted again, I've no one to blame but my own self. --205.201.57.95 22:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Newpage patrol

I whipped up a JS tool (for monobook skin) that checks the number of edits creators of newpages have (up to 10). It definetely seems to help me waste less time when doing newpage patrol.Voice-of-All^Talk 15:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That's ironic. When doing NP patrol, I usually only read pages made by someone whose talk page is red (meaning non-exitent). Whenever there's a good page worthy of not being CSD, I sent the creator a welcome message. --Bachrach44 17:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Having used the tool for a while, it seems to be very helpful for finding cruft.Voice-of-All^Talk 17:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

One vandal or many?

This may just be standard vandalism, but perhaps someone wants to run a Checkuser on this. I have indefinitely blocked impostor Fang Ali (talk · contribs), Hetare (talk · contribs) (impostor of Hetar), Shaan122 (talk · contribs), and EdnaMaid (talk · contribs), all who either vandalized my userpage or recreated TigerGardens (also TigerGarden, and another, which were AfD'd) within about 15 minutes. Sneewop (talk · contribs) may also be involved (and has been blocked for 24 hrs by another admin). I have {{deletedpage}} protected the TigerGardens pages. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Block bug?

Hi. I just indef-blocked Betty Yves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who had already been indef-blocked by Golbez (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I don't understand why that was necessary, and am not confident the block will take this time. Can someone explain why Golbez's block didn't work, and whether or not this one will? Jkelly 17:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Something screwy seems to be happening with extending blocks - I had two new blocks fail to override old ones in one day a while ago, even I unblocked first in both cases. I've noticed some admins block a user for one second, then apply the indefinite block. I don't know whether that works any better. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Krabs502

This guy is listed at WP:LTA. He does make some genuine contributions, but they're mostly lost in a sea of crap. Favourites of his involve creating articles of none existent computer games, ridiculous video games based on medical documentaries and generally pissing about with some music entries (note that Coolio does not appear on the soundtrack). Is there any reason why he hasn't been blocked, or at least forced to edit from one account? - Hahnchen 19:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is there such a template for a user who has never been blocked? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello admins, may I ask how would one go around blocking this guy? Is he blockable material? He's been up to more vandalism today, but as he's using a different account, he gets a test1 instead of a test4 and a block. - Hahnchen 15:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

{{NPOV-section}} template removal

I added the {{NPOV-section}} tag to part of the X-Men: The Last Stand article and another editor (User:Someguy0830) removed the tag less than 1 hour later! The NPOV dispute was not resolved and did not come to a consensus. How should I proceed? I thought tags were supposed to be removed when there is some consensus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-Men%3A_The_Last_Stand&diff=56015168&oldid=56009478

template:user atheist

Protection requested due to edit war. I protected this but did not make an edit to a version requested by the person who requested protection (there is nothing wrong with the version it's on, and no urgency). As I'm known for my fairly strong views on abuse of templates, I thought it might be a good idea to bring this here for further attention. The requesting party is still asking for the edit to be made. --Tony Sidaway 23:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus WP:CIVIL Christ, if you want an atheist userbox on your userpage that's slightly different from this one, subst the WP:CIVIL thing and change it yourself. This is why transcluding userboxes is stupid. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

ProhibitOnions (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has reverted the protected page, apparently to a version that he personally prefers. His edit summary is as follows: 'Saved as version requested in WP:RPP, ie "This user is an atheist." -- not as redirect to "interested in atheism" wchich is a different matter.' He has made it plain that he did so on grounds of content.

This does seem to me to be somewhat unethical. Editing a page without discussion while it is protected due to a content dispute. I urge anybody else who gets involved to refrain from editing this page while it is protected. --Tony Sidaway 00:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

ProhibitOnions has reverted himself and apologised. --Tony Sidaway 00:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations

Most of the active people on the project need a block for a day or two. Endless, endless fighting, reverting of each others' work, labelling it as 'vandalism'. Violations of 3RR, WP:Civil, legal threats, wikistalking, stupid requests for comment, harassment, much more. They've even taken the fighting to MY talk page, when they have no fight with me. Users include (but are not limited to): User:CFIF contribs, note the mass reverts), User:CoolKatt_number_99999 contribs, note the mass reverts), User:Boothy443 contributions, note the many reverts, User:Kirjtc2 contribs, note the mass revertions, User:Rollosmokes contributions, note the mass revertions. All five need a wikibreak. I don't want to go to MY talk page and find a bunch of fighting on it, from people I'm not even arguing with. I've tried to talk with them, I've tried mediating. Nothing works. The most immature "group" on Wikipedia.--Firsfron 00:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A vandal

Please have a look here: [29] - all contributions should be reviewed, thank you. Foreigner 09:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are you expecting us to do? The vandal has already been blocked. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 09:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be blocked. There is no notice on the talk page and I did not find anything in the block log. However, a block might not be needed. The person has not edited since the second warning a few hours ago. -- Kjkolb 09:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

see the damage [30], never having been repaired [31] - (I won't touch a lemma such as Heydrich]. Foreigner 10:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Many Speedy Deletions of talk pages

Someone has just nominated many talk pages for speedy deletion. However, I don't believe that some of them qualify. CSD G8 says, "Talk pages of pages that do not exist, unless they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere." Plenty of the pages seemed to have such discussion, but are gone now. Would it be possible to review the most recent deletions to see if this has happened? Ardric47 22:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you give examples? There has in the last 20 minutes been a bout of pagemove vandalism and associated repairs, which resulted in many deletions. The Land 22:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I had put Template:Hangon on Talk:David M. Wright. Ardric47 22:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone seems to be going through the list of talk pages and, if there is no associated article, nominating it for deletion without considering the text of G8. Ardric47 22:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That usually just refers to the ancient method of VfD, when the votes were carried out on talk pages rather than Wikipedia:Votes for deletion subpages. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 22:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, not what I assumed! The deleted text was: 'I'm writing to say why you shouldn't delete this page. David Wright IS a notable person from Wagga Wagga and should be added to the list on the Wagga Wagga page. Whilst David hasn't achieved the fame of michael slater, or the notoriety of Wayne Carey as people from wagga in your list, David was a great member of the Wagga wagga community and did a number of things worthy of earning a page in your great website. I understand that David wasn't a celebrity but he was a great guy who's story deserved to be told. please don't delete it. Peter Dale, former lord mayor of wagga wagga and W.W.H.S. Alumni member'.

While this might technically be deletion discussion it could also be couneted as nonsense, trolling, and other things. The Land 22:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, so that sort of deletion discussion is out, but what about intelligent discussion from after the talk page voting era? Ardric47 22:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

IF it basically duplicates an AfD, then I'd say delete. If the discussion was intelligent but there was no AfD, then I'd tend to keeping. If it was clear CSD then it's unlikely IMV that the talk page discussion would add much. If there are specific instances you're worried about then feel free to list them at WP:DRV for more detailed review. The Land 22:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no way to tell, since they've been deleted! I guess (assuming good faith) they were all justified. Ardric47 22:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Admins can still view the content of deleted pages ;-). I've just checked about a dozen. It seems that a user had been on a talk-page clearing spree and legitimately added a lot of {{db-talk}} flags, which someone clearing out CSD then deleted. The Land 22:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That's good to hear. I just came across Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chen Palmer & Partners, which redirects to Talk:Chen Palmer & Partners from Special:BrokenRedirects. Is that an example of one that should be kept? Ardric47 22:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in that case, the talk page should be kept. I restored it and moved over the VfD redirect, since it's where it was before and it's easier to find there. --cesarb 00:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

From my experience that's the standard defense when an article is flagged as nn-bio and the originator doesn't want it to get deleted. There's no reason to waste space on those sorts of "please don't delete this - he really is notable" defenses. --Bachrach44 23:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• This does raise another point to me. I'd misspelled 'category' last week, and when I caught it self-nominated it using {db-because} while emailing a friendly admin to move it; and not wanting to create a talk page too, added the inline comment, or better yet, move it to 'category', the software doesn't allow me to do that with protected space. It also goes to the point that several stubs have been speedied before I could get back to fix them up. Again, with an inline comment saying I was hip-deep in nested edits, and would be doing so.

So why isn't there a minimal check by people to check for inline comments at the least, and shouldn't there be a minimal time period from article creation before someone can tag on a Csd template? I'm talking about stuff that disappeared in less than three hours, addressed a redlink, was categorized, and I just couldn't get back to because of other editting. Totally disrespectful of the creating editors time—more the behaviour one would expect from some juvenile schoolkid without any sensitivity to or experience with the needs of others he/she may be working with. This is counter-productive as it's currently administered to those of us primarily adding content. Someone needs to apply some checking, an inquiry, and some commonsense instead of blindly crossing things off a list because a template put them there! Best regards // FrankB 21:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that the upsurge in talk page speedy deletions is a result of getting a fresh dump of orphaned talk pages. See User:Rory096/orphanedtalks. --Rory096 03:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia articles that need their importance to be explained

If any of you are at a loose end, might I suggest taking a look at Category:Wikipedia articles that need their importance to be explained? Some articles there have been tagged for months. I've made a start by speedying/prodding/detagging a few but it's a job for more than one person. --kingboyk 07:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

A lot of them seem quite notable, but not conclusively so - many are university professors. If I knew anything about how pop musicians I would have probably caused an uproar about deleting thousands of bandcruft by know, but I don't.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In those borderline cases, if they've been tagged for months and hardly touched (i.e., nobody cares), prod is the way to go. If it might be slightly controversial, AFD. If you're satisified of notability, detag. Any of these are better than leaving the article tagged for months I would contend. --kingboyk 07:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

{{prod}} seems to be a good way to go with these articles.--Peta 07:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that people might be hoping that the articles will be improved, but it seems like this tag is used to avoid having to speedy, prod or AfD the article yourself. It's great when people put on a wikify tag at the same time, because I love making articles that are likely to be deleted look good. ;-) -- Kjkolb 07:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This cat should be split into subcats, like stubs, so that people can find the articles in their area of expertise, such as {{importance-music}}, {{importance-sport}}, {{importance-professor}} much more quickly. I'm thinking of making more specific templates for this.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think thats a bad idea, it creates another useless layer of metadata, since I think we are all aware specific stub types haven't really improved content development, they have just made more types of stubs. As far as I can tell from a year and a half of digging through these articles, music-importance does not severe any function beyond the generic importance template. --Peta 02:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for spam noticeboard

Currently, the talk page of WP:WPSPAM is acting as a sort of WP:AIV for reporting spam and external link abuse, as cases are usually too lengthy and complicated for AIAV and AN/I to deal with.

To make this resource easier to find, and to encourage its use and patrol by administrators, I've proposed here that a dedicated noticeboard for link spam be produced, in the style of WP:AIAV and WP:PAIN, WP:AN/3RR, etc.

Of course, the success of such an initiative depends mainly on input from the administrators, so I would be grateful if any admins interested could leave comments and suggestions at this talk page. Aquilina 14:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

While we're at it, is there a need for a Wikipedia:Oversight page and an Oversight noticeboard? NoSeptember ^talk 14:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, calls for oversight are directed at a small subset of admins and are generally urgent, so a separate board seems eminently sensible. In a similar fashion a spam board would keep together records of repeat offenders, and a small group of people familiar with them. Aquilina 17:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the creation of both, with some kind of indicator on the spam board for when a case has reached the point that it needs to be added to the Spam blacklist on meta. Since only meta admins can add to the blacklist, and not everybody knows who we are, it would be helpful to have a centralized place we could skim every so often and add things as needed. (Obviously, most spamming cases can be solved with a block of the offender, and do not rise to the level of having to be blacklisted on every Wikimedia project, and dozens of non-Wikimedia projects that rely on our blacklist.) As for the latter, I think a Wikipedia:Requests for revision removal (to follow the naming conventions of things like "Requests for checkuser" and "Requests for arbitration", and avoid the confusion of what exactly "oversight" is) would be an excellent idea. Very helpful for those of us with the oversight permission, and for those of us who are meta admins. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Should either/both of these proposals go through Village Pump first, or can we just be WP:BOLD and create them? Both ideas seem worthy of a trial at the very least, and don't represent a change in policy, as such. Aquilina 16:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The only issue I've seen raised to the request page for oversight use is that, like certain other high profile options (*cough* WP:OFFICE *cough*), such a noticeboard would actually make these types of edits *more* obvious. I guess it's a six of one, half a dozen of another issue. Perhaps an oversight mailing list, where anyone could email in, but only those with the permission could read it?

As for the spam option, I say be bold and get it started. Just remember to notify the meta admins (I'd suggest individually) when it's ready so we can be watching for those that need ot be blacklisted. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Need more admins on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR duty

Lots of 3RRs are going unresponded to on the 3RR noticeboard. Could some more admins start watching that noticeboard? -- Mr. Tibbs 00:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This one was missed too. [32] -- Mr. Tibbs 05:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians in Main Article Space

Hi - I need some clarification. Should links to categories that are lists of users be included in the main Article space?

Dispute details. It seems clear to me that a reference to a category that contains lists of wikipedians (links to the User space) is a self-reference that should be avoided. Yesterday, I happened upon the Louisville, Kentucky article to do some research - noticed the link in the see also section and removed it. User:Stevietheman has reverted the change twice - with comments "(rv to last edit by Stevietheman; the "metadata" is staying)" and "(rv; it's staying)." I brought the issue up on the talk page and the only other editor to comment agreed that it should not be in the article space. I have removed it again, and linked to it on the talk page instead.

Am I correct here that this is a self-reference that should be in the article space - it seems stupid to edit war about something like this so I am going to abandon my attempts to follow the style guide here for a bit, but think that some clarification from an admin could be helpful in resolving the issue. Thx in adv Trödel 13:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've protected this article. --Tony Sidaway 13:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure protection is really necessary - as I am not planning on reverting anymore. I'm just looking for some clarification - since it seems so obvious to me that the style guide states that self-references are not to be used and Stevietheman (who I assume read the style guide links I provided) disagrees. Thanks for such a quick and decisive response though! Trödel 13:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't protected due to you, it was protected due to Stevietheman. You were doing the right thing. Unnecessary self-references are just plain absurd. Ral315 (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User:SuperDeng and User:Kurt Leyman

I just blocked SuperDeng for extreme disruption and for continuing his WikiStalking of User:Kurt Leyman. I blocked Kurt for continuing to put misinformation into articles and for refusing to come to an agreement with Deng. This has been going on for 2 months now. We've tried every method possible to stop this. Both users have been blocked. A RfC was opened earlier this month. That didn't do it. If you look at Deng's last 40 or so edits, almost all are reverts of Kurt. This is less than 2 weeks after he was blocked for 8 (yes 8) reverts in 2 hours on the Josef Stalin page. Has Kurt acted poorly as well? Yes. But we cannot and should not let users do what Deng is doing. It pretty much defines disruption. But I myself am tired of watching this farce continue. And as I said, this didn't just start. If you look through SuperDeng's contribs, I believe that over 80 of them (and probably more) are reverts of Kurt. I don't care what someone has done on here. That's uncalled for. We need to somehow get these 2 to talk this out in email or some other method. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Filling in information gaps

This matter has been discussed before on the incident board as can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive90#SuperDeng.27s_and_Kurt_Leyman.27s_revert_wars (Deng 17:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

Also the RFC was made by me Super Deng against kurt it can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kurt_Leyman (Deng 17:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

Now to the matter at hand as can be seen in both matters the RFC and the IncidentArchive, the facts are simple kurt alters sourced figures with numbers that he pulls out of thin air, I then revert it to the sourced numbers. It is as simple as that. Anyone who wants to know more just click on the 2 links.[[[User:SuperDeng|Deng]] 17:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

another matter here if importance is that in this text it can be proven that and admin was wrong, --> so this means the world must end. This is wrong for 8 (yes 8) reverts in 2 hours on the Josef Stalin page. And I can prove it if someone requests it. The admin confuses reverts with fixing typos and the adding of references neither which are reverts. It is not a revert to add a references, it is not a revert to fix typos. Also this matter is extremly complex and anyone who wants to do so must atleast sacrifice many houers to look into what has actually been going on, on the stalin page.(Deng 17:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

Now what one must keep in mind is that the person Ultramarine (talk · contribs) is a very intressting person he does not revert completely to avoid the 3rr rule so he removes information here and there and adds tags to disrupt the page and he is the one who I had been editing with on the stalin page. (Deng 17:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

There is no excuse for reverting a single user 40 times in 3 hours. None. Zero. Zilch. There are better ways to deal with people. --Woohookitty^(meow) 23:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

And have not better ways been tried? Also if a person would add penis breast sex more penis then removeing that would be no problem, and if that person would add it in many articles then removeing it in many articles would also be no problem. The matter at hand is that what Kurt does is much harder to spot then Big penis ooh yeah. He alters numbers of things that existed some 60 years ago, for example he changes the number of guns a ship had. Now if he were to write penis big boobies ooh yeah anyone could see that that was wrong. But removeing a few numbers from an article or altering them, is a diffrent story. Who would know that the info is wrong. It is like changeing the birthday of some not so famous singer who would know? If someone were to add Big boobs i love them to some long forgoten singer then anyone could see that that is wrong but changeing the birthday from august 15 to june 12 is a different matter. Also kurt mass vandalizes many articles therefore there needs to be many reverts and he then re vandalizes the same articles again and again creating even more reverts. Big penis suck it hard can be seen by anyone as wrong but altering figures in a long forgotten battle cant be seen by anyone and only a few would ever know that it was wrong. That is why it is critical to fight Kurt for every inch so that he can not spread misinformation and create vast amounts of false and incorrect information. (Deng 06:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC))

Deleting from page history

I am an admin here and am in a situation where I need to remove personal information from a user talk page's history, at the request of the original editor. This is a legitimate request and I can go into more detail if you wish to know. How can I remove this personal information (in this case, an email address) from the edit history? Simply changing the address to "blanked email address" or similar would be fine. Just removing it from the current revision of the page is not sufficient in this case. --Yamla 19:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete the page, then restore the versions without the personal information. Will (^E_@) T 20:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Contact a user with oversight permissions, who can remove the revision direct. robchurch | talk 23:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll do it - i want to test the new oversight permission thing. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• D'oh, I'm so stupid for forgetting about Oversight. Will (^E_@) T 16:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What's oversight? I've never heard of it before and I cannot find anything on it by searching. -- Kjkolb 07:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Neutral arbiter

has the general aroma of a User:Merecat/User:Rex071404 sock, and a misleading user ID. Phr (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What about Wombdpsw and TBeatty and Cal Burrattino ... What was your evidence again? ahh yes he wrote "lets keep it NPOV" ... Good one. How many more people you 3 going to accuse of being sock puppets, this is beyond fishing its intimidation tactics. TBeatty asks for clarification on Merecat and all of sudden people are accuing the user of being merecat, Burrattino edits an article the 3 hold dear and he is merecat also. Wombdpsw edits Iraq War and he also is a sock puppet. I find it all to conveinent that anyone who opposes the view of RyanFreisling, Mr Tibbs Nescio and Phr end up being accused of being sock puppets. --zero faults talk 17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

admin tools?

here's an idea, just as an experiment would someone mind temporarily (+)sysop-ing an AOL sharedip? just to see if the result was productive, and maybe could lead to future periods of short term anon syopsings? and maybe even a syops for a day program? or a syops in training internship? seems like a good idea--152.163.100.200 17:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Though Wikipedia:Esperanza does have admin trainning for registered users :).Voice-of-All^Talk 17:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. That's not what admin coach program is. -- Drini 17:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a good idea, since the only people who can stop a sysop would be a steward, and they are hard to come by. Also, I am not sure you can sysop an IP, I recall it being discussed somewhere... Prodego ^talk 18:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha... Ha... Ha.. Ha... Ha... Sasquatch t|c 05:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Short answer: No, you can't sysop an IP.

Long answer: anonymous users are given the default permissions assigned to all users. On DefaultSettings.php, they're given anything that is assigned to all users, as they are assigned the permissions in the "*" group. That said, you can assign sysop privileges to an anonymous user, but that would mean giving it to all anonymous users, as well as all registered users. Since that is never going to happen, get an account, which can be assigned extra privileges. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Advice Requested for Nut (goddess)

There is a formatting issue taking place at Talk:Nut (goddess)#Note on Hieroglyphic, where we are unsure how to format to make it more obvious that the reference is for the hieroglyphics. I don't know of any specific place to turn for help on this, so I figured that if the Admins cant' tell me how to do it, they can at least point me the right way.

KV 20:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Known bug. Jkelly 06:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Current events Move

Normally the monthly archival of the Current events article can be done by any editor. However, the May 2006 has been edited a couple times and therefore the customary move of the current events article to May 2006 must be done by an administrator. This is really just as an FYI; this can be taken care of whenever an admin decides to get around to it and does not necessarily have to be done now. joturner 00:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. I've moved the June entries to Current events as well Will (^E_@) T 13:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Haditha incident

Some users are breaking NPOV by trying to second-guess media reports and add doubting attributes to them. No discussion on the /Talk page so far. Please take a look and make these guys respect facts and discussion. --217.235.215.177

Content dispute so far. 217 has already violated WP:3RR today, I have warned him. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Status of religious freedom in Canada

A new (disturbed and sort-of angry) user is causing chaos on the page Talk:Status of religious freedom in Canada. He obviously doesn't like the content of the article (which he also edits), but I can not communicate with him in any useful way. Now he is messing up the entire history of our discussion including my last talk comments, and filling the page with junk. I am not familiar with handling disputes with individuals like this. Please help or tell me how I am to react without getting myself in trouble. He is making edits under User:142.161.98.203, User:142.161.110.60, User:142.161.105.208, and User:DRCarroll. Thanks. Deet 02:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've left a message at that user's talk page, and gave some pointers as to good behaviour. Though I must say I agree with his basic argument that that page is currently a polemic rather than an encyclopedia article. - SimonP 02:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like a good example of how something can be thoroughly referenced and be in breach of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV -- it is a otherwise unpublished collection of cited facts meant to drive the reader to a conclusion. Jkelly 03:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and I hear you both on all fronts. It's a newer article which I expect will evolve significantly through thoughtful input. Deet 03:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Chaning quotations

Does changing an attributed quotation [33] fall under the heading of editorial dispute or vandalism? —Ruud 12:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a content dispute. Its not a quotation its a statement about the source. Shell ^babelfish 14:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Haditha incident

This article was originally named Haditha massacre even though no official investigation has been concluded and as of yet everything is speculative. Per WP:NPOV and WP:Be_bold, I moved the page to a more neutral title of Haditha incident. I feel it is not Wikipedia's place to look at this ongoing speculation and make the declaration that this is in fact a massacre. However, User:Jeremygbyrne has moved the page back citing "more Google hits" for the original title. On Talk I explained that Google hits have no bearing on WP:NPOV and an article's need to be neutral. The dispute, however, is ongoing. —Aiden 17:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There is also an issue with Category:War crimes being added to the article for much the same reason. I removed the category pending the results of the ongoing investigations. A user has raised concern on the Talk page, but I have explained my edits. Hopefully an admin can comment in an effort to proactively resolve this issue. —Aiden 17:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Herschelkrustofsky

I restored this userpage because of a polite request from the user. SlimVirgin never explained to me why she blanked and protected it, but I think it's because HK insinuates on the page that even administrators can push POVs and vote-stack sometimes (I don't see any problem with admitting that publicly). Since it's unprotected, feel free to nominate it for WP:MFD if you would rather not see rants and accusations of cabal rule in userspace. But don't blank it again; that leads to wheel warring and other bad things. I disagree with HK about many things and I am not contesting HK's block. Ashibaka tock 21:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Think of a site that's been continuously slagging off SlimVirgin and other admins since the beginning of this year and beyond. There's your reason Will (^E_@) T 22:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The page does appear to be an attack on Wikipedia, its editors, and funders. However MFD is set up for these purposes so that is an appropriate venue to discuss the page's deletion. -Will Beback 22:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Page has been put on MFD, so further discussion should be done there. Ashibaka tock 01:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

B.J. Averell

Hi. A few days ago, I noticed an anonymous user deleting content from an article I recently improved. The user's IP address and the nature of the edits were consitent with what I would expect from B.J. Averell himself. When a new user, User:Hexadisc, began making essentially the same edits, I began a discussion with him on his talk page, in which Hexadisc asserted that he is either B.J. or a representative of him, and agreed to discuss concerns on the article's talk page. This has yet to occur, and in the meantime I have been reverting similar edits from other new users, who Hexadisc claims are more upset associates of his and not sock puppets. I have been eagerly awaiting a discussion on the article's talk page, but today Hexadisc himself has made essentially the same edits to the article without the discussion I thought we had agreed should take place.

At this point, I am uncomfortable reverting these edits again, especially from a representative of B.J. Averell who seems to have a grasp of the preferred method of dealing with his concerns. To ensure that proper steps and a fair discussion take place, I would like to ask that one or more administrators become involved. I believe that someone who can more authoratitively interpret WP:LIVING and convince Hexadisc that a discussion can result in a fair article, as well as evaluate my interactions with him to ensure that I haven't gotten something wrong, can make a difference and satisfy the concerns of all more fairly and effectively than I can do right now. Thank you. --Maxamegalon2000 03:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the version to which Hexadisc made edits was wholly permissible and appropriate per WP:LIVING but likely was a bit crufty; the current version, even as it is demonstrably less critical of the subject, seems to provide a more encyclopedic treatment of the subject. The inclusion of the intimate details of the Harvard election and airport incident isn't, I think, proscribed by WP:BLP--indeed, the details, as sourced per WP:RS and WP:V and as formulated consistent with WP:NPOV, were compliant with our policies generally--but is militated against by WP:NOT, viz., that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Joe 05:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Left my thoughts at Hexadisc's talk page. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:14 UTC (2006-06-03)

Tawkerbot2A - proposal for it to have sysop for anti WoW capacity

This is just a public announcment (maybe this gets more readership than bot approvals normally does) - anyways the proposal is @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ABots/Requests_for_approvals#Tawkerbot2A_.28WoW_gone_as_fast_as_normal_vandalism.29 - essentially its operation is described there. Several users have said that RfA wasn't the correct place for discussion hence the bot request but Essjay has expressed concern its not advertised enough and when the flags are set it would raise hell. Its essentially a replacement for the offline / inactive Curps bot, as usual if anyone has any questions you know where to ask. -- Tawker 06:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Tawker, that is rather skewed version of my concerns. Given the past expression of community opposition to bots with admin priviledges, and the fact that even Curps' bot did not have wide community support (read the discussion of giving him checkuser if you're not aware of what was said), I was concerned about whether the community was even aware of this. It had never been mentioned here, or on the Incident's board, where it would be commented on, nor was it ever mentioned, even a note directing attention to the bot discussion, on RfA, where adminship discussions are expected to be placed.

Announcing that a new bot is being placed into service, and that it is being granted adminship, without ever notifying the vast majority of the community, smacks of secrecy, and it was my concern that the community would feel the discussion had been hidden. While I've always apprecaited Curpsbot and the work it does, I do not support granting adminship to completely separate bot accounts, and there is considerable concern about it at the Foundation level (one such bot was desysopped just last month after reports that it had gone berzerk); if individual admins want to run bots on thier accounts, that's for the community to handle, but to set up a completely separate bot account and grant it adminship without notification to the majority of the community is quite simply not the way we do things around here.

The community outcry over the use of Tawkerbot2 was queited for the most part by assurances that it would never become an adminbot; this strikes me as a direct reversal of those assurances, and the assurances you made when you were granted adminship, that the bots would remain separate from admin priviledges. I can see us right back here in a month when this bot is blocking users based on Tawkerbot2 warnings. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I could have run it as my personal user account but I believe in a little thing known as honesty and I won't run it as myself (despite it being suggested to me multiple times.) In fact, I was asking around trying to figure where the correct place to get consensus would be, I was told it's not a matter for RfA, to leave it on bot approvals, then today it was suggested AN was a good place and hence it was posted. I should also note that Danny had offered to set flags yesterday but I didn't think there was consensus or a mandate to run this bot so I asked him to decline until such a time. I think I did make a mistake, this is basically a unique bot, the only thing it really shares with the revert-o-bot is it shares the same IRC feed. This is no rush, let the community decide. -- Tawker 08:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

One question, aside from "on wheels" moves, does it also block for high move rates?Voice-of-All^Talk 06:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind.Voice-of-All^Talk 06:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, no sysop flag yet but yes, it will warn before blocking when that feature is enabled -- Tawker 06:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I do think that RFA is the correct venue for that. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The point appears somewhat moot... Jude (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Its proposed scope is rather limited. Handling high page move counts and "... on wheels" moves. joshbuddy^talk 07:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

To be entirely honest, I don't believe for a second that it's proposed scope will remain it's scope for long at all, and given the way this proposal was handled, I have to question whether the community will be consulted at all before new functions are added. I feel completely deceived, as I was told, personally, by both you and Tawker, that admin functionality would never be added to these bots (this semantic garbage about "we added an 'A'" is total bull, and you know it). This is a complete reversal from what the community was told when Tawkerbot2 was set up, and I'm beginning to suspect quite strongly that this has been the plan all along. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I entirely agree with many of Essjay's concerns here. I remember in a certain RfA not too long ago, where Tawker stated that he had no intention of pursuing sysop rights for his bot or letting it touch his sysop account. I have some rather strong reservations about sysopping the bot, but the request for bot approval seems to be rather strong support. I'm assuming that no 'crat will sysop the account without an RfA for it, and in that RfA, I intend to oppose unless I'm pursuaded otherwise. I mean, the bot's great, but I feel a certain creep here--I agree with Essjay that I wouldn't be shocked to see its scope grow and grow without any communication with the community. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thirded concerns, and made it known at the request for approval. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:34 UTC (2006-06-03)

I just had to wait for someone else to oppose before I could =D. Odd of me to offer the bot code one minute and then oppose the bot's new tasks entirely the next, but upon more careful consideration I think this to be a really bad idea. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Essjay, you were told that Tawkerbot2 would never need admin access. This is a new proposal for a new different bot with a highly limited scope. If a bot with admin access does something outside of its scope, I would think that would be grounds for desysoping the bot and quite possibly the sponsor. To quote from Tawker's RFA: "If a supermajority of users (95% or so) wants the bot to have sysop, sure, I'll think about it" He was not categorically opposed to a sysop'ed bot.

Having said that, I never wanted Tawkerbot2 to have admin access. That was never in my plans. joshbuddy^talk 07:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ahwaz

This user is trying to provoke me into breaking 3RR. See [34] [35] [36]. He has 3 reverts now and the 3rd time he removes my tag! He does not explain himself or explain on talk as I have done. Someone please put back the POV tag on the demographics section (totallydisputed-section) of ethnic politics of Khuzestan. Khorshid 11:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not inserting "propaganda". I am writing on the changes in Khuzestan's demographics. Much of the information concerning land confiscations, etc, is contained within the main body of the article and is well-sourced, linking to UNHCR and Amnesty International reports. Khorshid is blanking the section without saying which particular parts of it he has an issue with.

Korshid has also been involved in a number of civility infractions [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45], etc--الأهواز 11:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There is only one source, brother. Others on Talk:Ethnic politics of Khuzestan say that it is propaganda and not "verifiable". I am sorry, but it is true. You don't leave edit summary either. That does not look good with respect to your intentions. You removed a tag even! Khorshid 11:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The source is an Iranian writer who is respected, but who is maligned by those editors of a certain political persuasion who have no sound argument against him. Are you seriously suggesting that the districts mentioned in the demographics section have no Arab population? There is an effort at organised vandalism on this article and I request that an neutral arbiter be invited to mediate or this will become an edit war.--الأهواز 11:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Brother, you have not answered any of my questions. You ask for someone neutral but you still remove a tag! Put the tag back. You have no right to remove and the information you put there is not even true. Khorshid 11:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You have not asked any questions for me to answer. You have some anecdotal evidence from personal experience that you say refutes the work of one of Iran's leading and widely published experts in Khuzestan's history and culture. It is obvious to anyone that the Arab population is concentrated in the south and west and the Lurs and Bakhtiaris are concentrated in the north and east. Even this map [[46]] featured in Ethnic_minorities_in_Iran - an article I have barely touched - shows the distribution of Arabs in the province. The objections on the Ethnic politics of Khuzestan are just intended to inflame an edit war rather than engage in anything constructive. And I hope admins will take note of the links above relating to Khorshid's recent behaviour.--الأهواز 11:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Brother, you have no right to remove the tag. The information you put there has been disputed by not just me but others too, and your one source is not even "verifiable". Why you do not find other sources? Amir Taheri states that only 40% of the province are Arabs and CIA says the same thing and so do others. I am sorry that you do not like the rules, but that is what they are. If you were so sure of yourself you would not remove the tag. But you did. Khorshid 12:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of disputes over the number of Arabs in Khuzestan because there is no census data detailing ethnicity. Bani Torof is the only person who has carried out detailed research into the issue. Unlike Amir Taheri, Bani Torof is not an employee of the right-wing Benador Associates think tank in the US which is definitely a source of propaganda. He is an Iranian writer living and working in Iran and with no political affiliation. The reason some editors have a problem with him is because he writes on Arab heritage in Khuzestan and that seems to offend the sensibilities of some.--الأهواز 12:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My dear brother, Mr. Taheri uses "verifiable" sources like CIA! That is better than your "Centre for Iran Studies" that does not even exist! Again that you remove the tag says everything. Khorshid 12:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The CIA does not comment on Khuzestan's demographics and Taheri is no expert in the field.--الأهواز 12:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Again I ask the good admins to revert brother Ahwaz so that the tag stays on that page. Khorshid 12:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think both of you need to calm down here. Wikipedia does not function totally on the truth. The truth has to be verifiable and backed with proper citations. Please review Wikipedia's policies of verifiability and citing sources. And yes, it is always advisable to have a discussion on the talk page of the article in case you are going to make major changes to the article. But, always remember to cite the sources, and official ones from the Internet (preferably, so that they may be confirmed easily by other users). Regards, --Nearly Headless Nick 14:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)