Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Sonic R: Difference between pages

(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Radiant! (talk | contribs)
36,918 edits
 
 
Line 1:
{{Infobox CVG| title = Sonic R
{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}
|image = [[Image:SonicR.jpg|200px|box cover]]
|developer = [[Traveller's Tales]]
|publisher = [[Sega]]
|designer =
|engine =
|released = [[1997]], [[1999]]
|genre = [[Racing game|Racing]]
|modes = [[Single player]], [[multiplayer]]
|ratings = [[Entertainment Software Rating Board|ESRB]]:Kids to Adults(K-A)
|platforms = [[Personal computer|PC]], [[Sega Saturn|Saturn]]
|media =
|requirements =
|input =
}}[[Image:Super_Sonic_Racing.jpg|200px|thumb|right|A screenshot of the [[Personal computer|PC]] version of ''Sonic R''.]]
 
'''''Sonic R''''' (the R stands for racing) is a [[racing game]] developed by [[Traveller's Tales]] and [[Sonic Team]] for the [[Sega Saturn]] and [[Personal computer|PC]], the latter version being ported to the [[Nintendo GameCube|GameCube]] and [[PlayStation 2]] in ''[[Sonic Gems Collection]]''. It features characters from the ''[[Sonic the Hedgehog]]'' series. The game is characterized by the same sense of environmental openness in the Sonic [[platform game|platformers]]. It contains colorful [[3D computer graphics|3D]] [[computer graphics|graphics]] combined with a strong soundtrack by [[Richard Jacques]] (including songs performed by [[Great Britain|British]] [[singer]] [[T. J. Davis]]). The Saturn version has a severe case of graphical pop-up while the PC version is generally much cleaner (although it sometimes has issues installing/running on [[Windows XP]] and later).
<!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. -->
 
==Gameplay==
There are several collectable rings across each of the five racetracks. Each ring regenerates after a short period of time. These rings can serve one of three purposes.
 
* Stepping on a speed boost will consume all of a player's rings, to a maximum of 50, and boost the player ahead along a preset path. The boost is at a speed approximately three times the normal maximum speed of a character and lasts for a duration [[Proportionality (mathematics)|proportional to]] the number of rings deducted.
==[[User:Jtdirl]] locked an article of himself==
* Special doors on the tracks can open if a player reaches them with twenty or fifty rings (depending on the door). Twenty-ring doors frequently hide tokens, shortcuts, or both. Fifty-ring doors frequently hide Chaos Emeralds, shortcuts, or both. After being opened, the doors remain open for all players for the duration of the game.
* Some characters can perform an attack for 10 rings (see below).
 
There are also inexhaustible emblem bonuses. Touching an emblem gives the racer one of multiple possible rewards, including a random number of rings and the bubble and lightning shields that appeared in ''[[Sonic the Hedgehog 3]]''. The bubble shield allows the racer to walk on water once, after which it disappears. The lightning shield attracts rings to itself, but is eliminated upon touching water (or after having it for a long enough time).
Possible abuse of admin privileges. [[User:Jtdirl]], whom the community well knows to be [[Jim Duffy (author)]] locked that article last night, as shown by diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Duffy_%28author%29&diff=21528727&oldid=21528667]. Is the feeling of impropriety bad or worse? There is certainly something rotten in the system of checks and balances if an admin can keep an article of himself protected. [[User:217.140.193.123|217.140.193.123]] 19:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 
There are five racers in each race. The four racers selected depend on what character the player chooses. If the player chooses a secret character, he'll face the other secret characters that have been unlocked. If the player chooses a starting character, he races against the other starting characters. For the purposes of selecting the racers, Dr. Robotnik is treated as a starting character.
Yet another lie from a user incapable of telling the truth. A series of sockpuppets linked to banned user [[User:Skyring]] (up to 15 so far) targeted a group of articles for vandalism. To stop the endless vandalism a ''series'' of articles were vprotected last night. These included [[Pope Pius XII]], [[Victoria of the United Kingdom]], [[Jim Duffy (author)]] ''and others''. I have never said that I am the person in the article. The vandal claims it. User 217's lies at this stage are tedious and childish, like most of his contributions, and attacks on various users, on Wikipedia. [[User:Jtdirl|<font color="#006666">'''Fear'''<font color="#FF6600">'''''ÉIREANN''''']][[Image:Ireland coa.png|10px]]\<sup><font color=blue>[[user_talk:Jtdirl|(caint)</sup><font color=black>]] 20:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 
Racers can run on water for a limited period of time, and can "swim" in it indefinetely, at greatly reduced speed. In addition, each of the ten playable characters has a different speed and a unique set of abilities. Unlike most racing games, these abilities are designed such that certain characters, even among characters that are initially playable, have a clear edge over others.
::"I have never said that I am the person in the article." - Should we take it therefore that [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles]] is inaccurate when when it associates your account and that page? That listing is not a recent addition, and the details you provide on your user page and your username do not appear inconsistent with the person described in the article. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 20:28, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 
===Main characters===
:It looks to me like Jtdirl is being wikistalked and harrassed, and is protecting articles from vandalism. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></sup> 20:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
The following are the characters that are initially playable:
 
* [[Sonic]] is the fastest of the characters that are initially playable. He can double jump.
::I agree. I did express some concern on Jtdirl's talk page about the precedent set by the subject of an article locking it. I am satisfied by his answer that he acted in good faith, though it would have been better in my opinion to have had another admin lock this particular article. I think this anonymous complaintant is not acting in the best of faith, and I think if one looks at the history there is little doubt this is yet another incarnation of a blocked user. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] 20:15, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
* [[Tails]] can fly at a fixed level for an unlimited period of time.
* [[Knuckles]] can glide for an unlimited period of time, gradually losing height. However, he cannot latch onto or climb walls as in all other games in which he has appeared.
* [[Amy Rose]] drives a car and can hover over water. She also has the ability to use a speed boost, although she can't turn very well while doing so. She is extremely slow.
 
===Secret characters===
:: This doesn't seem like a very nice chap, to be sure. The only one I looked at, however, didn't look like vandalism ''per se''. If this is really SkyRing, however, I wouldn't expect things to be straightforward in any case. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 20:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
The secret characters, with the exception of [[Super Sonic]], can be unlocked by collecting all five coins on a racetrack and finish first, second, or third. Upon doing so, the player will be challenged by one of the following characters, depending on the racetrack:
 
* [[Dr. Robotnik]] ([[Doctor Eggman|Dr. Eggman]] in the [[Japan]]ese version), who races in his personal [[hi-tech]] [[aircraft]], can do a short-range [[heat-seeking]] attack at a cost of 10 rings. The attack will eliminate the target's shield if it has one and slow it down if it does not. He is particularly slow.
::Perhaps [[user:jtdirl|Jim T Duffy In Real Life]] could provide a few diffs of this "endless vandalism"? 217's statement above is entirely correct:
* [[Metal Sonic]] is an improved version of its counterpart. It has a very high single jump and doesn't fall into water if it constantly jumps.
::*Jim Duffy locked an article on himself.
* [[Tails Doll]] can hover on water. Additionally, it can hover indefinetely a certain distance above the ground or water. Some say he can come out of the TV and "get" people, but that is not true
::*There is something wrong in the system.
* [[Metal Knuckles]] is an improved version of its counterpart. It has a much better glide than Knuckles. It is notably fast. Also, it is one of the more difficult secret characters to obtain.
* [[Eggrobo]] is a [[humanoid]] [[robot]] whose head and body are shaped like an egg. Its abilities are similar to those of Robotnik, but it is slow compared to the other secret characters.
 
===Super Sonic===
::Labelling statements of fact and honest debate as "lies, stalking, vandalism and harassment" and using admin powers to win edit wars is a poor sort of example to set, and being backed up by a member of the ArbComm merely underscores this point. [[User:Mineeyes|Mineeyes]] 20:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
[[Super Sonic]] is the fastest racer, and also the hardest to unlock. He can double jump and can run on the surface of water, provided that he does not slow down. To unlock him, the player must collect all seven [[Chaos Emerald]]s scoured throughout the five racetracks. When a player collects one, he must finish in first place to keep it.
 
When playing as Super Sonic in the Radiant Emerald stage, the music is different; it plays the Sonic R theme song (''Super Sonic Racing'') instead of ''Diamond in the Sky''.
In my opinion, the total of behavior of Jtdirl shows sensitivity that has gone too far, and the use of/position of admin aggravates the problem. It really is disruptive if a person with sort of paranoia may use privileged enforcement alone by his own judgement, in his own case. The situation seems such that the judgement of the person in question is heavily influenced by his problems, are they "Jtdirl is being wikistalked and harassed" and/or some other problems. We should understand that already from the language Jtdirl used above desctibing me. For these sorts of situations, there should be clear requirement of recusal. If the suspected "sockpuppet" or whatever (or alleged vandalism) is objectively seen such, ''another'' will do things that are needed. I believe that idea is written in many places in WP policies. How is it that it is not followed? [[User:217.140.193.123|217.140.193.123]] 20:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 
===Other modes===
Jtdirl did nothing wrong. He removed a statement from an article that did not belong (It was a self reference and it was not notable in the grand scheme of things), and not only that, but it was the first time he had edited that article in over two years. FURTHERMORE, the comment he removed was added by none other than permabanned member NoPuzzleStranger aka Wik. Jtdirl was right to do it, and then people and/or sockpuppets put it back when it did not belong. He was absolutely right to protect it, it was being vandalized. Their summaries show a blatant disregard for the wiki way - "Useful to know so as to watch for shameless self-promotion. *Keep*" "It's a warning, not a self-reference." "Warning of shameless self-manipulation" - Since the last time he'd edited was two years prior, what exact manipulation are these folks referring to? Stalking and trolling. Deal with accordingly. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 22:00, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Aside from the main game, there are three special gameplay modes accessible from Time Attack mode: reverse, in which racing occurs facing the opposite direction, break five balloons, and tag four players.
 
==Versions==
::Krhm. "Not over two years"... Concluding from writing style, topics chosen and also from the IP's Irish ___location, the IP 159.134.137.114 which made plenty of edits to that article on 18 March 2005 (see [[User:159.134.137.114]], contibutions etc), in fact seems highly likely to be [[User:Jtdirl]]. Of course it is a kind act towards WP that he shares his private knowledge of the topic (and I wouldn't raise such issues as Original Research, POV, etc). It would not be correct to allege that the IP is Jtdirl's sockpuppet, as by definition an IP never is sockpuppet, only accounts may be. If such sitiation arises, David Gerard and arbitrators may then judge whether the IP is same person as Jtdirl. [[User:217.140.193.123|217.140.193.123]] 22:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
For the PC version the graphics were somewhat modified. For example races occur in random weather conditions, either normal, rainy, or snowy, unless the default settings are altered. Snowy weather freezes the water so that racers can run across it without sinking.
 
The version of the game in ''Sonic Gems Collection'' is similar to the PC version. Minor differences include that there is no Network option on the main menu and that the Options menu is slightly different.
By my definition, none of the edits I looked at are ''vandalism''. They don't look like good edits, I agree, but that's not the same as vandalism. I feel calling these edits vandalism is a way of fitting them into a certain box in order to enable them to be dealt with more easily. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 22:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:I prefer the term "trolling" myself. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (a tenth stroke)]] 22:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 
{{SonicGames}}
:I have no idea whether or not [[User:jtdirl|Jtdirl]] is the writer [[Jim Duffy]]; nor does it particularly interest me. What bothers me is that such an assertion would be made when a user has deliberately chosen a username. On the same note, I think it was in rather bad taste for [[User:Skyring|Skyring]] constantly to address him and refer to him here on Wikipedia as "Jim". Whether his real name is John Smith, [[Jim Duffy]], or [[Prince Charles|Charles Mountbatten-Windsor]], he has a perfect right to be anonymous on Wikipedia if he so chooses. I may really be [[J.K. Rowling]], but if I chose the username [[User:Ann Heneghan|Ann Heneghan]], I have the right to expect that people use that name to refer to me. In any case, [[User:jtdirl|Jtdirl]] had not edited that article for over two years, and it took him over four months to discover that [[User:NoPuzzleStranger]] had inserted into it the statement that [[Jim Duffy]] was editing Wikipedia under the username [[User:jtdirl|Jtdirl]] &mdash; hardly what you'd expect from someone who has got over-possessive about an article because he's the subject of it. Can we drop the speculation, please? [[User:Ann Heneghan|Ann Heneghan]] [[User talk:Ann Heneghan |<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 22:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
[[Category:PC games]]
::Are you asking for your contribution to be deleted then? 8^)
[[Category:Sega Saturn games]]
::The above is all very precious, as a lawyer would say, but there is no doubt about the equivalence of [[user:jtdirl]] and [[Jim Duffy]]. Regardless of whether he takes a long time to edit his own article (and as noted, a Dublin anon made a major rewrite in March this year), the information is certainly pertinent to the article. The article itself mentions various publications from which Jim Duffy presumably derives some income, and the question needs to be asked as to how far Wikipedia is prepared to go in promoting a writer's interest, or self-interest. Just how does this differ from the various promotional pages we see for bands of little renown which are intended to drum up recognition? [[User:Selectman|Selectman]] 22:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
[[Category:Sonic the Hedgehog games]]
 
[[Category:Racing computer games]]
:I prefer the phrase "edits made by sockpuppets of a user banned for a year for wiki-stalking." That's clear-cut. Really clear-cut. I just found and blocked another likely sockpuppet of Skyring. Whether the edit is good or not is really beside the point&ndash;coming from Skyring it ''isn't'' in good faith. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 00:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
[[Category: 1997 computer and video games]]
 
[[Category: 1998 computer and video games]]
::I agree with Ann, when people choose usernames we must assume they want anonymity. Presumably that is why [[User:217.140.193.123]] sometimes calls himself [[User:Arrigo]] and sometimes uses other IP addresses anonymously. I've known Jtdirl for, what, two years plus? -- and I still don't ''really'' know if he's the subject of the article in question. [[User:Deb|Deb]] 22:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
[[fr:Sonic R]]
 
==Disputed VfD close of [[ExamDiff]] up for relisting [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ExamDiff (second nomination)]]==
This was peremptorily deleted by one sysop who disputed the close. I don't see any harm in having a proper discussion as there were only four votes in the original VfD, so I've relisted it--it clearly isn't a candidate for speedy deletion. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 20:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
:Wouldn't this be exactly the sort of thing that should be taken to [[WP:VfU|VfU]], this being an undeletion? Whether or not you're an admin? -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 23:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
*Yes. Tony has unilaterally decided that VFU is broken ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theresa_knott&diff=21365907&oldid=21362876]) so is once more bypassing it. Sounds like [[WP:POINT]]. Also, speedy deletion doesn't come into it; the original VFD had consensus to delete. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 08:15, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 
: No. The deletion was closed with a no consensus result. Someone then contacted me and asked if it was okay to relist on VfD. I said he should do that with my blessing because it was a close result and there were only four voters. Someone else went ahead and listed in on VfD. It was then that Radiant simply edited the original VfD page to reflect his preferred result and summarily deleted the article. The article was restored and is now being discussed in the right place: VfD. It was a failed attempt by Radiant to hijack a legitimate VfD. Whether VFU is bust or not is moot; the article never belonged there. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 17:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 
::''...the article never belonged there.'' Which you decided, unilaterally -- pretty much confirming Radiant's point. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 00:49, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 
==Coq-bloody-Sportif and his sockpuppet legions==
 
Are mostly coming in through two ranges assigned to Prodigy Internet in Melbourne: 202.147.97.0/24 and 203.82.183.0/24. I dunno if these are a business or a net cafe or what, but there has been literally ''nothing'' from these two ranges in the last two months except trolling, vandalism and sockpuppetry. I've blocked both /24s for three months. That's a fairly extreme block for an IP, but those who've had fun with the sockpuppet legions might like the following list:
 
Newshounder, Terpt, Bertzenfartzen, Chokitoass, Barnabyhanson, Plunger, Rebeve, Longterg, Edwardlongstreet, Towelhedzras, Justase, Osamabeenlaughing, Adam Corr, AdamEve, Thecunninglinguists, Shintaro, Shukidalam, WhereIsTheLove?, Cupcaketwinkie, Frankly, Carlaz, KarlJetter, Dirtyboo, Ericcantona, Hansolocousin, Dertyharry, Planetaustin, Moodaltering, Rousterspor, Pewtang, Hooters, Peacenick, Woozer, Coqsportif, Gookoid, Reject, Toshiba, Jakemelen, Huchi, DavidGlick, Sunak and Wakemeupwhen.
 
All of those are the same user or one of two people. It doesn't really matter which, IMO, as (as I said) there's been literally ''nothing'' positive from those IP ranges in the last two months. I urge you not to unblock those IP ranges without referring them to me first, because I'd like a few words with the listed contact for the ___domain about this rubbish - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 22:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:Wow, then knowing the origination of this person is practically impossible. I have only encountered "Thecunninglinguists" otherwise, who was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Thecunninglinguists&offset=0&limit=500 ostensibly] a [[juche]] enthusiast. Weird people on teh internets. --[[User:TJive|TJive]] 22:44, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
:He's back as {{user|203.206.81.110}}. --[[User:Viriditas|Viriditas ]] | [[User_talk:Viriditas|Talk]] 10:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
::Everyone from Coqsportif onward is most definitely one person. Does this include [[User:Ray Lopez]], as well? [[User:Shem Daimwood|Shem]]<sup>[[User talk:Shem Daimwood|(talk)]]</sup> 00:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 
==Socknet==
[[User:Socknet]] may herald something on a larger scale than currently seen daily with Willy on Wheels. Nothing links to this userpage yet, so I assume I'm the first to notice / report this account user page. I sincerely hope that the proposed vandalizations are not implemented yet in his/their scripts. [[User:Adam Rock|Adam]][[User talk:Adam Rock|<sup>Rock</sup>]] 22:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 
:Oh fuck. I think this will be repulsible, though. Could someone mention on wikien-l? ~~ '''[[User:Nickptar|N]]''' ([[User talk:Nickptar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Nickptar|c]]) 22:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:Thought I'd summarize: threats of mass-scale sockpuppet vandalization on August 25, 2005. [[User:Adam Rock|Adam]][[User talk:Adam Rock|<sup>Rock</sup>]] 22:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 
::Why not just block it for threats of mass vandalism and impersonating a user banned by the community (WoW). [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] 22:59, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
 
:::Won't help. Read the description. ~~ '''[[User:Nickptar|N]]''' ([[User talk:Nickptar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Nickptar|c]]) 23:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 
::::I left the folks on IRC know what is going on. I am also stunned by it. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 23:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 
I've deleted the user page as inappropriate under the [[Wikipedia:User page|user page policy]]. We don't have to tolerate user pages consisting solely of instructions for "improved" vandalism techniques. The likely vandal fighters (i.e. admins) can still view the deleted user page. Let's not recreate or duplicate that content, if at all possible, and let's not put ideas in people's minds. If we're lucky, it was just a trolling attempt. --[[User:MarkSweep|MarkSweep]] 23:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 
I have to say that 500 good edits in order to be able to vote keep to a school article is a bloody bargain. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (a tenth stroke)]] 23:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:IMHO, usually most school articles are never put on VFD now, right? [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 23:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 
::Shhh don't tell them that! [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (a tenth stroke)]] 23:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 
Agree with Theresa! If I read that page correctly, people are agreeing to gather in a drive to improve Wikipedia! I think that's good news. Oh, we'll just kick them afterwards, of course. Bad edits are bad edits, just as good edits are good edits. People could get less hung up about identity anyway, in those places where hardly anyone collaborates. [[User:JRM|JRM]] · [[User talk:JRM|Talk]] 23:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 
Damn. I can't believe that some people can be so depraved. I'll be keeping an careful lookout over the next couple of days. Anyone have any idea how credible this threat is? Seems odd that someone would intentionally announce their intentions for mass vandalism on this scale on Wikipedia itself. -[[User:Changlc|Loren]] 23:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
:It's not credible at all. It's just some kid doing a spot of trolling.[[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (a tenth stroke)]] 23:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 
Could someone ban this guy properly? Theresa only blocked "User:User:Socknet". ~~ '''[[User:Nickptar|N]]''' ([[User talk:Nickptar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Nickptar|c]]) 00:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 
::Doh! I'm an idiot. I've sorted it now. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (a tenth stroke)]] 00:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 
C'mon Theresa, you've been an admin for how long now? ;) Anyways, I think this is quite funny...if it does happens I will never have to worry about being bored again (maybe I can get a wiki-[[M16]] or something) &mdash; [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="color:gray;">Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;</span>]] [[User talk:Ilyanep|<span style="color: #333333;">(T&alpha;l&kappa;)</span>'']] 16:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:Naaah, I think it's clear, Theresa must be the admin that they say is secretly supporting them. Look at her record. First she says it is a "bloody bargain", and then she tries to deflect criticism by saying it is "just some kid", and then she "accidentally" forgets how to block the account. And think how useful it will be for them to have a member on ArbCom. That was your vicious plan all along, right Theresa, oh queen of the secret vandals? We see right through you. ;-) [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 17:04, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 
::one slight flaw blocking User:User:Socknet will block User:Socknet. In fact you can use this bug to double block people.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 22:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 
*Two possibilities here: (a) Just another joke (from someone with an axe to grind about school inclusionism, by the sound of it) or (b) They're serious, in which case such activities (page-move vandalism, voting to keep porn, etc.) would stick out like a sore thumb and make the socks easy ban-magnets, regardless of their edit count. On the positive side, WP gets some good grunt work like stub sorting done. Either way, nothing to get worried or upset about. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan - <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT>]] 01:57, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 
[[User:Sockster]] Seems to be the "old school" version of '''Socknet'''. Circa February 25, 2005. [[User:Adam Rock|Adam]][[User talk:Adam Rock|<sup>Rock</sup>]] 20:53, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 
: [[User:Sock-ster]] also, who may not be blocked. [[User:Adam Rock|Adam]][[User talk:Adam Rock|<sup>Rock</sup>]] 21:05, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 
==[[Timeline of Islamic history 21st Century]]==
{{vandal|69.118.228.15}} is reverting the article [[Timeline of Islamic history 21st Century]] to remove mention of the recent removal of Jewish settlers from the [[Gaza Strip]]. This is a relevant event in the "Timeline of Islamic history 21st Century." I have reverted once, which the user re-reverted. They are obvioulsy watching the article, and I do not wish to become engaged in an edit war.
&mdash; [[User:Linnwood|Linnwood]] 23:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 
== Redirect spree ==
 
I received this message today from another user:
 
<blockquote>
I noticed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Indrian this user] has taken numerous (apparent) legitimate articles and seemingly needlessly redirected them to other relevant articles. Could you take a look at this please? Thanks. [[User:NickBush24|NickBush24]] 07:33, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
</blockquote>
 
I checked into it, and indeed {{user|Indrian}} has been redirecting a large number of articles. Since I don't know anything about archery, I thought I'd bring it up here and let others take a look. Is this something we should be concerned about, or are the redirects legit? -- [[User:Essjay|Essjay]] · [[User_talk:Essjay| Talk]] 01:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 
:Well, at least some of them are legit, if somewhat discardist. Example: [[Takaharu Furukawa]] is now a redirect to [[Archery at the 2004 Summer Olympics]] and the target confirm that person did compete as described. ''However'', he only redirected the page, without a merge. That is just being WP:BOLD, but does seem to discard a fair bit of information. Still, the editor would seem to be within their 'rights' to do that. I checked a handful and they seem to be the same thing. The only problem is that he hasn't delinked the now-redirected articles from their target, so they've become circular links. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 02:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 
::He indeed does have the 'right' to do it. And I have the 'right' to revert it. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 04:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 
:::Keep in mind you also have the right to go over to his talk page and discuss the matter with him, as far as I can tell nobody has even pointed out that there might be a problem with this to him yet. --[[User:fvw|fvw]][[User talk:Fvw|<SMALL><FONT COLOR="green">*</FONT></SMALL>]] 04:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 
::::Indeed, which is why I did not revert them. I did not have time, and I would have wanted to discuss it first. I too noticed no one had brought it up on Indrian's page. And I agree with Indrian - this is a matter that should have been brought up on his talk page first, rather than as an Admin Noticeboard Incident. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 18:28, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 
::The complete lack of edit summaries for these major changes is also worrying. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 04:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 
:::I think what is truly worrying is the complete lack of notification to a user that his edits are turning into a source of major discussion (thanks to --[[User:fvw|fvw]][[User talk:Fvw|<SMALL><FONT COLOR="green">*</FONT></SMALL>]] for being polite in this regard). The archery articles that I have redirected I did so because the articles in question contained no information that was not already contained on the archery page. One who examined the matter more closely would notice that I did not redirect several archery articles which did, in fact, include more information than country of origin and finishing place at the Olympics. I did not merge any material because, quite simply, there was nothing to merge. Obviously, if a large number of users disagree with these assertions, I am not going to start a protracted edit war or anything silly like that, but I challenge anyone to inform me as to the value of articles that contain nothing but the nationality and finishing place of athletes when this information is already contained on the main page of the subject. These articles are not deleted, and any editor is free at any time to expand these redirected stubs into well-written and informative articles, or even poorly written and uninformative articles as long as they contain information that is not already found on the archery page. Note that I also have been deleting the links in the archery article as I have been redirecting the articles, so any that I did not delink were mere oversights. (EDIT: After examining the archery page more closely, I realize that the contestants are linked multiple times on the page and that I have only been delinking them from the main listing. This was, as I said, an oversight and not on purpose) In the future, if anyone has problems with my actions, they should come to me first; this is only polite. [[User:Indrian|Indrian]] 16:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 
:Sorry for all the fuss; I didn't know enough about the subject to start a discussion with Indrian over whether it was a good idea or not. My hope was that bringing it up here would allow someone who knew more about it to take a look and take the appropriate action. In the future, I'll just ignore anything I can't handle myself. -- [[User:Essjay|Essjay]] · [[User_talk:Essjay| Talk]] 04:40, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 
==[[User:Amorrow]]==
{{user|Amorrow}} began making some really odd, rambling comments on the Talk page of [[Elizabeth Morgan]], then went onto Jimbo's Talk page and put other rambling comments there. I don't know what went on between him and [[User:Xaa]], but Xaa was reporting that he/she was getting emailed death threats from Amorrow, and has since left Wikipedia as a result. As {{user|204.147.187.240}}, Amorrow is now making threats to [[User:Geni]]. [[User:Zoe|Zoe]] 07:21, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 
:I've gotten a few too. Considering the Xaa situation, this should not be taken lightly. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 07:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 
:Amorrow sent a pile of these to me and various others. Diagnosis: batshit. If in doubt, contact the authorities - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 15:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:I was just about to say, and not facetiously, that he might benefit greatly from medical attention. I hope that wherever he is he is able to get it. Soon.—[[User:Encephalon|<font color=000066>Encephalon</font>]] | [[User talk:Encephalon|<font color=red><sup>&zeta;</sup></font>]]&nbsp; 16:33:59, 2005-08-23 (UTC)
 
::I mean it about the authorities. He appears to have cracked up substantially - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 21:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:::I'm not sure we know where he located. His native IP appears to be earthlink so we can't get much from that[[User:Geni|Geni]] 21:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 
::::And seemed to pop back again, as [[User:Andysocky]]. -[[User:Ashley Pomeroy|Ashley Pomeroy]] 22:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:::::I blocked that ccount as well.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 22:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 
::::::He edited my Talk page as [[User:172.198.170.230]], another head-scratching diatribe. [[User:Zoe|Zoe]] 22:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 
==[[User:Staxringold]]==
Could somebody take a fresh eye at this user's edits? He/she seems to be making a large number of articles about non-notable motorcycles created by a marginally notable bike shop. His edits are beginning to read more and more like an ad campaign. If others think his edits are acceptable, then I apologize. [[User:Zoe|Zoe]] 08:42, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
:I think the edits are too advertisement-like in tone. However, I do consider [[Orange County Choppers]] to be plenty notable, because of the ''[[American Chopper]]'' connection. The show has many fans (a little embarrassed to confess I'm one of them). [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 09:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 
==[[AN/CYZ-10]]==
 
Check out this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AN%2FCYZ-10&diff=21659218&oldid=17988204
 
I reverted it, but the IP actually resolves to the USMC in San Diego. Maybe there is something to this. It looks like a legal threat, and we'd be giving USMC IPs a carte blanche to blank at will if we let this stand. What do you think? --<span style="font-family:monospace">&nbsp;[[User:Grm_wnr|grm_wnr]] </span>[[User_talk:Grm_wnr|<span style="border:1px solid;color:black;font-size:9px;padding:2px 1px 0px 1px">Esc</span>]] 17:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 
It would probably be a good idea to ask the editor who put the information there where they got it, it's probably public ___domain somewhere. But I doubt that a Lance Corporal would be blanking the article if it were really classified, a Colonel would be contacting the Foundation. [[User:Zoe|Zoe]] 17:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
*I wouldn't worry about it: it comes completely from the [https://infosec.navy.mil/ps/?t=infosecprodsservices/infosecprodsservices.tag&bc=infosecprodsservices/ekms.html Navy Information Assurance] site, which I suspect the USMC knows about. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]] 19:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
*I'm the editor in question and I have added sources to the article. This is likely a hoax and if it is from a USMC IP address, the USMC might want to know about it. --[[User:ArnoldReinhold|agr]] 21:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
It's a bit of a Catch-22 situation; if the article really does contain classified information, and the chap who has just blanked it is justified in his actions and has been authorised to do so, then he has actually ''confirmed'' that the information - which is persistent and available in the page history - is classified information, in which case he is probably breaking a rule or two himself. -[[User:Ashley Pomeroy|Ashley Pomeroy]] 22:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
: Quite. My initial impulse on seeing this was to consider saving a copy to my hard drive, although I didn't bother because it's nearly certainly a hoax. Given how Wikipedia content gets dispersed to mirrors and database dumps, it's likely that the best thing a goverment entity could do if its secrets were posted on Wikipedia would be to simply ignore it, and not draw attention to it in any way. Alternatively, they could have a mole editor list it on VfD as "unverifiable", which would be workable if Wikipedia were the only public source (and if it wasn't, they've lost the secret anyway). [[User:Matt Crypto|&mdash; Matt <small>Crypto</small>]] 23:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 
It can't be that secret if you can [http://www.sypriselectronics.com/electronics/content.asp?page_id=338 buy one for yourself]. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 00:07, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 
== [[User:DreamGuy]] ==
 
Keeps blanking my comments on his user talk page. Refuses to archive. Insists on his right to blank this and everything else on his talk page. eg [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADreamGuy&diff=21660667&oldid=21660447 here], [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 18:16, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
:Honestly, unless someone's blanking a vandalism warning, I don't complain about it. If you are trying to communicate about a dispute, however (and it appears you are), I take blanking of a page not only as an indication to move it to the next step in dispute resolution, but also as excellent evidence to be presented on your behalf. But I would say that it, in itself, is not vandalism. Deleting instead of archiving is a perfectly reasonable method; I've seen admins do it. However, it's very poor form to do it mid-argument. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 18:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 
I have replaced someone else's 2 day old notice of his arbitration and flagged his deletion mid conversation You may well be right about taking it further. Maybe time for a 3rd Rfc. Cheers, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 18:35, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 
If you actually read the above you will have to see that there was nothing wrong with my removing the discussion and your insistence on putting it back is clear harassment. Furthermore, the argument was not-mid argument because Squeakbox here insisted upon getting the last word in and continuing to press his harassment during his bad behavior. Furthermore I notice other people on his talk page complaining about his agressive behavior and baseless threats. Perhaps it's about time I started filing complaints against editors who are breaking policy instead of just sitting back and waiting for them to file false accusations against me. I have reverted my talk page again... but you are right about one thing: It is not over, because something needs to be done about admins who think they are above the policies here and how go on crusades of harassment against people who point out that they did something wrong. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] 19:07, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 
===Perhaps I can clear a few things up ===
*Nobody has to create an archive if they don't want to.
*If someone removes an old comment from their talk page then assume good faith and believe them when they are saying they are clearing out old stuff.
*If someone removes a new comment from their talk page then this implies two things
*#They have seen that comment
*#They do not wish to respond to it
*Since they have seen the comment, reposting it is pointless. At RFAr we ask for evidence that a notice was ''posted'' about the RFAr.That's all. We do not require that the person has to keep the notice on thier talk page.
*Since the person has indicated that they do not wish to discuss the matter, and nobody can ''force'' someone to discuss things, then reposting deleted conversations serves no useful purpose whatsoever. All it can be used for is harrasment, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (a tenth stroke)]] 22:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 
I have not been harrassing DreamGuy but he most certainly has been harrassing me; without justification, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 22:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
:Well if that is true then your best course of action is not to go to your harraser's talk page at all. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (a tenth stroke)]] 22:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
::But of course it's not true, so his harassing me on my talk page was even worse. The only alleged "harassment" was a good faith dispute over his actions on a RfC for his he falsely claimed did not have enough signatures and labeled speedy delete, and then when I removed the tag and pointed out that there was enough (a couple of times), he deleted some signatures from the page and then listed it for speedy delete again and removed it from the RfC page and very rudely assumed bad faith, harassed me, and got an admin involved. For him to claim I harassed him when a brief look at the edits involved (where it's still left to be seen, as the main page has in fact been speedily deleted due to intervention by an admin who has a history of showing up to take the side of anyone complaining against me, even if they are chronic 3RR block violators and etc.) shows clear uncivility, outright personal attacks and harassment by him is just absurd. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] 14:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 
and then harrass me withouit pausing for breath by wrongly accusing me of falsification, even though you know fully well I never falsified anything. I deleted invalid signatures, as you well know, because you have been told the signatures in question were dated from 4 days before the rfc began, and were pasted in by someone else without the permission of the signers, as that person has admitted. In spite of my requesting to you to explain how these signatures were "valid", and which policy states signatures pasted from a talk page from 4 days before the Rfc began have to be considered valid, you have faikled to explain why you believe the rules support such validations on an Rfc. What do you think would happen if your idea became policy, and outdated signatures posted from a talk page from 4 days before the beginning of an rfc were considered valid. It would destroy the Rfc process. But whatever the rights and wrongs of the policy, at the moment it does not allow out of date signatures pated froma a talk page without the permission of the signers is not now considered policy. Try changing policy if you feel about it that strongly, but don't harrass people for enforcing the one we have. I did not contact Slim, another invention. I was absolutely right to ignore the bad signatures. What frightens me is that if DreamGuy got his way any bad faith user could paste signatures from anywhere, ignore their date stamps and thus pursue whatever bad faith Rfc's they wanted. Wikipedia would not last very long with such a dishonest policy, yet this is the stance DreamGuy aggressively takes. When I question him on his rather outlandish beliefs around pasting signatures into an Rfc he does not answer me but instead blanks my comments, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 15:24, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 
This is one of the signatures that allegedly certified the Rfc: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=21073902&oldid=21073673] [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 16:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 
 
For clarity I hear paste the Rfc as it was initially created. decide for yourselves if this is a legitimate Rfc. It is from [[Talk:Encyclopædia Dramatica#Use of multiple userID's?]]. IMO because this was not constructed on an rfc page it was not valid, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 16:51, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 
:''Note: I've removed the pasted material, as it's better not to bloat the page. It's also better to use a stable diff for linking to it— [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=next&oldid=21030730 here it is]. I hope you don't mind and that this works OK for your purpose, Squeakbox.'' [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 17:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
'''Users certifying the basis for this dispute'''
--[[User:Depakote|Depakote]] 16:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 
--2004-12-29T22:45Z 17:00, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 
I am readding the signatures which are at the heart of this dispute, and not included in your diff. They were pasted from [[Talk:Encyclopædia Dramatica]] onto the Rfc. DreamGuy claims they are valid for an Rfc starting on August 19. I claim they aren't, and that first ignoring them when removing Rfc/Girlvinyl from the Rfc page, and then deleting them when DreamGuy insisted they were valid for the Rfc, was perfectly legitimate behaviour on my part. Should we allow to certify Rfc's on a talk page, transfer the certifications to the Rfc and then use them as if they were signed when the Rfc was created, ignoring the fact that they are 4 days old, and were not put on the Rfc by the signers. Or should wee not allow such practices. Make your own minds up, but my understanding is that wikipedia does not allow such behaviour, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 17:48, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 
== Blocked User Evading Block (Again) ==
[[User:67.182.157.6]] AKA Donald Alford AKA "DotSix" was blocked yesterday for 3RR. Today he has been using sockpuppets in the AOL range of IPs to resume the reverts on [[Epistemology]], and the pages for the Arb Committee case that the Arb Committee voted to accept last week. [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/DotSix]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/DotSix/Evidence]]. Since AOL IPs are highly dynamic, there's not much point to blocking them. He'll just login with a new one. But you could extend the block on his main user id: [[User:67.182.157.6]] to punish him. That is what was done the several times earlier this month that he evaded a block with sockpuppets. But could you extend it for more than 24 hrs this time? Also, you could protect [[Epistemology]]? --[[User:Nathan Ladd|Nate Ladd]] 00:31, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
:Protected. --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 02:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 
== [[User:Trollderella]] blocked ==
I see that this user was blocked. I don't know if simply having "troll" in the username is a good reason to block, especially since I haven't seen much disruption take place from this user, even though s/he appears to be very inclusionist (though not disruptive, and not a "blanket" keep voter on all VFD debates like [[User:Chubby Chicken]] was). I think the subject of having/not having "troll" in the username has been discussed before and that the most common opinions were that it is acceptable to have "troll" in the username but that one is far less tolerant of vandalism or disruption coming from them. I see that Rossami discussed his concerns about the username with Trolderella, and perhaps a further admonition of the wisdom of such a username choice might be appropriate, but was a block really neccesary when most, if not all, of the edits are legitimate? [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 07:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
:The idea that someone could be banned purely on account of having a "troll" user name baffles me. If there's another reason, OK, but just the name? If we're going to have to contend with trolls anyway, isn't it nicer if they label themselves so we can easily keep an eye on them? [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 07:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
::I don't always agree with your mild views on banning and blocking people, but I tend to agree with you on this one. I will unblock this one. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 07:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 
== Another impostor? ==
 
See [[Special:Contributions/Erwin_Walsh%C2%AD%C2%AD]] (that's "Erwin_Walsh&#37;C2&#37;AD&#37;C2&#37;AD") and [[Special:Contributions/Erwin_Walsh]] (just "Erwin_Walsh"). Can someone double-check? (I truly think unicode support for user names '''should be switched off''' or at least only display in signatures, but not in RC and other lists (there, it should be displayed as %...) [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 09:47, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
*I wholeheartedly agree. (Ceterum censeo...) [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 11:01, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 
Update: '''I can't even block him!''' The block page tells me that "There is no user by the name "Erwin Walsh%C2%AD%C2%AD­­". Check your spelling." But there ''is'' such an account! What's going on here? [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 11:19, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
*I blocked Erwin's main account after he vandalized [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit]] this morning, but he immediately hopped onto a sock account and vandalised it again. And then again. [[User:Sjakkalle]] has indefinitely blocked two of his puppets so far. To say that Erwin has become a serious problem would be an understatement, I think. He's starting to tie up a lot of administrator time. [[User:Fernando Rizo|Fernando Rizo]] [[User_talk:Fernando Rizo|''T'']]/[[Special:Contributions/Fernando_Rizo|''C'']] 11:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:That's because in the username to be blocked field the unicode facility is enabled, allowing it to be displayed. I don't know how to switch that off or to block the username. -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs2000]] | [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new Talk] [[Image:Uk flag large.png|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 11:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 
''Posting my response on [[User:Lupo|Lupo]]'s talkpage here too: '' I'm in fact not entirely sure. I blocked two Erwin Walshs now, they are ''not'' the same user because the userpage of the second Erwin Walsh I blocked is a redirect to the first one. I think the "indefinite" block of the first one is not permanent because he was blocked for 24 hours by Fernando Rizo. When that block expires, Erwin Walsh no. 1 will be unblocked, regardless of the indefinite block I imposed right afterwards.
 
I blocked Erwin Walsh no. 2 by accessing the block button from the Recentchanges page.
 
I suspect Erwin Walsh is a sockpuppet of someone anyway, out to make a [[WP:POINT]]. 80% of his edit summaries consist of the word "delete".
[[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 11:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:just copy and paste the name from the top of thier user page.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 11:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 
::But that reads "User:Erwin Walsh" in both cases, and even in the HTML, there is no difference! [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 11:54, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 
:::That is a real problem. If you take a look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Sjakkalle&page= list of blocks I made] I caught the second Erwin Walsh at 11:22. There I was able to catch him from the block buttons on the Recentchanges page. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 11:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 
From [[Special:Ipblocklist]], I think Erwin Walsh is out of business for 24 hours thanks to the autoblock. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 12:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:Yup. However, [[Unicode]] or [[UTF-8]] support '''should still be switched off''' for user names. Anybody knows whether the developers are aware of this problem? BTW, &#37;C2&#37;AD is a [[Soft hyphen#Hyphens_in_computing|soft hyphen]] in [[ISO 8859-1]]. [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 13:15, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 
::I searched the list of open problems and found a ticket, [[bugzilla:2290]], open on the issue. The proposed solution proposed in this ticket of canonizing look-alike characters into a single character before creating a new user is probably a better solution as it could be applied to other languages by substituting an appropriate table. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Allen3|talk]]</sup> 13:37, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 
I've unblocked Erwin early, please see his talk page for my rationale. If this turns out to be a mistake on my part, apologies in advance. I'm personally considering this Erwin's last chance for some leniency. [[User:Fernando Rizo|Fernando Rizo]] [[User_talk:Fernando Rizo|''T'']]/[[Special:Contributions/Fernando_Rizo|''C'']] 18:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 
== Harrassment ==
I seem to have incurred the wrath of some anon after blocking him for a string of Michigan-related vandalism ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Mackensen&page=]). He apparently took exception to this, and began a string of attacks against my user page and on my talk page ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mackensen&action=history] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mackensen&action=history]). The IP addresses resolve to a [[Grand Rapids, Michigan]]-area dialup. I'm not irritated so much as annoyed&ndash;surely someone from GR has better things to do with his life than vandalizing articles (or maybe not)? Theresa blocked one of the IPs, if I'm not mistaken, and I blocked the latest one for a week. I'm tempted to start taking stronger measures&ndash;I'm at work nine hours a day and can't watch my user page. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 10:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
:Don't sweat it. Admin user pages get vandalised all the time. The very worst thing you can do is allow it to annoy you. You don't need to watch your user page, someone will revert vandalism. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (a tenth stroke)]] 11:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
*I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be a problem with an admin protecting his own user page, in case this gets out of hand. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 12:33, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
*Yes, you can protect your user page -- but be careful, because [[User:UninvitedCompany]] will send the boys round if he doesn't agree it's vandalism. [[User:Deb|Deb]] 18:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
**Nah, I'm not going to protect it. I figure he'll give it up, or I'll eventually have the entire city of Grand Rapids blocked... Thanks all for the support, I just found it rather disagreeable this morning. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 19:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 
==Archiving==
I just snipped the top part of this page and put it in IncidentArchive40. Then I thought that it would be pretty pointless to just cut/paste it, and I should instead keep only the interesting sections. Then after I snipped those I had almost nothing left, so I decided not to snip. How exactly is this page archived, then? [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 14:59, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 
 
: Archiving? I just assumed the archive fairies did it after they were finished archiving [[Talk: Armenian Genocide]]. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 15:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:you put everything in in theory you should interweve it with 3RR reports but it is a lot quicker to decide on a cut off date then remove evrything that is not active and dump it in there.Then do the same for 3RR this messes up timeings a little but not enough to be a problem.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 15:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 
== Willmcw assists spammer ==
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnti-cult_movement&diff=21706740&oldid=21703722 Observe] the spectacle of an admin, [[User:Willmcw]], reinstating spam to a talk page after it had been removed by [[User:Zappaz]]. --[[User:Goethean|goethean]] <big>&#2384;</big> 16:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
::Looks fine to me. One has to more ask why Zappaz reverted in the first place some info on a talk page that clearly was not commercial spam, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 16:18, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 
::The user was spamming several talk pages with links to their Yahoo group about cults (including unrelated ones, like [[Talk:Cult film]]. I don't see anything wrong with removing the spam. It's a nuisance and it clutters up talk pages. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 16:27, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
:::But is spam grounds for removing someone else's comments? Genuinely curious &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup> 16:34, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
::::Definitely. If the only contribution a person makes to this encyclopedia is to peddle his wares, he needs to be shown the door. I'm tired of selfish, clueless marketers who think it's their god-given right to abuse every new medium of communication that comes along. --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik]].[[User talk:Ardonik|talk()]][[User:Ardonik/I ate my cat|<sup>*</sup>]] 16:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
:::::I tend to agree with you -- corporate press releases clog up Wikipedia every day. But this wasn't exactly commercial, was it? It was a link to a Yahoogroups discussion forum. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup> 16:55, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
::::::It doesn't appear to be commercial spam. But that doesn't mean that it isn't commercial spam. Many Yahoogroups are advertisements for commercial enterprises. --[[User:Goethean|goethean]] <big>&#2384;</big> 17:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:::::I think it's a judgment call. A short, polite note on a single article's talk page would be fine. This user put a large note on 13 different talk pages - and the group is practically empty too, 7 messages total. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 17:07, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-cult_movement&curid=727391&diff=21750862&oldid=21731327 Again] --[[User:Goethean|goethean]] <big>&#2384;</big> 20:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:I'm not going to re-add them again. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 22:20, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Left a polite message on user's page and deleted blatant soclicitation, not beffiting a talk page --[[User:Zappaz|ZappaZ]] [[Image:Yin_yang.png|12px]] 01:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
== FilePile ==
 
Could someone take a look at the war at [[FilePile]]? I've already protected the page once and I would like another pair of eyes on it to see what the appropriate action is. Thanks, [[User:BanyanTree|<nowiki></nowiki>]][[User:BanyanTree|Banyan]][[User talk:BanyanTree|Tree]] 18:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 
=="Fake Place" vandal 63.19.*.* ==
 
is back today, as {{vandal|63.19.202.200}}. Please everyone be alert for any subtle edits to place articles by an IP beginning with 63.19. It also doesn't hurt to look through [[Special:Newpages]] for creations by similar IPs. It's the same person who has vandalized [[Luxembourg]] hundreds of times. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 23:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:He's also been on tonight as:
 
:{{vandal|63.19.212.229}}
:{{vandal|63.19.210.195}}
:{{vandal|63.19.198.184}}
 
:I range blocked him finally (just 3 hours though). This edit is a perfect example of why this is so insidious [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surry_County%2C_North_Carolina&diff=prev&oldid=21778563] -- sneaky little changes like this, hundreds and hundreds of them, all from different IPs are his style. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 04:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
==Mike Garcia==
 
Mike Garcia is going around deleting everything I post (even multiple reverts on me reporting his 3RR violation of [[Hypnotize]] at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR] despite being reverted by several users. I don't know what he is trying to do. [[User:66.36.133.229|66.36.133.229]] 00:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
==Advance warning==
It wouldn't surprise me if the [[Plyrics]] vfd went much the same way as the [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]] one as the latter [http://forum.plyrics.com/read.php?2,590140 was mentioned] on the Plyrics forum. Interesting that Wikipedia is now listed as one of the main sources at which to find information about the FSM. -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs2000]] | [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new Talk] [[Image:Uk flag large.png|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 03:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
== Uploading pornography ==
 
{{user|Bmpower}} has apparently decided to systematically illustrate Playboy Playmate articles (see contribs). Most of the images he is uploading to do this look like professional pornography for which he asserts fair use (a couple are professional but non-pornographic). I commented on his talk page that fair use seems an unlikely claim for these images and immediately after I said that, he appears to have went away.
 
Strange as it seems, upon reflection, I am not actually sure he was trolling. Which is to say he may have been uploading pornographic pictures in a good faith effort to illustrate the pages pornographic actresses, without realizing that these were probably no good for copyright. But the question comes in, what to do now? Should one revert the changes to the models' pages and send the images to IFD? or perhaps just delete them? And I can't help wondering about the larger question. Since wikipedia is not censored, if there was a legitimate way to obtain the images, would we illustrative the pages of Playmates with porn? [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 05:32, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 
:I would list all of them for ifd because of bogus FU claims, and revert them from the articles until the ifd vote is decided. [[User:Zoe|Zoe]] 05:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 
==Damaging page move==
[[User:SmarterChild3|SmarterChild3]] ([[User talk:SmarterChild3|talk]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/SmarterChild3|contribs]] &bull; [[Special:Blockip/SmarterChild3|block]]) -- moved [[Seth Morales]] (currently on VfD) to [[4395682439564395643956]] a nonsensical title for the content. The move broke the link on the VfD page. An admin is needed to undo the move properly. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 05:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:He moved a lot of stuff. Look at the move log [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/move]. It's difficult to fix but it looks like a couple of us are on it. I blocked him indefinitely. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 05:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
::My congratulations on catching this quickly and thanks for reverting, but does it worry anyone else that he did all those in less than 2 minutes and that the string of numbers he used had a systematically increasing counter (the 6th digit from left). [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 05:57, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 
:::This certainly looks like the direction WoW has been heading. I've been following his progress for quite some time, and he's becoming a lot more programmatic. "Socknet" may have been his, also. [[User:Adam Rock|Adam]][[User talk:Adam Rock|<sup>Rock</sup>]] 07:52, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 
::::two minutes would be doable manualy. That count means he is probably useing s bot though.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 10:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::For those not in the know, [http://smarterchild.conversagent.com/ SmarterChild] is the name of an AIM bot --<span style="font-family:monospace">&nbsp;[[User:Grm_wnr|grm_wnr]] </span>[[User_talk:Grm_wnr|<span style="border:1px solid;color:black;font-size:9px;padding:2px 1px 0px 1px">Esc</span>]] 12:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::... which incidentally seems to be [http://wiki.earthfirewindwaterheartgoplanetbyyourpowerscombinedimcaptainpla.net/index.php?title=SmarterChild a favourite] of a [[GameFAQs_message_boards#Social_boards|certain Internet subculture]] known to troll other sites on occasion. --<span style="font-family:monospace">&nbsp;[[User:Grm_wnr|grm_wnr]] </span>[[User_talk:Grm_wnr|<span style="border:1px solid;color:black;font-size:9px;padding:2px 1px 0px 1px">Esc</span>]] 13:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
==Fenian Swine==
...has moved his userpage to [[User:Muc Fíníneach]], but there is no registered user by that name. This is kinda weird. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 09:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Indeed. It would have been nice if we'd just, you know, ''let it go''. But some people need to have some kind of excitement in their lives, even if it means just poking at somebody with a stick. Anyway, my uneducated guess is that this new name means "Fenian Swine" in Irish. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 10:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
*Oh noes! He's claiming to be part of an outdated monarchical system! That is ''so'' inappropriate! <small>(anyway my point was that since we have so many impersonators these days, this might be an enticement for them, so I figured I'd point it out here)</small>[[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 10:37, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 
::I don't care what it means. I do know that what he has done doesn't work to well with the softwear and there is going to be trouble when someone regtisters that user name. Incerdently is there any way under the rules to block [[User:Mr Swine]]?[[User:Geni|Geni]] 10:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
*Yes. It's a sockpuppet made for trolling, and nearly all of his (few) edits are personal attacks. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 11:19, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
*Well, assuming they do not get blocked, maybe ask them to change their username to that, seeings they want the userpage so bad. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>[[User:Who|Who]][[User talk:Who|<font color=#00Ff00>?</font><font color=#FF00FF>&iquest;</font><font color=#0033FF>?</font>]] 11:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
==[[User:Klonimus]]==
 
Abusive image added to [[Lesbian]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&diff=21788064&oldid=21646832] by [[User:Klonimus]]. Odd, this seems like a helpful user, so this is only a "heads up" I guess. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 11:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:Looks like it was added in good faith to me. In what way is image "abusive"? [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (a tenth stroke)]] 12:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
::It doesn't look "abusive" but it doesn't look like good-faith, either. If those women are lesbians I'm Martha Stewart. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 12:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 
::IMHO if it was good faith it was insensitive, misleading, mis-informed, unrepresentative and plainly has the potential to provoke and distract. I know some editors want to "push the envelope" on the inclusion of images in WP but including something pulled straight from a contemporary porno flick is not my idea of helpful. It's "abusive" because anyone seriously editing this sort of article should realize that some of its readers would be annoyed by it (to put it mildly), for all the above reasons, ''never mind the model's silicon enhancement''. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 13:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
I guess it could work as a depiction. I mean, obviously it's acting, as Calton says, but I don't see why that necessarily makes it less valid as a depiction. I don't see why it shouldn't be considered good faith. But aside from that point I don't know if it's a helpful addition to the article, either. To be fair, if offensiveness is an issue, as Wyss seems to suggest, it seems a lot more moderate than a lot of the images we have on sex-related topics. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 13:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
::That's no depiction, it's a fantasy, created for entertainment purposes. If the image had been included in the article's pornography section I likely would have deleted it without comment. Offensiveness is not the issue btw. For example, I have no problem with this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellatio], it's the context, content, placement and caption. Anyway I only wanted to note that it happened. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 13:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
::Well, I wasn't thinking about the fact that it was produced for entertainment factoring into the equation. Anyway, I think the basic point is that while it may not be the best choice of image for the article, it's not really a good faith question or something that needs to be raised on AN. If he starts revert warring over it, OK, then maybe. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 13:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
I don't think it was in bad faith, bad taste maybe. I think putting a porno style photo into an article about one's lifestyle/sexual preference is a bit distasteful, but not enough to warrant action. Just revert and give reasons for the removal. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>[[User:Who|Who]][[User talk:Who|<font color=#00Ff00>?</font><font color=#FF00FF>&iquest;</font><font color=#0033FF>?</font>]] 13:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
I'd be concerned about this image from a copyright standpoint. For an article about the specific porn flick in question (or about pornographic films in general), a few still images might be appropriate. For an article about the broad topic of lesbians, two actresses faking it in a copyrighted film may be stretching the 'fair use' provision past its breaking point. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 13:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:It's certainly copyrighted and not licensed for our use. It could be [[fair use|fairly used]] in an article that discusses the movie it's taken from, or even possibly in an article that discusses the depiction of lesbian sex in mainstream pornography. (No, really. I'm sure there've been many [[women's studies]] dissertations on the subject.) But on [[Lesbian]]? It's unnecessary, beyond fair use, and distracts from the article. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 14:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
I assume it's not worksafe, so that's something to be considered too. There's no need for [[lesbian]] to contain non-worksafe images inline, and most people browsing in public won't expect it to. ~~ '''[[User:Nickptar|N]]''' ([[User talk:Nickptar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Nickptar|c]]) 15:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
With all these different reasons cited by people as to why the image was not helpful, I can only hope that [[User:Klonimus]] will be more careful about adding staged and copyrighted erotic images to articles in the future. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 18:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
The picture is nice, they're doing something vaguely sexual, and it'll be removed if people don't want it there. Meanwhile I think we need a cleanup of the extremely weasely description of Schwartz. Sentences starting with phrases like "Some have pointed out..." are not encyclopedic because they violate NPOV and are unverifiable. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 00:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
:Oh, this I just couldn't resist: [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22some+have+pointed+out%22+site%3Awikipedia.org]. 41 hits! And that's just for "some have pointed out". We should try listing them all and starting a project. [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms|Weasel words]] are part of Wikipedia culture; they allow you to paint a thin veneer of NPOV over something by implying an invisible source. This is remarkably often left unchallenged for fear of sacrificing factual information (and usually because nobody cares if Everybody Can See It's True). [[User:JRM|JRM]] · [[User talk:JRM|Talk]] 02:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
::Worse: [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22it+has+been+said%22+site%3Awikipedia.org|"it has been said"]. 644 hits. (Just under 500 for [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22it+has+been+said+that%22+site%3Awikipedia.org&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1|"it has been said that"] alone.) Some people might say that that project idea of yours might be a good idea. [[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] 02:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Don't forget to include "it should be noted . . ." [[User:Lacrimosus|Slac]] [[User talk:Lacrimosus|<small>speak up!</small>]] 02:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
::::Well, that's not POV per se. Just horrible style. But there is agreement in certain circles with Aquillion's statement about the project being a good idea. Some of these phrases are so cliched that they really serve as good POV red flags. I can see it now: POVbot, who will move any sentence containing one of the blacklisted phrases to the talk page, demanding attribution... [[User:JRM|JRM]] · [[User talk:JRM|Talk]] 02:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 
==[[User:CIrate]]==
Posted a [[User_talk:Who#Stuff|note]] on my talk page about being banned by Jimbo. I am assuming this is [[User:Irate]] since I added {{tl|indefblockeduser}} to that userpage. The name is mentioned many times in the comment posted on my talk page, specifically mentioning the reason for the block quoted from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AIrate the block log]: ''Personal conversation in IRC in which he assures me that our rules are rubbish and that he intends to continue "following" them as he always has''. I assume this user would need a block as a sock? Thanks. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>[[User:Who|Who]][[User talk:Who|<font color=#00Ff00>?</font><font color=#FF00FF>&iquest;</font><font color=#0033FF>?</font>]] 12:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
:Did Irate's case ever go through the ArbCom a second time? Or was the decision purely Jimbo's? I think even if Jimbo is going to impose a ban it should be temporary until we can get an Arb decision. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 13:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
::The second final decision was to be monitored for 1 year, but then Jimbo banned indef after the IRC discussion. At least that's what I understood of the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irate|arb decision]]. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>[[User:Who|Who]][[User talk:Who|<font color=#00Ff00>?</font><font color=#FF00FF>&iquest;</font><font color=#0033FF>?</font>]] 13:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
:::That's a shocking contrast, between just being monitored and being banned outright forever. I suppose if it did go through again the ArbCom would just rubberstamp what's already been done, but I maintain that things have been handled wrongly in this case. My attempts to raise the issue with Jimbo haven't gone anywhere, though. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 13:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
::::Yes there is a big step between monitoring and banning, but anyone who promises to distrupt the point of wikipedia (i.e. writing an encyclopaedia) who has a histroy of disruption (which I understand Irate has) should be blocked imho. However, regardless of whether he should or should not be banned, he has been banned and sockpuppets of banned users should be banned regardless. If Irate wants to complain about his ban then he should bring it up with Jimbo or another administrator by email or on the mailing list or somewhere. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 13:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::Personally, I never thought it was all that clear that he was promising to disrupt. I thought there was more than one way to interpret what Jimbo said that he said. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 18:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::Seemed clear to me. He promised to continue to follow the rules as he has always done. Since he has a history of not following the rules, he's saying he'll continue down that path. I don't see how there is any other way to interpret that. --[[User:Kbdank71|Kbdank71]] 20:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Maybe he was saying that he always ''has'' followed the rules, and will continue following them? Now, if that's it, then not only is the "offense" not bannable, it's not even an offense (and wouldn't be anyway since it was said on IRC, but I guess that's a mere technicality now&mdash;hey, if we're going to start dishing out punishments for IRC talk, boy have I got some charges to file...). [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 06:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 
==Anyone else getting tired of this?==
{{vandal|Vandalbot on wheels!}}. Please help reverting the mess, and please beg the developers to do '''something''' to put an end to this. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 15:25, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Anyone else hear fiddling? Anyway, this one's cleaned up, and I'm sure it will be the last one am i rite --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 15:56, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 
'''Please Vote:''' Will everyone with a Bugzilla account (or willing to get one), please go vote in support of [[bugzilla:1454|enhancement 1454]] which calls for page moves to be throttled to not more than 1 per minute for non-sysops. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 16:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 
: That's actually just a hack, and a bad idea in the long term. It would be better if someone could rollback the past <n> hours of modifications by a specified user, including all page moves, renames, etc. [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 17:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
::A hack, yes, but I would think relatively easy to implement and less open to misuse/mistakes than a super-rollback button. Could you explain why you think it is a bad idea in the long run? I don't see that. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 17:22, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 
::: Any kind of limitation (like throtteling) always somehow seems to turn out to bite the people who propose it. What happens if a logged in user is busy fixing a large wikiproject, for instance? It would make it very tough for people to make move-based fixes across large numbers of pages. Undo-like functions are typically a lot friendlier. Better rollback for vandals would be grand. :-) [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 18:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
{|- bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
|Here's a scenario:
|-
|A vandalnet of 60 vandalbots log in, and make 60 page moves per minute. Now the people undoing (not all admins) can only make 1 page move per minute... (oops)
|-
| So the very objective of preventing vandalism need actually not be met. At the same time, it becomes more difficult for ordinary users to prevent vandalism.
|-
| [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 18:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
|}
 
 
 
Was there a change in the new version that disallows non-admins from reverting over top a redirect? I was previously able to revert moves with the revert link in the move log. I tried to help out with this one, but was given the non-admin error. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>[[User:Who|Who]][[User talk:Who|<font color=#00Ff00>?</font><font color=#FF00FF>&iquest;</font><font color=#0033FF>?</font>]] 17:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
**Well I figured out there wasn't a change, I just hit revert on ones that were previously reverted, and of course got the error. [[D'oh]] <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>[[User:Who|Who]][[User talk:Who|<font color=#00Ff00>?</font><font color=#FF00FF>&iquest;</font><font color=#0033FF>?</font>]] 19:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
 
{{vandal|99 Willys on Wheels on the wall, 99 Willys on Wheels...}} <small>[[User:RN|Ryan Norton]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 18:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
{{vandal|WILLY-MART}}.. new one. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>[[User:Who|Who]][[User talk:Who|<font color=#00Ff00>?</font><font color=#FF00FF>&iquest;</font><font color=#0033FF>?</font>]] 18:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:I must be getting to the contribs list a little slow as I normally get "Rollback failed" messages. [[User:Slambo|slambo]] 19:12, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 
Take your parner, do see do, spin them 'round and turn them 'fro. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]]
 
{{vandal|Willy²}} don't forget about this one too.. geez. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>[[User:Who|Who]][[User talk:Who|<font color=#00Ff00>?</font><font color=#FF00FF>&iquest;</font><font color=#0033FF>?</font>]] 19:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
Why bother? --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 19:34, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
*Well I got all of them for that last one, I think. Someone has to eventaully. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>[[User:Who|Who]][[User talk:Who|<font color=#00Ff00>?</font><font color=#FF00FF>&iquest;</font><font color=#0033FF>?</font>]] 19:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
::I got some of each as well, though why I'm not sure. (Yes, I am very pissed that nothing is being done about it. We aren't devs; we can't change the code. All we can do is clean up after the bastard's mess and wait for some developer to come down from on high and deliver unto us a solution, a throttle, a ban, anything! Rome is burning, goddamn it!) --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 19:40, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
:::I'm seriously considering adding revert moves to my bot. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>[[User:Who|Who]][[User talk:Who|<font color=#00Ff00>?</font><font color=#FF00FF>&iquest;</font><font color=#0033FF>?</font>]] 19:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:::While you rest from putting out the fires, you may find it interesting to know that Brion responded on the [[bugzilla:1454|enhancement]] to say he thought new users were already only allowed 2 moves every 120 seconds. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 20:01, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 
::::I don't find that interesting at all, in fact I find it to be wrong. Contributions of Willy² show EVERY SINGLE EDIT at 14:14, 25 August 2005. That's a tad more than 2 moves every 120 seconds. --[[User:Kbdank71|Kbdank71]] 20:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:::::probably true the accounts are just left a few days before activateing them that is all.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 20:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
::::::The clock for a "new account" should start with its first edit then. And we need newusers. And we need throttling. And we need a SIGN. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 20:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 
:::::::Okay, I've worked out that the isNewbie test only limits the most recent 1% of registered accounts. That means that Willy must be registering sleeper accounts and waiting for them to grow up before launching rampages. It also explains why it doesn't go on ad nauseum, he can't just come back immediately when he runs out of appropriately aged accounts. I have suggested on the bugzilla thread that isNewbie should also test edits > 100, and that SpecialNewusers could really come in handy in a situation like this. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 21:12, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 
Another idea that might solve things like this came to me in another thread. Basically, make it so the only users who can move pages and do any other potentally dangerous general-user things are "approved users". All you have to do to become an approved user is get tagged by another approved user or an admin, which they're allowed to do whenever they feel like it; becoming an approved user wouldn't be hard or significent. Anyone could check who approved a given user at any time, though, or see everyone who a given user has approved. This would effectively give the move to everyone, since it would be so easy to become an approved user; but would create a huge stumbling block for people like Willy, since he'd have to seek out approval every time he wants to start vandalizing. (Although he could use one approved account to approve others, it would be easy to find out who was approving Willy accounts and make them stop or ban them as Willy sock, depending on the situation; so he'd have to start again at getting approval for every wave.) Although not ''perfect'', it seems to me that this would greatly limit this type of vandalism, without posing too many restrictions for normal users. It would also encouraging socializing with new users, and might influence many of them to stay. Of course, it would probably be harder to implement than throttling, but it seems to me like it might be a more sturdy and less risky solution; and it could be extended to cover other problematic abilities as they arise. [[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] 21:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
*I think a minimum edit count required for moving anything would be the best solution. It may also make it easier to cleanup if the "rollback move" button 1) doesn't ask for confirmation, and 2) doesn't leave a redirect. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 07:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 
*[[User:Dieseldrinker]], by the way. Assistance is welcome, as I can't do any more of these. [[User:Rhymeless|Tim Rhymeless]] [[User talk:Rhymeless| (Er...let's shimmy)]] 11:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
**After maybe 75 moves I am out with the cleanup of that one, must be still 100 left - please, someone take over. I am tired of doing nothing but willy-repair lately, we '''NEED''' the old new-user-move-block switched on again immidiatly until this asocial being finishes his school vacation - and the move throttle is also urgently needed to prevent this mess. [[User:Ahoerstemeier|andy]] 12:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 
*I left this info on the Vandalism in progress page, but I thought I'd put it here too. I'm not sure which Willy did it, but the WP globe on http://www.wikipedia.org has been replaced by a picture of an automobile and "Willy on Wheels" in pink. The URL for the picture is http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/2/2a/Nohat-logo-nowords-bgwhite-200px.jpg [[User:LarryMac|LarryMac]] 12:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 
== Help with move needed (after I mistakenly made a cut-and-paste move) ==
 
Hi there. I made a mistake. Instead of using the Move button, I merely created a new page and then did a cut-and-paste. I realized later that this was the wrong thing to do -- that it stranded the page history. So I undid my move, but I cannot delete the (now empty) new page, and without that, I can't complete the Move.
 
The existing page is: [[John Paul II International Airport]]
The page it should be moved to: [[John Paul II International Airport Kraków-Balice]]
 
Could someone help me out? I already updated the redirects which now point at [[John Paul II International Airport Kraków-Balice]].
I need an administrator to delete [[John Paul II International Airport Kraków-Balice]] to complete the Move.
 
Thank you and apologies for the extra work.
[[User:Mareklug|-- Mareklug]] 21:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:Done. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 21:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 
==[[Oak Island]] NPOV dispute w/o debate==
 
I need your collective input regarding an ongoing edit, uhm, "situation" over at {{article|Oak Island}}. If you look at the article's history, you'll see that {{user|192.197.71.189}} keeps inserting a notice every couple of days that more or less amounts to an <nowiki>{{NPOV}}</nowiki> tag. Here's a recent example: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oak_Island&diff=21809542&oldid=21801121]. This wouldn't be a problem (I don't know anything about Oak Island, so for all I know the anon has a point) if these notes led to any debate or improvement of the article. However, [[User:192.197.71.189]] was asked repeatedly on his talk page to lay out his arguments on [[Talk:Oak Island]] and to engage in discussion aimed at improving the article. To this date, the anon has not posted a single message on the article's talk page, nor has he responded to the messages left for him on his user talk page. All he's done recently is insert the same message over and over every two or three days.
 
Does anyone have any advice on how to handle this sort of situation? I'm not sure if a block will be effective: a 24 hour block will be entirely useless, as he's already demonstrated a remarkable persistence during a period of several weeks or months. More importantly, there may still be a slight chance that this person has some information that could lead to an improvement of the article. What's the best course of action? I'm leaning towards page protection. Any thoughts? --[[User:MarkSweep|MarkSweep]] 01:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:you could try adding some commented out text to the article. Other than that you may just have to accpet that you will have to keep reverting it. I ended up reverting one artilce once a day for a simular time peroid as you have on this one. I've added the artilce to my watchlist for what it's worth. The IP does seem pretty steady so a longer block to try and get thier attention is not completely out of the question.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 01:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 
::Actually he hasn't edited his talk page since last Nov 17th when he apparently had a bad experience with an impostor. He has only edited two article talk pages since then, too. So it appears that he doesn't look at his own talk page and may have forgotten that there are talk pages for the articles. One of the two times he edited an article talk page he gave "Chad Matsalla" as his name. Maybe it will help to know that. --[[User:Nathan Ladd|Nate Ladd]] 01:29, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 
Thanks, for the info and the suggestion! I added an HTML comment at the beginning of the page. For the time being, I'll continue to operate under the assumption that the anon is persistently clueless, but not actively malicious. --[[User:MarkSweep|MarkSweep]] 03:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 
== Outrageous Legal Threat ==
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DreamGuy&diff=prev&oldid=21829936 Shocking.]
 
:I have left what I consider to be a rational and reasonable warning about not making legal threats at {{User|Khaosinfire}}'s talk page. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 03:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 
::Given the similarity in names (and that I did a bit of a double take when I saw the first part of the name in scroll) I would just like to state for the record that in no way am I associated with Khaosinfire. Thank you. :) --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 03:34, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 
Ban him. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 04:06, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 
:I do not agree that that is an appropriate response after the first offense. He should have the opportunity not to do this again. However, I would support banning if there is a history I am unaware of and he has been warned previously about such actions. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 04:11, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 
::I believe I have seen making legal threats or taking legal actions as a bannable offense. It should be on first offense; no quarter should be given for sub-morons who feel the need to make personal threats against editors. Furthermore, this person has no interest in working with us - "everyone knows" is not a citeable source. Redeemable? Maybe. But unlikely. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 04:14, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 
I have banned khaosworks for 1 year for impersonating poor Khaosinfire. That is all. [[User:Func|Func]]( [[User_talk:Func|t]], [[Special:Contributions/Func|c]], [[Special:Emailuser/Func|@]],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&user=Func &nbsp;]) 04:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:Rouge admin! Rouge admin! Im goingt o report yuo to aRbcom! --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks-on-wheels]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]])
::I concur with Func - ban them all and let God sort them out. As such, I've gone ahead and perminantly banned Khaosworks, Khaosinfire, khaosworks-on-wheels, Func, Golbez, Dragon's Flight, and Jimbo Wales (just in case...) [[User:Raul654|&rarr;Raul654]] 04:43, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 
:::Well in that case, I'll go do some laundry. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons on wheels]] 05:02, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 
== [[Rachel Marsden]] ==
 
[[User:Glowball]] vandalized this page. He got blocked by Admin [[User:Homeontherange]]. He is back with a different IP address. This time he is using threats of legal action to get his way. See [[Talk:Rachel Marsden]] for the threat. --[[User:Maclean25|maclean25]] 04:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 
== User Imdaking is vandalising my talk page ==
 
User Imdaking has just deleted my documentation of his abuse of multiple identities (sock puppeting) on my talk page. He has been harrassing me in retaliation for editing an article, and for reporting him as a sock puppet. Please step in and assist tonight. I don't have to put up with this jerk. Thanks. [[User:Paul Klenk|Paul Klenk]] 06:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:Does anyone monitor this page? Where are you? When am I going to get a response? [[User:Paul Klenk|Paul Klenk]] 07:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 
==Anon AOL user is on his 11th bad faith revert and counting==
 
As of right now, this user is up to 11 reverts on the [[2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities]] page. His conduct, detailed in a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:bro_aka_User:172.148.137.250_aka_User:172.154.204.2_aka_User:172.135.239.51_aka_User:172.149.162.30 3RR] for now, is questionable indeed - including personal attacks, repeated blanking, refusing to create an account and today, for the first time, a massive 3RR vio.
What brings me here is his ongoing, concerted effort to avoid responsibility by assuming multiple IP addresses. As mentioned on the 3RR listing, he has frequented the page as dozens of IP addresses, and misuses his 'anon' status consciously in order to avoid accountability. Anon abuses such as his represent a moderate, and growing, disruption to the Wikipedia. -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 06:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
*Blocked for 24 hours. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 12:54, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 
==User Wiki brah requires attention from an admin==
 
This user is posting inappropriate articles; when people tag them "Vote for Deletion" he deletes these tags, then stalks them, placing complaints on other peoples' talk pages. Please do your best to check out this person. Describes himself as "slight autistic". Probably cannot be taken seriously -- I'll leave it to your best judgement. [[User:Paul Klenk|Paul Klenk]] 08:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 
Its not that I deleted the tags as a matter of course I just saw that you didn't do the nomination properly for a while (the entry was red for quite some time) I only removed the ones that weren't formed properly then left them on when Klenk performed the nomination correctly. Besides he's the one stalking me and any check of his edits concerning me will show a series of mean spirited personal attacks and rudeness directed at me, even his post here has quite the snide tone to it. Thank you good morning.[[User:Wiki brah|Wiki brah]]
 
:How long do you consider "a while" to be? I wouldn't remove a VfD tag unless the subpage link has been red for at least 24 hours. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 08:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 
==Sneaky vandalism==
I've been noticing an increase of one-off vandalism of a certain type recently by anon IPs; with a random comment added and immediately, in the next edit, removed by the same IP. I know this already happens in tests and whatnot, but it just seems to be happening more commonly than before. Like any good pirate, just keep an eye out. [[User:Rhymeless|Tim Rhymeless]] [[User talk:Rhymeless| (Er...let's shimmy)]] 08:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
:Having stupid day today, sorry. Why is it a problem? [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 11:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
::Isn't, especially. The worst it could possibly do is lessen credibility slightly in the far future, by having the page history look weird. Just thought it was worth noting. -[[User:Rhymeless|Tim Rhymeless]] [[User talk:Rhymeless| (Er...let's shimmy)]] 11:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents"