|
== Japanese erotic cinema ==
<references/>{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}
=== Articles started ===
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
==== Actresses ====
__TOC__
*[[Junko Miyashita|Miyashita Junko]]
== Tasks ==
*[[Mariko Morikawa|Morikawa Mariko]]
<!-- Please add new sections to the bottom, not here. -->
*[[Kimiko Matsuzaka|Matsuzaka Kimiko]]
<div style="padding: 0 0.5em; margin: 1em 0 0.25em 0.25em; border: 1px solid black; color: inherit; background-color: #ffe3e3; text-align: center;">
*[[Naomi Tani|Tani Naomi]]
The following '''[[:Category:Wikipedia backlog|backlogs]]''' require the attention of one or more editors.
==== Films ====
<br>
* ''[[Flower and Snake]]'' (1974)
''[[:Category:NPOV disputes|NPOV disputes]], [[:Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons|Images on Commons]] and [[:Category:Very large categories|Overpopulated categories]]''
* ''[[Wife to be Sacrificed]]'' (1974)
</div>
==== Work in progress ====
= General =
* Historical list of Japanese AV actresses
<!-- Please add new sections to the bottom, not here. -->
**[[User:Dekkappai/List of Japanese AV actresses, 1980s]]
**[[User:Dekkappai/List of Japanese AV actresses, 1990s]]
**[[User:Dekkappai/List of Japanese AV actresses, 2000s]]
=== Saved in user space ===
*[[User:Dekkappai/Akatsuki Runa|Akatsuki Runa]] (紅月ルナ)
**Status: '''Deleted'''
*[[User:Dekkappai/Hikari Hino|Hikari Hino]]
**Status: '''Not Yet Deleted'''
*[[User:Dekkappai/Miyama Chiharu|Miyama Chiharu]]
**Status: '''Deleted'''
== Work in progress ==
*[[User:Dekkappai/Kimiko Matsuzaka]]
== WiktionaryAnother userfine project ==
http://www.boobpedia.com/boobs/Main_Page
'''''Note:''' [[wikt:User:Primetime]] came here as [[User:Primetime|Primetime]] after being blocked indefinitely from Wiktionary for persistent and flagrant copyright violations and sockpuppetry. He continued his antics here and was eventually banned by Jimbo Wales, but he still lurks through the use of sockpuppets and open proxies. For more details see [[Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime]].''
The [[Wiktionary:User:Primetime]] (apparently corresponding to [[User:Primetime]] here) was indefinitely blocked this year on the English Wiktionary for '''massive, systemic copyright violations.''' His primary sources were ''Webster's third new international dictionary, unabridged'', by Merriam-Webster, Inc. and ''The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised)'' (using either the on-line edition or a CD-ROM version - the specific version remains unclear for a portion of his entries.)
The main Wiktionary discussion can be found here: [[wikt:Wiktionary: Beer parlour archive/January-March_06#Primetime]]. In his own defense, he relied on bizarre personal attacks, personal threats and repetitious flagrant lies (perhaps in the hope that repeating a certain lie over and over again would make it somehow become truth.)
For over a month now, he has used '''many''' sockpuppets on the English Wiktionary, confirmed by checkuser(!) request on [[meta:Requests for CheckUser information|meta:]]. <small>Only the most recent batch of sockpuppets is listed on the meta page.</small> He has become [[Wiktionary:Main Page|our]] single most assiduous vandal, recently prompting an automated '''block of some 6,000+ IP addresses''' used by the [[Tor (anonymity network)|Tor anonymity network]].
His signature vandalism patterns alternate between massive rudimentary copyright violations, and bombarding Wiktionary with massive quantites of unattested vulgar terminology.
His copyright-vandalism today on the English Wiktionary (via a new sockpuppet that he created some time ago, in preparation) was first traced to the Wikipedia entry for [[J]], where has been steadily, incrementally adding content. It is apparent to me, that he is using a 'bot to upload material here on Wikipedia just as he used to on Wiktionary, as several tell-tale signs are in each of his entries. It is my personal theory that he is using 'bot technology to split apart his edits, so that no single edit triggers a VandalBot "copyright" warning on the anti-vandalism channels.
I hereby request assistance from '''''all''''' Wikipedia sysops in chasing down this prolific individual's copyright violations (here on Wikipedia, as well as on Wiktionary - as many entries on Wiktionary still have not been cleaned adequately.) I am somewhat unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies regarding copyright violation. But I cannot imagine that such systemic, wholesale copying is condoned here.
--[[User:Connel MacKenzie|Connel MacKenzie]] 07:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (Wiktionary sysop; please leave messages on my talk page [[wikt:User talk:Connel MacKenzie|there]].)
:Here is a bit of advice to anyone who reads this: check carefully everything Connel MacKenzie says. He has been known to exaggerate greatly at times. This is a very complex, personal dispute between him and I. Unfortunately, I do not possess the knowledge to use "bots". (And, what does this have to do with Wikipedia?) I don't know what you mean by "vandalism," either. I've had some ''content'' disputes with you. I admit I moved some material I wrote here to ''Wiktionary,'' all of which you apparently deleted on sight. The autoblocker blocked my IP for a short time, so I was able to get a new user name (something suggested to me by Tawker in a public discussion). I created about 5 vulgar entries on ''Wiktionary'' which Connel MacKenzie deleted on sight (even though ''Wiktionary'' is not censored--supposedly--and they all had citations). So, that's hardly the "massive quantites" you're describing. Really, this is not relevant to Wikipedia at all. The reason I remain blocked is very complex but can be boiled down to three factors: (1) personal attacks, (2) evading my block, and (3) alleged copyright violation. Now, Connel MacKenzie is going through everything I ever created on Wiktionary (I made about [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Primetime&dbname=enwiktionary_p&machread=1 1172 edits]) and reverting or deleting it on the unproven assumption that it's all copyvio material. Connel MacKenzie is a very bitter person. He's had more disputes on Wiktionary than any other user. Now he's the person who banned all of those accounts and he's the only one still complaining about me. The fact he is even bringing up such a matter here shows even greater malice on his part, in my opinion. If he were editing on Wikipedia, he would have been banned a while ago. However, there's no real formal dispute resolution process on Wiktionary, so he can just continue acting the way he does and no one can do anything about it.--[[User:Primetime|Primetime]] 10:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Thank you Primetime! I could not have ''asked'' for a better demonstration of your immediate tactics of 1) resorting to invalid personal attacks, and 2) bold, flagrant lies. --[[User:Connel MacKenzie|Connel MacKenzie]] 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
::I find this dispute worrisome because it may have affected Wikpedia administration. I recently nominated "[[List of ethnic slurs]]" for AfD, due chiefly for its apparent violation of [[WP:NOT]] [''not a slang dictionary'']. [[User:Primetime|Primetime]] argued eloquently, effectively, and somewhat duplicitously (as I've said to him) against its transwikification to Wiktionary. [[User:Primetime|Primetime]] had said that Wiktionary editors were intolerant, and would not accept the material. This report describes additional aspects to the matter. I don't know if the claim by Connel MacKenzie has merit or not, but Wiktionary is a sister project and we should work in a coordinated fashion. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 11:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Please note that Primetime's indefinite block on Wiktionary was approved after a decision made by the community. It was not even issued by Connel MacKenzie [http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3APrimetime]. Now Connel is indeed a very active contributor and sysop on Wiktionary, probably among our best (if there's such a thing as "the best" on a wiki), who's not afraid of discussion, some arguments in which he is a party indeed evolving into what one might arguably call a "dispute". That is, however, of no relevance here, and has more to do with the argumentative nature of the English Wiktionary. Primetime, though, has never conformed to the rules that apply to Wiktionary, and he and his host of sockpuppets have been banned from Wiktionary '''by the community''', for the reasons given above by Connel. The majority of his former contributions have either been deleted (by a variety of sysops, not just Connel), or rephrased in order to eliminate the copyright violations originally entered by Primetime. New admissions from his part, once they have been identified as being Primetime's, are being deleted on sight (by a variety of sysops, not just Connel or me) due to his long-standing tradition of '''proven''' copyright violations. [[User:Vildricianus|Vildricianus]] 18:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (Wiktionary sysop).
::::First, there was a discussion where the editors participating came upon agreement that my most-recent creations, created on three nights in March and January would be deleted. (See [[wikt:Wiktionary: Beer parlour archive/January-March_06#Primetime]]). Further, my most-recent contributions were already trying to be deleted or had already been deleted when some discovered that they were from me. Others no one ever found out were from me were deleted as well. Further, those didn't look anything like the single-phrase definitions they were complaining about for copyvios. When Connel MacKenzie did a checkuser on some accounts, he immediately deleted the remainder. He never did a checkuser on the accounts he blocked last night, though. Here's an explanation of why they were already trying to delete them:<p>Some editors have interpreted Wiktionary's [[wiktionary:criteria for inclusion|criteria for inclusion]] as meaning that a single reliable source is enough to prove a word's usage. Others, however, say that only three quotations will suffice, despite the fact that the page states that "Usage in a well-known work" qualifies as proof. These same editors claim that other dictionaries do not count. To many Wikipedia users accustomed to citing disputed assertions with a single source, having to give three sources is upsetting and unwelcoming. Many entries have been deleted because they had only one or two sources.<p>Knowing the anarchic atmosphere of Wiktionary and the propensity of certain administrators to use these unusually-high standards to delete offensive terms, I created six entries with three quotes per sense and with full source information for each quote. (See [[Wiktionary:WT:RFD#nigger_baby]].) Then a user named Jonathan Webley nominated each of them for deletion saying "I can't find these terms anywhere else". Shortly afterward, Connel MacKenzie chimed in saying "This series of anonymous submissions seems intentionally disruptive, and pointlessly inflammatory. '''Delete all.''' These are certainly no more than the sum of their parts (each submission) with a clear intent to enter as many forms as can be dredged up, and to bypass the comparatively neutral, explanatory entry at [[nigger]]." Then, another administrator deleted them and protected the pages. His assertion that they were the sum of their parts is an example of an exaggeration by MacKenzie as "Blue-eyed grass (genus ''Sisyrinchium''), especially California blue-eyed grass, S. bellum" was not the sum of the phrase "nigger baby". Another example is this: [[wiktionary:WT:RFV#shit_stabber]]. I had three quotes and a dictionary reference for that one. Here's another one: [[Wiktionary:WT:RFV#give me fin on the soul side]]. Editors there have a tendency to delete terms they don't like on sight (See [http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Free+State+border%21 this entry] that had a reference to a slang dictionary, but was deleted anyway the first time. When I recreated it, he nominated it for verification, then deleted it again when he found out it was from me.) As for "give me fin on the soul side" I had two quotes and a dictionary citation. They deleted it anyway, but I had it saved on my hard drive, so I recreated it. Then, they said two quotes and a dictionary references weren't enough, so I added more, for '''3 quotes''' and '''5 citations.''' Connel still wanted to delete it anyway, which shows his deceptive and bitter nature.<p>As everyone can tell, Vildicranius is good friends with Connel MacKenzie--even though Vildicranius is pretty new. However, Connel MacKenzie has been known to harass other users. On the Beer Parlour (their equivalent of the Village Pump) he had at least three discussion threads raised against him by Ncik: [[Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/January-March_06#A_further_complaint.2C_unrelated_to_the_one_above.2C_against_Connel|wrap link]], [[Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/January-March_06#Complaint_against_Connel|wrap link2]] even though I had been there only since November. He went after Ncik, who he chased away apparently, Eclecticology, then me. I'm sure there were others, though.<p>In conlcusion, I'm a financial donor to Wikimedia, so if I believed that something would harm our wikis, I wouldn't do it. On Wikipedia, I fight vandalism (I have over 830 pages on my watchlist) and try to be civil. I've worked countless hours, and have [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Primetime&dbname=enwiki_p&machread=1 3759 edits] on Wikipedia under this user name as well as 366 under others. I tend to use '''Show preview''' and focus on articles, so the tally doesn't tell much, either. However, on Wiktionary, it's harder to get along. Many Wikipedia policies, such as the [[Wikipedia:Three Revert Rule|Three Revert Rule]] and [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|No Personal Attacks]] are not policies on Wiktionary. To some users from Wikipedia, this makes the site seem like it is [[Wiktionary:anarchic|anarchic]], and makes many administrator decisions seem arbitrary, as well. Everyone knows each other, so you either become good friends or ''really bad'' enemies.--[[User:Primetime|Primetime]] 20:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::Interestingly, that last bit and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary&diff=47917605&oldid=47683750 this] sound quite alike. And your palaver about being a financial donor is also [http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Beer_parlour&diff=next&oldid=910457 recognizable]. [[Cut and paste|Same old tricks]], Primetime. [[User:Vildricianus|Vildricianus]] 22:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::Absolutely. I've said it before, and I need to say it again. Everything I just said is all true. Everyone should read what I just wrote. As for my donation, go here: [http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/ongoing/index.php/2006-01-21/detail/]--I listed my user name in the comment column.--[[User:Primetime|Primetime]] 22:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
:Let's cut through a lot of noise: Primetime, do you deny that on Wiktionary you copied defintions from existing dictionaries?
:A quick look through your contributions here (at least ones highlighted on your user page) raise red flags, too. Take [[John Abbey]], which you created with:
::''(Born Whilton, Northants., Dec. 22, 1785; Died Versailles, Feb. 19, 1859). English organ builder. The son of a local [[joiner]], he first learnt his father's trade. Against family opinion he was apprenticed while still in his youth to the organ builder James Davis and later joined in partnership with Hugh Russell...'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Abbey&oldid=28968554]
:We have the idiosyncratic, non-Wikipedia style of beginning, the fully-formed sentences, and, most peculiarly for an American contributor, the British usage of "learnt" -- which you changed in subsequent edits over the next hour. My guess is Britannica, but I have a friend who owns a copy, so I"ve asked him to check. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 20:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
::Sounds good. You can also search the introductions for each entry for free online. As you can see here: <nowiki><http://www.britannica.com/search?query=John+Abbey&ct=></nowiki>, there is no entry. As for formatting, I hate Wikipedia formatting because it is not in keeping with style recommendations of writers. For example, above, I did not give the link as [http://www.britannica.com/search?query=John+Abbey&ct= this] because I think it looks unintuitive and doesn't tell the reader where they're going.--[[User:Primetime|Primetime]] 20:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
::::''I hate Wikipedia formatting because it is not in keeping with style recommendations of writers.''' Really? What "style recommendations of writers" are you referring to? What possible applicability do these "style recommendations of writers" have for THIS project? And what about these "style recommendations of writers" gives you an exemption from the Wikipedia Manual of Style? --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 23:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::This is another debate, but I tend to follow styling guidelines of style manuals like ''Merriam-Webster's Manual for Writer's and Editors'' as well as Random-House's style guide. I also imitate for experimentation purposes several innovations, like enlarging the headword a point or two. I have had several disagreements and have explained myself in detail on why I don't always follow Wikipedia guidelines. Examples include pronunciation aids,<sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28pronunciation%29/IPA_vs._other_pronunciation_symbols#Long_Term_Suggestion]</sup> as well as links.<sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:203.198.237.30#Links_.28Embarazado.29]</sup>--[[User:Primetime|Primetime]] 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Can you clarify where the article came from? Is it all your own original writing or is copied from another source? -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 23:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
::::To repeat, let's cut through a lot of noise: Primetime, do you deny that on Wiktionary you copied definitions from existing dictionaries? Can you affirm that the text I quoted above is all your own? What was the source of your information? --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 23:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::It is not copied from anywhere. I wrote most of my contributions. Many were written as school reports. Others are from the 1911 edition of the ''Encyclopaedia Britannica''. Some are reports I wrote for my classes at school.--[[User:Primetime|Primetime]] 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::This article, [[Reinhard Sorge]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reinhard_Sorge&oldid=37158131], also appears to be copied from another source. If it isn't then it is a severe violation of [[WP:NOT]] as it includes extensive literary criticism. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 23:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Now that's strange: that list of articles on on [[User:Primetime]]'s page, which listed the articles he says he was principal contributer to? The one I browsed checking for copying? Primetime has suddenly removed them [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Primetime&diff=52233710&oldid=51808071]. Why would that be? --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
:I'm tired of you guys going through each of my contributions and picking them apart. I don't have time for that.--[[User:Primetime|Primetime]] 00:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Man, I'm slow: that list I mentioned? One of the entries is for the ''[[Dictionary of Literary Biography]]'' -- and the article includes an external link to a site which provides short versions of some of the articles. Looking up [[Reinhard Sorge]]...Hmm, do these look familiar?
:'''''Reinhard Johannes Sorge''' (January 29, 1892-July 20, 1916) is considered one of the earliest [[expressionist]] dramatists in Germany. Although his death on the battlefield in World War I put an abrupt end to an all-too-brief six-year period of intensive literary productivity, Sorge, who was only twenty-four years old at the time of his death, achieved recognition as one of Germany's foremost religious playwrights and poets, one whose poetic mission was inspired by his fervent quest for God and by an ecstatic mystical faith. Sorge's protagonists are either projections of his own self into a dramatic character who combines the role of the writer as leader and healer with that of the prophet and seeker of God's truth, or personal interpretations of key figures in the history of Christianity such as King David, Saint Francis of Assisi, and Martin Luther. None of his plays was performed during his lifetime. '' (from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reinhard_Sorge&action=edit&oldid=37158131 Primetime's version]
:''Reinhard Johannes Sorge is considered one of the earliest expressionist dramatists in Germany. Although his death on the battlefield in World War I put an abrupt end to an all-too-brief six-year period of intensive literary productivity, Sorge, who was only twenty-four years old at the time of his death, achieved recognition as one of Germany's foremost religious playwrights and poets, one whose poetic mission was inspired by his fervent quest for God and by an ecstatic mystical faith. Sorge's protagonists are either projections of his own self into a dramatic character who combines the role of the writer as leader and healer with that of the prophet and seeker of God's truth, or personal interpretations of key figures in the history of Christianity such as King David, Saint Francis of Assisi, and Martin Luther. None of his plays was performed during his lifetime.'' From the [http://www.bookrags.com/biography-reinhard-johannes-sorge-dlb/index.html BookRags site]
Busted. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 00:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
::OK. I admit that it's from the ''DLB''. That doesn't mean that everything I've ever written is a copyvio, though. Most of the articles I've written aren't even about writers.--[[User:Primetime|Primetime]] 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
:Another quick check: [[N. Scott Momaday]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=N._Scott_Momaday&diff=46347462&oldid=38215321 here] versus [http://www.bookrags.com/biography-navarre-scott-momaday-dlb3/ here])...do I need to continue? Your long-winded rationale is pure misdirection, and while it's, I'm sure, literally true that not EVERYTHING you've ever written is stolen, it's enough to presume it's true unless you provide evidence to the contrary. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 00:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
::STOP! WHAT DO YOU MEAN? ARE YOU PROPOSING THE DELETION OF EVERYTHING I'VE EVER WRITTEN BECAUSE OF THOSE TWO ENTRIES??? WHAT PROOF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO PROVE THAT THEY'RE '''NOT''' FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE! WHY ARE YOU GOING AFTER ME SO HARD?--[[User:Primetime|Primetime]] 00:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
::Those first two entries are what I found sitting at my desk, from my computer, after only a few minutes work and without breaking a sweat. Imagine what I could do if I went down to the local university library and actually search in their hard-copy of ''Britannica'', ''Grove's'', ''DLB'', ''Current Biography'', etc. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
::A message on my talk page: ''...Also, why are you doing this? You know that Wikipedia isn't liable for copyright violations that it isn't aware are occurring? There's absolutely no reason to be doing this!'' This is perhaps the most pathetic rationale for copyright abuse I've seen in a long time -- but more to the point, we ''are'' aware now. You've been busted: deal with it. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
*Throw [[Fyodor Sologub]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fyodor_Sologub&diff=40260198&oldid=31121936 here] versus [http://www.bookrags.com/biography-fyodor-kuzmich-teternikov-dlb/index.html here] on the list. Man, this may take a co-ordinated effort to root out. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 01:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
===Update===
{{User|Primetime}} has been indefinitely blocked by Jimbo Wales hisownself (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Primetime here]). Note also that Primetime has resorted to sockpuppets to add back what's been deleted (see [[:Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Primetime]]) and has gone admin-shopping (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrokenSegue&diff=prev&oldid=53966254 here]) seeking to reverse deletions of his additions. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 05:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
:I see the category here on Wikipedia is redlinked. Today's latest English Wiktionary "Primetime" sockpuppet: [[wikt:User:Yurejkf]] ([http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary%3ABeer_parlour&diff=1090145&oldid=1090073 kindly self-identified in this comment].) I hope Wikipedia is better at staying on top of these than we are at Wiktionary. --[[User:Connel MacKenzie|Connel MacKenzie]] 04:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
::Just a name change - I've fixed it now. Thanks for the heads up. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 05:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
:::There also is [[:Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Primetime]], resulting from today's slander from Primetime? --[[User:Connel MacKenzie|Connel MacKenzie]] 18:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Renamed to [[:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Primetime]]. -- [[User:ADNghiem501|ADNghiem501]] 20:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Increasing (desperate) personal [http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Grease_pit&curid=286324&diff=1123245&oldid=1121452 attacks]. Does WP have a more appropriate place for ongoing, long-term vandalism of this sort? --[[User:Connel MacKenzie|Connel MacKenzie]] 01:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
::::[[Wikipedia:Long term abuse]] [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] <small>[[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]]</small> 23:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
::::: Thank you. In the meantime: {{vandal|Jhyt50}}. --[[User:Connel MacKenzie|Connel MacKenzie]] 22:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
:::: I've added [[Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime]]. --[[User:Connel MacKenzie|Connel MacKenzie]] 13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
It appears that Primetime used to be called {{user|Rickyboy}}, and was blocked indefinitely in July 2005.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive36#Rickyboy][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Account_suspensions/Rickyboy] -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 06:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
:From his [[User talk:Rickyboy|talk page]] ''Besides, even if they were violations of copyright law, they would still be justified because people shouldn't have to pay to learn things'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rickyboy&diff=19067305&oldid=19067036] -- huh, exactly the nonsensical reasoning Primetime employs. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 13:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Also [[User:Richardr443]], of [[Letter writing]] fame. In retrospect, that article was clearly plagiarized, and perhaps a copyright violation. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 07:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC) (Now confirmed- copied verbatim from World Book. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 12:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC))
:Ooh, lovely, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dmcdevit&diff=15881151&oldid=15881137 I remember him very well]. I blocked the Ricky accounts indefinitely, in case he had any designs on reusing them. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 08:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I wonder if [http://www.president.colostate.edu/index.asp?page=administration Colorado State Univeristy] would like to know that they seem to be harboring a prolific plagarist? --[[User:Connel MacKenzie|Connel MacKenzie]] 13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
::And in case it merits mentioning, Primetime has added my email address to a dozen or more spam sites, and has ordered junk mail to the home address of another editor. This fellow seems to believe in unrestricted combat. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 12:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry to hear that, and I'm suddenly glad I didn't respond to him through e-mail. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 13:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I left a "Be On the Lookout" warning on [[Talk:Oxford English Dictionary]], where his latest sockpuppet -- {{User|Ftym67}} -- was trying to convince the editors there that the OED is public-___domain and A-Okay to copy from. Not that anyone there seemed to be buying it, but I thought a warning was in order. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 14:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
:I'd appreciate it if Wikipedia admins would review/copyedit [[wikt:Wiktionary:Blocking policy#2006/06/08]] (the letter I will soon send to abuse@CSU) to verify I've not overstepped any inter-project boundaries. --[[User:Connel MacKenzie|Connel MacKenzie]] 15:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
:: I did send this, about two hours ago. They seem to have begun their own investigation now. On another note: [[Give]] seem to have retained the copyvio material from the ''[[OED]]'' still, perhaps after a page move? --[[User:Connel MacKenzie|Connel MacKenzie]] 22:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Does anyone have sufficient Spanish-language skills to pursue this matter on Es.Wikipedia? He's known there as "[http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contributions/Principal_Tiempo Principal Tiempo]". I found one instance of plagiarism/copying (from Grolier's Spanish edition). However a user named "Mahadeva" is reverting - he may be a sock or just a clueless editor. Any help would be apprecieted. Gracias, -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 06:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Clearly a Sock, Principal Tiempo means Primetime in english. Thanks [[User:Jaranda|Jaranda]] [[User_talk:Jaranda|<sup>wat's sup</sup>]] 07:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The spanish wikipedia is dealing with it. Thanks [[User:Jaranda|Jaranda]] [[User_talk:Jaranda|<sup>wat's sup</sup>]] 07:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
So many people that I have bad feelings about turn out to be trolls, strange...maybe all the hours spend here are making me hyper-perceptive :).'''[[User talk:Voice of All|<font color="blue">Voice</font><font color="darkblue">-of-</font><font color="black">All</font>]]''' 07:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Blocked in the spanish wikipedia indef by [[User:Taichi]] who discovered two copyvios. Thanks [[User:Jaranda|Jaranda]] [[User_talk:Jaranda|<sup>wat's sup</sup>]] 07:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Currently using <span class="plainlinks">[[User:Scaurus|Scaurus]] ([[User talk:Scaurus|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Scaurus|contribs]] • <font color="002bb8">[{{SERVER}}/wiki/Special:Log/move?user={{urlencode:Scaurus}} page moves]</font> • [[Special:Blockip/Scaurus|block user]] • <font color="002bb8">[{{SERVER}}/wiki/Special:Log/block?page={{urlencode:User:Scaurus}} block log]</font>)</span>. --[[User talk:Rory096|Rory096]] 05:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
:Blocked. --[[User talk:Rory096|Rory096]] 05:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
:Sock blocked -- [[User:Tawker|Tawker]] 05:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
::This is worth noting:
::*''It doesn't matter, though, because you cannot win. I have learned how to automate much of my copying and formatting of text. Soon, I will make Wikipedia larger than your wildest imaginations.--Primetime 01:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APrimetime&diff=58497752&oldid=58487444]
::It sounds like he has plans for more mischief. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 09:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you can get Daniel Brandt to reveal the guy causing this trouble, then (possily even legal) action can be taken appropriately.
:''Unsigned comment 03:13, June 14, 2006''
*Couldn't one of Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Listusers?group=checkuser CheckUsers] find and perma-block each of the open proxies he is using to create new accounts? --[[User:Connel MacKenzie|Connel MacKenzie]] 17:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
**On it, see [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Primetime]]. --[[User talk:Rory096|Rory096]] 03:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[[J]] is unprotected now, but nothing in the past 2 days... Maybe the range blocks are working. --[[User talk:Rory096|Rory096]] 14:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
:perhaps this [[User:Tyrn5|Tyrn5]] ([[User talk:Tyrn5|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tyrn5|contribs]] • <span class="plainlinks" style="color:#002bb8">[{{SERVER}}/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username={{urlencode:Tyrn5}} count]</span>) is him back ? - [[User:Peripitus |Peripitus]] [[User talk:Peripitus|(Talk)]] 11:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
::Blocked indef. Hmm, wasn't there another section here before? --[[User talk:Rory096|Rory096]] 03:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:::There still is. (The section before this one.) Just that it's now refactored into one paragraph. [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] 02:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
=== Why is this material being removed? ===
I was wondering why half of the article "[[j]]" is being blanked? There are pictures on the talk page showing that the material is from a publication in the public ___domain and it was cited. Further, the material was added before any block was imposed on the author. The people removing the content have refused to explain why they are doing so. They just say, "reverting probable Primetime sockpuppet," or "reverting edits . . ." as if that makes it OK. {{Unsigned|Plant2j| 01:28, 21 June 21 2006}}
:The above was posted by a Primetime sockpuppet... '''[[User:Sasquatch|Sasquatch]]''' [[User_talk:Sasquatch|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Sasquatch|c]] 01:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
::Sigh. Add {{Vandal|Djf2006}} to the list. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 03:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
:::And {{vandal|Tyrn5}} --[[User talk:Rory096|Rory096]] 05:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Wait, someone already said that. I need sleep. --[[User talk:Rory096|Rory096]] 05:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Apparently he's now using open-proxies. {{Vandal|User:I discovered America}}. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 00:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
== [[User:C-c-c-c]] ==
===Initial review===
We have an ongoing problem with articles related to the Balkans, and some users from the Balkans. Details of problems with [[User:Bormalagurski|Bormalagurski]] are [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Edit_war_on_Serbs_of_Croatia|above]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive43#Bormalagurski_and_fair_use_image|here]], and I've just blocked [[User:C-c-c-c]] for a month, because of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bormalagurski&diff=58134999&oldid=57910571 this]. That might seem over the top, but it's the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:C-c-c-c seventh block in a month], and part of a pattern of extreme pro-Serbian POV pushing from that particular user, and abuse of anyone who objects to it, or tries to deal with troublesome editors. I've also removed various "userboxes" from C-c-c-c's page, which promote various Serbian nationalist positions (including a huge one saying "Kosovo is Serbia" - for British editors, think of a huge box with a union jack in it, saying "Londonderry is British"). I'd welcome other admins looking at the situation, and comments on the possibility of a community ban for this user. I am not, before anyone starts, an Albanian. I have no strongly held opinions on any of the various Balkan nations. --[[User:Andrew Norman|ajn]] ([[User talk:Andrew Norman|talk]]) 09:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
:His username is also the acronym for a <s>fascist</s> nationalist slogan. - [[User:f-m-t|FrancisTyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 09:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
::Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava, "Only unity can save the Serbs" - [[User:f-m-t|FrancisTyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 09:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
::: As for the slogan, it ''is'' nationalist, but not ''that'' nationalist. It is central part of official coat of arms of Serbia, as can be seen [[:Image:Coat_of_arms_of_Serbia_small.svg|here]] (central part contains 4 [[Es (Cyrillic)|es]]es). Apart from that, I support Andrews actions fully. But I must warn everybody to act with extreme caution not to act like whole Serbian nation is fascist. We must focus on radical editors which disrupt Wikipedia with their actions. Regartless if they are Serbians, Albanians or Croatians. I do feel User:C-c-c-c is overy radical and should be delt with, but "Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava" is not the problem (for British editors, think of "God Save the Queen" ;-) ). {{unsigned|Dijxtra|13:46, 12 June 2006}}
::::And we all know the [[God Save the Queen (Sex Pistols song)|next line]].... :)) - [[User:f-m-t|FrancisTyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 14:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
::::I agree with Dijxtra. I am not for one moment suggesting that the whole Serbian nation supports this sort of extremism, or that Serbs are the only people who are editing Wikipedia to promote an extreme nationalist point of view. --[[User:Andrew Norman|ajn]] ([[User talk:Andrew Norman|talk]]) 14:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::This has actually gone a bit too far... Even his unblock request was removed. He has been "good" lately, he wasn't even being nationalist at all. And I don't even know why anyone at all brings up extremism, when that's not the case. It seems as though this was a personal attack aimed at him. And now he is blocked indefinitely. Congrats. --[[User:Krytan|<font color="#003399">'''Krytan'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Krytan|<font color="grey">'''talk'''</font>]] 18:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
===Community ban===
* In regard of your suggestion of a community ban, I support such an idea. - [[User:f-m-t|FrancisTyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 11:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
* I concur. --[[User:Dijxtra|Dijxtra]] 13:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
* Me three. We really have sort of a war starting on Wikipedia, and I don't see much (or any) good faith coming from this user. We don't need users who, despite trying to reason with them, only come to wikipedia to push their POV and use it as a cheap political BBS. --[[User:Dcabrilo|dcabrilo]] 16:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
* Concur, there are a lot of editors making a battlefield out of our Serbia pages and blocking him would be a good start towards solving that problem. [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] <small>[[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]]</small> 17:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
* I don't know if I can vote, but I agree. He made battlefield (in [[Sock puppet (internet)#Meat puppet|meat-puppet]] cooperation with [[user:Bormalagurski]]) of some croatian pages too (althoug not recently). I'm ready to help reduce vandalism on Serbian pages, if needed, but I hope we can deal with anti-croatian vandals afterwords. --[[User:Ante Perkovic|Ante Perkovic]] 17:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
* I object to a permanent ban and would suggest instead a probationary period with a self-imposed block on any Croatian-related articles. Though I cannot condone [[User:C-c-c-c]]'s reaction and personal attack on [[User:Andrew Norman]], I believe that a last chance should be given to this user. I would also like to remind you that there are many other users editing Balkan subjects with a far worse civility problem (eg. [[User:Hipi Zhdripi]], who threatened to kill [[User:HolyRomanEmperor]]'s family amongst other things, including systematic sockpuppetry) and have been still left off easily. Regarding the nationalist userboxes, me and another wikipedian have indeed brought to [[User:Andrew Norman]]'s attention that this is a sadly very common problem. All I can just say that [[User:C-c-c-c]]'s are certainly not the only ones out there. Maybe, linking the permanent removal of these userboxes to a probation could be a constructive solution. Best regards, --[[User:Asterion/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''E '''''</font>]][[User:Asterion|<font color="Blue">'''Asterion'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Asterion|<font color="Green">'''u talking to me?'''</font>]]</small></sup> 21:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
::Would support an indef ban on [[User:Hipi Zhdripi]], I don't understand why he was unbanned. Regarding nationalist userboxes, get community endorsement then [[WP:BOLD|be bold]]! :) - [[User:f-m-t|FrancisTyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 22:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
::The trouble with that would be that a "self-imposed block on any Croatian-related articles" would mean a ban. He has hardly ever edited any article unrelated to the Balkans, apart from requests for people to do his Physics homework. That, to me, is one of the chief signs that he's here with an agenda (he is, lest we forget, a Canadian). Interiot's tool says he has 110 edits to articles, 105 to article talk, 431 to user/user talk, and 110 to the Wikipedia namespace. Again, not an indication to me that he's here for the right reasons - if he wants to chat to people, he can use IRC. --[[User:Andrew Norman|ajn]] ([[User talk:Andrew Norman|talk]]) 11:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*"Community bans" are not, despite repeated attempts by some people, imposed by a few of the more brutal admins putting their hand up and shouting "ban", "ban", "ban", and the section by then being 10 from the bottom and ignored. They grow from the fact that, once an editor is indefinitely blocked and (presumably) appeals said block that "not one of the 915[sic] administrators is prepared to unblock them". Generally, this manifests itself as a series of escalating blocks that do not teach the necessary lessons and the exhaustion of patience comes when it becomes clear that no length of block will remove the problem and no admin thinks the problem is either curable or live-with-able. They need not ''necessarily'' do so: some editors are removed and noone cares (or even notices), but clearly that's not the case in this type of situation. A community ban of this present kind does not spring forth fully formed; it comes into being when it turns out there is nothing else for there to be. They are sociological constructs borne of a fading hope of anything ever getting better, not the rejected [[Wikipedia:Quickpoll]]s that these kinds of requests quite distinctly are. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] - [[User talk:Splash|tk]] 00:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
**I agree with your definition of "community ban". If anyone wants to unblock him with probation, per Asterion's suggestion, I won't be troubled. [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] <small>[[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]]</small> 00:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
** He is not, at the moment, community-banned. I <s>banned</s> blocked him for a month, as a result of a series of <s>bans</s> blocks by different admins for exactly the same behaviour (abuse, disruption, sockpuppetry, trolling, etc). There are various opinions about the method for community-banning, the ArbCom has ducked out of ruling on how to interpret the conflicting policies, and I feel the best way is to establish consensus here prior to a ban. I'm satisfied there's no such consensus. --[[User:Andrew Norman|ajn]] ([[User talk:Andrew Norman|talk]]) 11:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
***No, you ''blocked'' him for a month. There is a key difference. A block is technical, a ban is sociological. A ban is implemented with a block. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] - [[User talk:Splash|tk]] 14:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
****My mistake. --[[User:Andrew Norman|ajn]] ([[User talk:Andrew Norman|talk]]) 14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*I agree with Asterion - there should be a probation period. I might add to his note on [[User:Hipi Zhdirpi]], that he would've been blocked eternally long ago if this case was used... (by the way, could someone assess him?) --[[User:HolyRomanEmperor|HolyRomanEmperor]] 09:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
** I'll be looking into one or two of the other names suggested to me, when I have the time. --[[User:Andrew Norman|ajn]] ([[User talk:Andrew Norman|talk]]) 11:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
**If you want to impose probation on an unwilling victim, you cannot reasonably expect them to abide by it. Admins have no binding authority, and 'defying' an admin's fairly arbitrary decision is hardly grounds for a block, thus enforcing such decisions basically not possible. You need ArbCom if you want to restrict an editors editing without actually having them banned by acclamation. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] - [[User talk:Splash|tk]] 14:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*I am aware of that. This is why I asked for a self-block on Croatian-related articles. This will show whether C-c-c-c is truly willing to make an effort and will help him to gain experience on other areas. Obviously, it is not enforceable but it would be obvious there is a problem if he goes on edit-warring immediately after the block is lifted. That would be classed as disruption. Whatever is decided here, someone would need to inform the user or discuss the issue as, being currently blocked, he would be unable to comment here. Regards, --[[User:Asterion/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''E '''''</font>]][[User:Asterion|<font color="Blue">'''Asterion'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Asterion|<font color="Green">'''u talking to me?'''</font>]]</small></sup> 19:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
***What can be done, however, is to insist on strict adherence to policy. There is normally a certain amount of latitude in behaviour given to anyone here, and if that latitude has been abused, what admins ''can'' do is insist that people behave absolutely according to the rules, and to back that up with protections and/or blocks, until the message sinks in. Admins ''do'' effectively have binding authority, if they are not behaving so egregiously that another admin objects. That's not the way I'd prefer things to be - I'd like clearer, quicker and more democratic processes for dealing with this sort of thing - but that's the way it is. --[[User:Andrew Norman|ajn]] ([[User talk:Andrew Norman|talk]]) 14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
If there is a serious problem with this guy's edits, but no consensus for a community ban, try [[WP:RFAR|Arbitration]]. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 15:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
: If we would go for an arbitration, I think we should go with one very broad case. Include other problematic Croatian, Kosovar and Serbian editors (most notably already mentioned [[User:Hipi Zhdripi]], but i could think of 3-4 other names). And get rid of disruptive forms of radical and extremist nationalism, if ArbCom feels there are grounds for that. Just a thought. --[[User:Dijxtra|Dijxtra]] 18:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
::I would support that too. --[[User:Asterion/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''E '''''</font>]][[User:Asterion|<font color="Blue">'''Asterion'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Asterion|<font color="Green">'''u talking to me?'''</font>]]</small></sup> 19:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
::Agree. - [[User:f-m-t|FrancisTyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 13:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
::If I can add my opinion, I feel it would be a great idea. It seems clear that much of the worst damage is being done by a few editors, and their editing should be brought before the ArbCom.--[[User:Aldux|Aldux]] 21:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I'd be thinking of something even broader - a policy, rather than an ArbCom case, along the lines of preventing people from expressing ''opinions'' on any political/religious/ethnic/national group, or advocating or opposing independence for particular geographical areas or people. Identifying yourself as a member of a particular nationality or ethnic group is fair enough (not my taste, but I accept that other people want to do it and it isn't too harmful), but anything beyond that has nothing to do with creating an encyclopaedia, it's just about winding other people up. I'll think about putting together a first attempt at a policy proposal, if nobody else does in the meantime (I'm going to be very busy for a few days), and hopefully we can then [[Wikipedia:How_to_create_policy|put it forward]]. Jimbo has expressed similar sentiments on the mailing list [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046434.html] [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046437.html], so there may be support from that quarter. --[[User:Andrew Norman|ajn]] ([[User talk:Andrew Norman|talk]]) 13:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
:::: Hm, not sure this would work. What exactly would you ban? Reverting the things you don't like? I think that's already not allowed. "Nationalist propaganda"? Well, I don't see how any kind of propaganda can be incorporated into Wikipedia by following current rules since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and you do not get to put propaganda in it since it is, well, unencyclopedic... or at least you are not supposed to (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Terrazas#Memorial_Service] for instance). --[[User:Dijxtra|Dijxtra]] <small>I don't know how come I forget to sign only on WP:AN</small>
:Well, I think that [[WP:SOAP]] is pretty clear about this point as it already stands. The thing is more complicated with another kind of POV pushing wikipedians who, though being civil, are clearly trying to promote their own agenda (even if some of them genuinely don't realise their POV is blurring their vision). Where do you set the limit on specialisation on a particular subject and POV-pushing is a tricky business, as we all know. In that sense, I did actually think a while back about putting together some sort of "Code of Practice" for users engaged on this sort of controversial issues but I could not figure out how to start it. I would appreciate any comments on this (I have no problem proposing this to Esperanza and/or Concordia people too). On a separate issue, it seems C-c-c has written an <nowiki>{{unblock}}</nowiki> notice. Any admin willing to take action?--[[User:Asterion/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''E '''''</font>]][[User:Asterion|<font color="Blue">'''Asterion'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Asterion|<font color="Green">'''u talking to me?'''</font>]]</small></sup> 22:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*I added {{tl|indefblocked}} to his user page. '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''[[User:Kilo-Lima|ilo-Lima]]|<sup><font color="orange">[[User talk:Kilo-Lima|(talk)]]</font></sup> 18:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
*I want to make clear that I am still against a community ban against this user unless any real action is taken to solve the wider problem. There have been at least two other opinions against this ban. I believe it was rushed through in just a few hours. I cannot consider this consensus. --[[User:Asterion/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''E '''''</font>]][[User:Asterion|<font color="Blue">'''Asterion'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Asterion|<font color="Green">'''u talking to me?'''</font>]]</small></sup> 11:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
===The wider problem===
I agree entirely with Andrew that we have a wider problem across a range of Balkans-related articles. There are a number of other problematic users - [[User:Kubura]] (Croatian), [[User:WuBaja]] (Serbian) and [[User:Vergina]] (Greek) come to mind - who act without any regard for Wikipedia's fundamental policies ([[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:NOR]], [[WP:RS]], [[WP:V]] etc). I've taken action on a number of disputed Croatian articles, such as [[Battle of Vukovar]] and [[Operation Medak Pocket]], to enforce those policies. I posted a message to the talk pages of those articles and others reminding people of the following:
:* Don't add partisan commentary, and ensure that your contributions are written in a neutral tone. We're here to write an encyclopedic article, not a partisan screed. (WP:NPOV).
:* Any additions must be sourced, cited and verifiable. (WP:CITE, WP:V).
:* Any sources must be reliable. Newspaper reports, government documents, books and reports from well-known international organisations are generally regarded as good sources. Commentary on personal websites or the personal views of individual editors are not. (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR).
I reverted any changes, pro- or anti-, that didn't meet these standards, and explained to the users in question why I'd done so. In one instance (that of [[User:Bormalagurski]]) this resulted in personal abuse and the deliberate copying-and-pasting into the article of large chunks of plagiarised text; I blocked the user in question. (He has since departed the English Wikipedia although, I think disgracefully, he is still an administrator on the Serbian Wikipedia.)
I think there's more than one category of user in question here, though. The first is the hopeless cases - the people who are only interested in POV-pushing, don't make any useful contributions and have no interest at all in NPOV, RS etc. [[User:Vergina]] falls into this category - I don't think he's ''ever'' made a positive contribution to Wikipedia, and we wouldn't lose anything by banning him or his ilk. (Check out his contributions - you'll see what I mean.)
The second is the bad-faith cases - people who are strong POV-pushers and try to subvert or sneakily ignore NPOV, but who do make some useful contributions to other articles. [[User:Bormalagurski]] is a good example of this, as is [[User:C-c-c-c]]. They've both made some good edits, as well as some very bad edits. There is a judgment call to be made here: do such users' positive contributions outweight the damage they do elsewhere?
The third category is the users who honestly don't know better. I've found that explaining Wikipedia's rules on their talk pages can have a positive effect here, and I strongly recommend this course of action. If they ignore your advice then I think you would have good cause to start warning them and building up to blocking them if they don't change their ways. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 19:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
:In this sense, I think we are about to have problems with [[User:Ferick]] and [[User:Ilir pz]]. It may be time to resuscitate the idea of a general course of action. Regards, [[User:Asterion/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''E '''''</font>]][[User:Asterion|<font color="Blue">'''Asterion'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Asterion|<font color="Green">'''u talking to me?'''</font>]]</small></sup> 19:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
===Shared IP?===
I don't know the nitty gritty technical deatils, but it appears I was blocked because this user was a vandal. My ISP in Canada is shaw, and I've been told they use a shared IP proxy. Therefore, blocking [[User:C-c-c-c]] for long periods of time is going to prevent a lot of people from editing! --[[User:Geekybroad|<font color="#1E9229">''geekyßroad''</font>]][[User talk:Geekybroad|<sup><font color="#6B3E99">. meow?''</font></sup>]] 21:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
===Community ban review===
C-c-c-c has put up an unblock tag with an apology for a personal attack. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:C-c-c-c&diff=59128705&oldid=59091672]
I raise this here for formal review.
My own opinion is that, due to his history, the community should not waste further time on this editor. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 16:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
:This user has apologised and requested a second chance. Considering this has been granted before to users exponentially more disruptive than c-c-c-c, I believe it would be the right thing to do. I am also unhappy with the community ban process. This was rushed through in a few hours time (''there was no need to speed up process as C-c-c-c was already blocked at the time''). At least two other bona fide users have expressed their concerns regarding a community ban. Regards, --[[User:Asterion/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''E '''''</font>]][[User:Asterion|<font color="Blue">'''Asterion'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Asterion|<font color="Green">'''u talking to me?'''</font>]]</small></sup> 22:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
::Please see [[User talk:C-c-c-c]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive43#User:Da_Croatian_Sensation_.28what_to_do_with_neo-nazi_provocation.29|the last comment here]]. When [[User:Dijxtra|Dijxtra]] gets back to me, I'll be making a RFCU request to clarify who is pretending to be whom. --[[User:Andrew Norman|ajn]] ([[User talk:Andrew Norman|talk]]) 22:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
:::As far as I know, someone requested this before and the checkuser concluded that C-c-c-c is not Bormalagurski as you seem to imply on the former's talk page. --[[User:Asterion/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''E '''''</font>]][[User:Asterion|<font color="Blue">'''Asterion'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Asterion|<font color="Green">'''u talking to me?'''</font>]]</small></sup> 18:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
== User claiming his contributions aren't GFDL, veiled legal threats. ==
[[User:Brian G. Wilson]] has stated this his contributions to "music-related topics" are not under the GFDL and claims that he's going to remove them, telling people not to revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ambient_music&diff=59353981&oldid=58955665]. This isn't a possibility of the GFDL.
On being told this, he makes thinly veiled threats of legal action as a means to an end on his statement: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ambient_music&diff=59357576&oldid=59354311] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brian_G._Wilson&diff=prev&oldid=59356405] (note that theres heavy comment reformatting in the first link; the second one also includes some comments being moved and theres been serious refactoring of text but not threat or tone since).
He also, strangely, threatens to "destroy" Wikipedia and Google. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ambient_music&diff=prev&oldid=59427624], although I'm not sure whats meant by that.
Theres also quite serious [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:CIVIL]] breaches as well as quite constant accusations that people are "pretending" to be someone else when he believes they are in fact related to him, work for his ISP, live in Italy and a whole host of other apparent things the Wikipedia userbase is covering up... --[[User:Kiand|Kiand]] 13:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ambient_music&diff=prev&oldid=59353574 here] is him actually removing content under his claims that he's not licenced it under the GFDL. --[[User:Kiand|Kiand]] 13:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:: I've indef blocked with the reason "legal threats, personal attacks, threats to 'destroy Wikipedia'". The diffs above and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:157.193.214.17&diff=prev&oldid=59432926 this one] seem to be reason enough for me. Others please review. [[User:Petros471|Petros471]] 13:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
GFDL, once granted, cannot be revoked. In addition, no matter what one may claim, making a contribution to Wikipedia constitutes an agreement to grant GFDL rights to those edits, so Brian's GFDL revocation is invalid. As for threatening to bring down Wikipedia, that might be grounds for an indef block, yes, but I'm more interested in knowing ''why'' Brian's feeling this way. Did he get involved in a dispute with someone? I'm more interested in trying to resolve this dispute that's making him feel this way in the first place. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 14:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:He got involved in disputes with lots of people (I'm one of the people he doesn't like for example). To be short: He has HIS own idea about musical genres, and he strongly dislike modern electronic dance music (see [[Talk:Psybient]]). (I don't either, but that's no reason to push away and steer this articles in a way that suits your POV) Moreover, he doesn't like the term "electronic" music being used, except for his own strict definitions. His definitions aren't that wrong, he's just too narrow-minded regarding the subject and he fails to accept that thousands and thousand of people are using the english language, give names to genres and that music evolves, so his strict definitions are the single real "truth". Since a few weeks/months, he has gradually been reshaping articles to his ideas. He has been reverted many times. People tried to talk with him... some tried really hard... eg see [[Talk:Club_music]], there are really long comments by [[User:mjb]] , I respect the way mjb tried to reason in a very calm way. But nothing helped: all Brian G Wilson does is getting angry, posting incomprehensible comments multiple times on different people/article talk pages. You MIGHT try conflict resolution, however, I guess about ten people ''have'' tried it already in a calm way, the only result being this user starting insults and posting comments no-one understands (the sort of weird texts people believing in alien conspiracies etc... write) --[[User:LimoWreck|LimoWreck]] 14:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
::Ah, a classic case of one user vs. many. Well, if he resorts to making legal threats, the indef block is certainly valid, at least until he stops making these threats. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 14:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
::: Apologies for vanishing straight after the above, my computer crashed before I even had chance to post a blocked note on his talk page. I am quite willing to consider an unblock if his behaviour shows sign of change, however I'm not sure how likely this is considering the latest [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brian_G._Wilson&diff=prev&oldid=59443063] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brian_G._Wilson&diff=prev&oldid=59443430]. [[User:Petros471|Petros471]] 14:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
::::God save the Queen… Regardless of the flipped lid, since licensing is implied with each edit, if a user openly denies the GFDL, can it simply and safely be ignored? Or does it automatically make them unfit to continue contributing? [[User:Femto|Femto]] 14:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Yes, it can be safely ignored, but no, it doesn't make them unfit to continue contributing. I think it just means the user needs to be educated about how GFDL is implied. It's only if the user starts making legal threats that they need to be banned, and not because it's a punishment. I don't remember the exact wording, but it has something to do with how someone going through legal proceedings should not also be involved with the entity in which they are pursuing such legal proceedings. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 15:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::I think the fact that he's now claiming that the entire Wikipedia user base are minor members of the British royal family in disguise using it to promote the use of drugs suggests to me that he -is- unfit to continue contributing. Anyway, must go to get my ermine robes fitted... dammit, didn't mean to give away my disguise! --[[User:Kiand|Kiand]] 15:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::[[User_talk:MichaelIsGreat#Answer_to_Andrew_Norman.2C_another_mindless_censor|Is there a full moon tonight?]] - this one's obsessed with electric pianos. --[[User:Andrew Norman|ajn]] ([[User talk:Andrew Norman|talk]]) 15:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::This has come up before; the case that I know of off the top of my head is {{vandal|Pioneer-12}}. He wanted to avoid licensing his talk contributions under the GFDL, and refused to accept that the GFDL was a condition of participation in Wikipedia. In order to avoid unecessary complications and legal disputes, editors who no longer wish to contribute under the GFDL are no longer welcome to contribute. If they change their minds, then they are more than welcome to return. Petros471's block is reasonable, and in line with how we've handled these cases in the past. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 15:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Someone might want to take a peek at his talk page and see if his saying he'll "destroy Wikipedia" and other comments make it worth protecting the page. Amusing, but bothersome. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(speak)]]</small> 17:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
::As I said before: this guy's incomprehensible nonsense keeps comming; this seems some sort of guy who sees government and alien conspiracies everywhere like I said in my remark above... well, his latest comments about the royal familly are exactly what I meant ;-) That's the reason another attempt at dispute resolution won't really work, different people have tried, this is the result ;-) --[[User:LimoWreck|LimoWreck]] 17:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:::In that case, I'll just have to polish my crown and carry on. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 17:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:Sounds like Mr. Treason to me. [[User:Scienceman123|Scienceman123]] 18:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
==== Community ban of [[User:Brian G. Wilson]] ====
I think we should consider him community banned. Anyone think it's too early for that? --[[User:Ryan Delaney|Ryan Delaney]] [[User talk:Ryan Delaney|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] 22:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:If he decides he wants to start licensing his contributions under the GFDL again, we should let him come back. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 23:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:The community doesn't really come into it, and community bans are not implemented by a straw poll for a few hours on this noticeboard. They are implemented when noone is willing to unblock anymore for whatever (usually cumulative) reason. Anyway, if he is unwilling to release his edits under the GFDL then i)he must not contribute any and ii)by precedent, accounts that refuse to allow the GFDL are blocked until they agree to it. As soon as he is happy with that, there is no reason not to unblock him. So an indefinite block pending 'resolution', certainly. But a permanent ban by some kind of acclamation, no. And also, he can't retract GFDL permission as has already been observed, but that in itself is no reason to blindly revert him since his edits may hypothetically not be wanted anyway (and, being aware of the GFDL and continuing to edit is probably licensing his edits under the GFDL anyway. The notice is on every page.). -[[User:Splash|Splash]] - [[User talk:Splash|tk]] 23:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brian_G._Wilson&diff=prev&oldid=59443063 There should be a rule about being auto-blocked for being a complete nutjob whacko] --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[Special:Emailuser/Mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]] 21:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:And now he's back again using his previous account [[User:sky-surfer]] (check both account histories, first skysurfer; his edits stopped at the moment Wilson start, and now Wilson is blocked sky-surfer returns)... also check the edits: same topics, same wordings, ... --[[User:LimoWreck|LimoWreck]] 22:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
== [[User:CoolKatt number 99999]] ==
This user has long been a problem user, causing trouble all across Wikipedia, getting in fights with people, and going against the consensus on [[WP:TVS]] on many issues. Recently, he opened a [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Man In Black|frivolous RfC]] against a user, and has also made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CoolKatt_number_99999&diff=prev&oldid=55972505 legal threats] against me in the past. I think you admins need to take a serious look at this member and his actions. Also, he has ridiculous subpages that waste Wikipedia's space and some are even misleading and completely fictional. Note: He has also had an [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CoolKatt number 99999|RfC]] filed against himself. Obvious problem user. --[[User:CFIF|CFIF]] [[User talk:CFIF|(talk to me)]] 02:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:I am actually unsure about a consensus for a community ban. Making legal threats will not be tolerated on Wikipedia, but, even although they make Wikipedia a horrible place to be with them, the user has recently been making positive contributions. <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|ana]]</font>|<sup><font color="orange">[[User talk:Kilo-Lima|(talk)]]</font></sup> 16:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
::I've worked with [[User:CoolKatt number 99999]], and he has made some valuable contributions. No need to block a user over some simple edit conflicts.--<font color="#999fff">[[User:Firsfron|Firsfron of Ronchester]]</font> 16:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Simple? A lot of his edits are farce, and his subpages are wayyy more than ridiculous, how can anyone defend those awful, rotten subpages? --[[User:CFIF|CFIF]] [[User talk:CFIF|(talk to me)]] 00:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
::::The [[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CoolKatt_number_99999%27s_sub_pages|consensus of the community on CoolKatt's subpages]] was default keep. I don't agree with some of his edits, but others have been just fine, and I feel if this user had been spoken to in a polite manner from the very beginning, he would never have reacted poorly. Unfortunately, that did not happen. --<font color="#999fff">[[User:Firsfron|Firsfron of Ronchester]]</font> 20:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::That's because he plays the victim and gets sympathy points from people. Tell me Firsfron, what gave him, the '''assumed right''' to make legal threats against me? I think it's pretty hard to speak in a polite manner to someone like CoolKatt. --[[User:CFIF|CFIF]] [[User talk:CFIF|(talk to me)]] 20:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::No one has a right to make legal threats on Wikipedia.--<font color="#999fff">[[User:Firsfron|Firsfron of Ronchester]]</font> 00:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::So then why hasn't this person been banned? besides the fact that no admin has bothered to stop by and address this yet. There is never a good reason to make legal threats and no amount of positive contribution off-sets that, especially when coupled with the fact that they continue to make personal attacks against users who disagree with them. --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 01:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::I'm going to have to agree with CFIF, legal threats are an automatic ban last time I checked, they were not to be tolerated. This person is still here why? Its a very obvious legal threat. --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 01:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
For my part, I consider this a personal attack, especially considering proper procedure wasn't followed and this was done simply as retaliation for agreeing with an AFD.
[[Special:Contributions/CoolKatt_number_99999]] contributions here, you can see she claims I'm a sock puppet of apostrophe, but doesn't doesn't bother to label him a puppet master, and her evidence is non-existent. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Crossmr&oldid=60419953] she also does the same to Opabinia [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Opabinia_regalis&oldid=60420025]. She's obviously trying to get an article reinstated that was deleted by concensus (and on which a concensus still seems to exist to keep it deleted) [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_June_23]] she presents no evidence and just goes out and defaces user pages in what I consider a personal attack. --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 01:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
: What really got me was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_June_23&diff=prev&oldid=60419315 this edit]. So Apostrophe has been saving up sockpuppets that he finally chose to deploy ''just'' to delete a Pokemon article? [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] 02:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::Are you saying that you also feel this is a personal attack? Just so we can spell it out for all involved.--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 02:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Eh, more amusing than anything, but since accusations in bad faith are considered personal attacks, then this sounds like it qualifies. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] 03:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
This is not the first time CK#9999 has made spurious accusations of sockpuppetry: see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural references in Pokémon]] for a past example. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In <font color="black">'''Bl♟ck'''</font>]] <small>([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]])</small> 03:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:wow. I'd never actually been back to that discussion after leaving my comment until now. That is absolutely ridiculous. I insist an admin tell us why this user hasn't been banned before now. --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 03:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:: This guy is hilarious. "Everyone who disagrees with me is part of an evil collective with nothing better to do than to delete Pokemon cruft!" [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] 04:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to wonder too why this user hasn't been banned already, or even blocked before yesterday. disruption/harrassment, personal attacks, legal threats. We've permbanned for less than that. [[User:Circeus|Circeus]] 04:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:I'm not sure I have any right posting here, as I'm not an admin, but I thought I'd point out that CK9^5 does have an unfortunate history of ignoring consensus -- the long list of musical artists on his page was fallout from a somewhat nasty debate on [[classic rock]] over who should be considered to be on a list of classic rock artists, and whether such a list was even necessary in the first place (the list was ultimately removed as unnecessary, and would probably be removed again as hopelessly POV if it was ever added back in); his general attitude through the entire incident was that those who disagreed with his classifications (which stretched the definition of "classic rock" into utter meaninglessness, in my opinion) should just leave the article alone. CK9^5's labyrinth of counterfactual subpages (which IMHO is more appropriate for GeoCities than Wikipedia, but I didn't make the rules) is evidence of someone unwilling to concede to consensus under any circumstances. I don't think CK9^5 is a malicious user, but he is definitely unwilling to accept differences of opinion. Just a few highly biased thoughts from [[User:Haikupoet|Haikupoet]] 05:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::This has actually been here for 5 days (the firs tcomplaint) and the admin haven't given any input into this situation. Is there another place to put this where it will get actual attention?--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 20:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to speak, as someone CK#9999 has repeatedly accused of all sorts of wrongdoing, as well as the subject of the frivilous RFC above.
CK makes good edits, and I feel that, with the proper mentoring from an experienced user, can get past the paranoia and obnoxiousness. I also feel that punitive measures would be counterproductive (and I would certainly be the wrong one to be implementing them).
Failing that, I oppose, for the reasons above, any punitive measure that isn't in specific response to a specific issue (a particular revert war, a particular spurious accusation, etc.) Let's not turn AN into a Quickpoll-style witch burning. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In <font color="black">'''Bl♟ck'''</font>]] <small>([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]])</small> 01:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:This isn't kindergarten. We expect to a certain degree that people behave maturely and act like adults. While I'm all for letting someone make a mistake or two and improve upon it, the pattern of behaviour I see here isn't one of someone who's interested in bettering themselves and participating in a meaningful way in a community. Someone who acts inappropriately or makes mistakes and is genuinely interested in growing with the community and contributingly positively will seek that out when it becomes apparent that they're not going about things the right way. They've shown a clear disregard for the community and those in it. They seem more interested in slandering people and making threats to push their opinion than realize there is probably a better way to go about it. Does that mean we cut people off on the first mistake they make? no. Do we coddle someone endlessly on the hopes they turn around? No. I've been in communities where they've tried to do that with trouble makers and it turns into a gong show. I say give them a week or two to cool their heels, make it very clear their continued behaviour won't be tolerated and put them on probation when they return. If they can behave properly, so be it, but ensure its very clear whats expected of them if they're to continue as such here, but letting them get away with the behaviour they've exhibited unpunished is ridiculous. --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 02:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
[[User:CoolKatt number 99999/What CoolKatt number 99999 is not]]. He talks about himself in the '''third person''' here. He is getting crazy. --[[User:CFIF|CFIF]] [[User talk:CFIF|(talk to me)]] 12:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::I need you to stop talking trash about me. I know many of you people don't like me, now stop this insolence. I will also nominate this section of the article for deletion, but not add a template. Anyone who feels this section be removed, comment here. [[User:CoolKatt number 99999|CoolKatt number 99999]] 15:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::I am a he by the way. [[User:CoolKatt number 99999|CoolKatt number 99999]] 15:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Insolence? You're the one making personal attacks and legal threats. As it stands now, I won't support anything less than a permanent ban unless I start seeing full apologies and reparations for your behaviour. --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 15:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
So again, I'm going to ask: Where is the admin input on this issue? The trainwreck that is CK continues as he denies any wrong-doing and spins conspirecy theories about users who've never associated getting together to delete an article, all the while permitted to make endless personal attacks and legal threats unchecked. If necessary I'll continue to ask that question everyday until the time that someone shows up here and does their job. --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 19:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:Hear, Hear! The admins seem to not be doing anything about BenH either. --[[User:CFIF|CFIF]] [[User talk:CFIF|(talk to me)]] 19:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:: I just noticed that subpage CFIF posted. So [[User:CoolKatt number 99999|CoolKatt number 99999]] ''isn't'' the one who contributes "poorly wrote sentences"? This guy is the master of unintentional irony. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] 01:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I feel I must add something recently stated by this user that is most troubling. Visit [[User talk:Amnewsboy]] in the AETN section. Mr. Kat has basically stated that if something he makes up makes sense to him, it is "not speculation."
First of all, this throws into question every single "Callsign meaning" on every local TV station page (and really, they should be deleted, because the only ones that are clearly true are... well, obvious, like WTWO referring to channel 2)... but mainly, this is a dangerous position for a WikiEditor to take - just because something makes sense to him, it should be taken as fact? No. No. No. [[User:Lambertman|Lambertman]] 14:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
== User VB bof ==
A new user [[User:VB bof]] is making in rapid tempo many seemingly random reversions to sometimes much older versions using popups. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 01:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
:Now [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/X-Men:_The_Last_Stand&diff=prev&oldid=59919787 I'm convinced] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/X-Men:_The_Last_Stand&diff=prev&oldid=59919787 that these] edits were all vandalism, so I'll go through and revert them (and probably indef block [[User:VB bof]] also). ''[[User:AndyZ|Andy]]'' <sub>[[User talk:AndyZ|t]]</sub> 01:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
::According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lambiam&diff=59921048&oldid=59514048 Xaosflux] the issue has been taken care of. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 01:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
:::He came back as {{vandal|VBandal}} and was indef blocked by both Cyde and GraemeL. [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] 06:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Add {{vandal|Fic-in}} to the list of users with similar behaviour. --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 10:11, 27 June 2006 ([[User:ais523|U]][[User talk:ais523|T]][[Special:Contributions/Ais523|C]])
== Isn't this an abuse of block and violation of [[block policy]]? ==
As a consequence of this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=59303787&oldid=59258911] edit [[User:MONGO]] took the decision to [[blocking policy|block]] me for 24 hours. His motivation are explained [[User_talk:Pokipsy76#Blocked|here]] where he says that "my POV pushing days are numbered" and conclude the discussion threating to block me for a week if I will ever dare to revert him again. Now let's fix some points:
# [[User:MONGO]] was not an "independent observer": he was already taking part to a [[content disputes|content dispute]] on the opportunity of describing the "controlled demolition theorists" as "conspiracists";
# the dispute involved several people in both the party as you can see looking at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=prev&oldid=59080643] and keeping pressing "newer edit";
# [[User: MONGO]] was supporting a change to the old version of the article (so he needed the consensus) while I was supporting the old version;
# In the [[block policy]] you can read the following paragraph:
::''Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, '''sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute'''.''
So I think it's clear that [[User: MONGO]] did violate the [[block policy]] realizing an abuse of power. Isn't it? What can I do to defend myself from this kind of abuses? Is there an authority that can prevent [[User: MONGO]] from behaving in this way?
--[[User:Pokipsy76|Pokipsy76]] 06:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
:I'd say your POV-pushing days are numbered, myself. Take it to talk and achieve consensus for the change, rather than unilaterally reverting. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 19:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
::You clearly don't know what you are speaking about:
::#I was not changing the article, I was keeping it
::#I was not the only one trying to keep the article as it was
::#MONGO didn't had the consensus for his changes and for his reverts
::#Even if what you have said was right (and it is not) it would be not sufficient to justify a block when involved in the content dispute.
::--[[User:Pokipsy76|Pokipsy76]] 19:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
:::It doesn't matter how many people were fighting for the change, it is contentious. Like I say, take it to talk. You appear to be under the common misapprehension tat pushing a POV is when ''other people'' assert ''their'' viewpoints. Pushing is pushing. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 15:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:I think the admin should have found another admin to do the block if he beleived it was reasonable. Even if one assumes that [[User:MONGO]] was not trying to use his powers to win a debate, it certainly creates the perception that this is happening. Admins need to be kept to a higher standard and should '''never''' take action against a person they are currently in a content dispute with. This is my opinion and to my knowledge is compatable with wikipedia guidelines [[Block_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used]]. [[User:HighInBC|HighInBC]] 18:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
== [[User:BenH|BenH]]...again ==
[[User:BenH|BenH]] is back to <s>screwing up</s> "contributing" to TV station articles. The 24-hour block didn't do anything, so I think we need a harsher block so this <s>tool</s> "misguided contributor" doesn't "contribute" to any more TV station articles. He's testing the patience of everyone at [[WP:TVS]]. Block him, for the love of God. --[[User:CFIF|CFIF]] [[User talk:CFIF|(talk to me)]] 15:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
:What is wrong with adding dates in place of years to articles, as a matter of interest? [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 19:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
::Because they are unsourced and likely complete farce. We are also tired of some of the other things he does. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WWOR-TV&diff=58631437&oldid=58630727 Tell me which revision is better]. He consistently degrades articles. It's bad. --[[User:CFIF|CFIF]] [[User talk:CFIF|(talk to me)]] 19:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I agree that his changes need to be sourced, but I don't agree that anything he's done rises to the level of a block. Also, it looks like the work that he's doing to the categories is correct. And, if the information he's providing can be shown as correct, I actually prefer his diff on the article link you provided. [[User:Sue Anne|Sue Anne]] 19:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Well the station doesn't brand as "upn9" and didn't at the time of the revert. I'm sure if you asked every member of [[WP:TVS]], they'd tell you the same thing, his edits take good articles and lower the quality, also, the "Television stations in *state*" wasn't supposed to be added to articles at the time, but it appears that new "*Network* affiliates by state" templates have the stations included in the category. He is a major pain, but obviously the admins can't see it. --[[User:CFIF|CFIF]] [[User talk:CFIF|(talk to me)]] 19:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Not to mention that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WKBW-TV&diff=prev&oldid=59906431 he stubs articles that are way past stubs]. Explain how that's constructive. [[WP:BLOCK#Users who exhaust the community's patience|This policy makes all this a sufficient reason to block him.]] --[[User:CFIF|CFIF]] [[User talk:CFIF|(talk to me)]] 19:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::BenH should be blocked for good. I myself have fixed some of his "edits" so that they read better or were more accurate. If BenH can prove he can constructively contribute, then this won't be a problem anymore, but right now it is. So just block BenH for good, and everything will be better. [[User:CoolKatt number 99999|CoolKatt number 99999]] 18:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::I am so tired of BenH! '''PLEASE BAN HIM!''' Thank You! --[[User:CFIF|CFIF]] [[User talk:CFIF|(talk to me)]] 22:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Why are the admins ignoring the community's requests to block him. I have yet to see a positive contribution from this user. We keep telling him to go away but he will not. --[[User:CFIF|CFIF]] [[User talk:CFIF|(talk to me)]] 19:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Please, for the love of God, ban him! --[[User:CFIF|CFIF]] [[User talk:CFIF|(talk to me)]] 23:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: Because "the community" in this case seems to amount to you. Tedious though he may be, I don't see a pressing reason to block at this point - please go through the steps in [[WP:DR]]. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 09:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::Now how am I able to talk to this dolt if he '''NEVER''' responds to messages. [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BenH|I have had it with the admins ignoring our concerns, and I started an RfC.]] And look, there is more than one signature, so it does appear that this is a community affair like I said, and not something that seems to amount to me. --[[User:CFIF|CFIF]] [[User talk:CFIF|(talk to me)]] 12:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BenH|Looks like the community wants this guy permablocked. Not ONE bit of support for this guy.]] --[[User:CFIF|CFIF]] [[User talk:CFIF|(talk to me)]] 22:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
== Some inappropriate usernames ==
Here are a few likely inappropriate usernames that were registered recently but not blocked:
*{{vandal|penisdaddy}}
*{{vandal|Capn Crack is a perverted sicko!}}
*{{vandal|pissenlit}}
*{{vandal|Xbox360sucks}}
*{{vandal|Thirteenstepsx}}
You also might consider looking at {{vandal|Oral caress}} and {{vandal|As I drink nectar from thy fair bosom...}}. The names don't seem very harmful to me but may still violate the policy of alluding to sexual acts.--[[User:Conrad Devonshire|<font color="Green">'''Conrad Devonshire'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Conrad Devonshire|'''<font color="Purple">Talk</font>''']]</sup> 06:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
All above in the list are now username blocked -- [[User:Tawker|Tawker]] 06:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:Here are some more:
*{{vandal|horselover00}}
*{{vandal|Delicate lesbian kiss...}}--[[User:Conrad Devonshire|<font color="Green">'''Conrad Devonshire'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Conrad Devonshire|'''<font color="Purple">Talk</font>''']]</sup> 06:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
**Delicate blocked, Horselover is not an inappropriate username. I mean, I'm not overly keen on horses myself, but I wouldn't say liking them merits an indefinite block.--[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 08:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with Sam, but a point of note for people posting here when using the vandal template: please make sure the username has the first letter capitalised, otherwise using the block user link from this page will not work. I had to re-block [[User:Penisdaddy]] and [[User:Pissenlit]] because no block was in effect. Maybe the [[Special:Blockip]] page should be fixed so that registered usernames are automatically capitalised in the relevant textbox, anyone experienced in filing Bugzilla requests? --<font color="2B7A2B">[[User:Cactus.man|Cactus'''.'''man]]</font> <font size="4">[[User talk:Cactus.man|<span class="Unicode">✍</span>]]</font> 09:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Template fixed. —[[User:Ilmari Karonen|Ilmari Karonen]] <small>([[User talk:Ilmari Karonen|talk]])</small> 13:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:::[http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/pissenlit French definition of ''pissenlit'']] (a [[dandelion]])[[User:Moink|moink]] 15:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Here are some more:
*{{vandal|Negrus}}
*{{vandal|Moderator.Seraphim}}
*{{vandal|Captaincrappyjacks}}
*{{vandal|Poo601}}[[User:Conrad Devonshire|<font color="Green">'''Conrad Devonshire'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Conrad Devonshire|'''<font color="Purple">Talk</font>''']]</sup> 15:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Moderator blocked. [[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]</sup> 18:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
*{{user|百家姓之四}}
Please hold off blocking this guy, he appears to be making good faith contributions, is responding to his talk page messages, and I have asked him to make a change of username request. [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] 05:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
== {{Vandal|Holywarrior}} ==
This user has recently nominated the page [[Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit]] for [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Vandalism Unit|deletion]], claiming that it has "spawned users such as [[User:VandalPatrol|VandalPatrol]] and [[User:PandalPetrol|PandalPetrol]]" and "acts as an interacting platform for organised vandalism". By "organised vandalism", he means warning or blocking him for his own acts of vandalism or policy violations. According to [[User:frymaster|Frymaster]], he has created several POV-pushing pages related to the caste system and removed db-attack templates from them and labeling them as vandalism. He has also labeled several users who have warned or blocked him as vandals or sockpuppets of other users and created a userpage on a certain IP stating that it is a sockpuppet of [[User:VandalPatrol|VandalPatrol]]. Due to this user's history of trolling, this nomination is obviouly in bad faith and in my opinion it should be speedily closed and this user should recieve a block.--[[User:Conrad Devonshire|<font color="Green">'''Conrad Devonshire'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Conrad Devonshire|'''<font color="Purple">Talk</font>''']]</sup> 15:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::Frymaster is a liar where he found "he has created several POV-pushing pages'" I challenge him to name a few.[[User:Holywarrior|Holywarrior]] 05:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
::''removed db-attack templates from them and labeling them as vandalism''---Mr Frymaster what else do you call when an anonymous not involved in any kind of talk or contribution deletes the whole page and tags attack, and why should it not be reverted.[[User:Holywarrior|Holywarrior]] 05:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
::For further explanation of allegations plz see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit&oldid=60292328].But will these ppl face any trial for having put up ''bad faith'' discussion on me. [[User:Holywarrior|Holywarrior]] 06:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
::''By "organised vandalism", he means warning or blocking him for his own acts of vandalism or policy violations''.----No by organised vandalism I mean instigating vandalism and then backing him,Actions of [[user:Mike Rosoft]] is suspect in this case.He even had talk with vandal before and after the event.Can you tell when was I warned or blocked by any credible person.Pasting block message on someones page for no cause or warning are itself vandalism do you want to differ.[[User:Holywarrior|Holywarrior]] 07:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the user should receive an indefinite block. "Holywarrior" is not really an appropriate name in most contexts, let alone trying to build a neutral encyclopedia. So I say we make him pick a new username. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 16:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:either block him for trolling, or politely ask him to pick a new username so he can keep his edits if he likes. Blocking him for his username in response to trolling seems a bit arbitrary. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 17:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::It's not in response to trolling, this is simply the first time I've seen the name. Bad usernames are blocked regardless of whether or not they are trolling; are you implying that if they ''are'' trolling then we shouldn't username block them?! --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 17:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I think a block for the username would not be misplaced, nor would action for trollery/disruption. [[User:Ian13|<span style="color:#067"><u>Ian</u>¹³</span>]][[User talk:Ian13|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">/t</span>]] 20:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::I have no respect for lazy,arrogant admins.I need explanation from both these admins where did I vandalize and where did I troll.I do blv CVU need to change itself,it was just unfortunate they discuss "holywarrior" only during discussion and sweeped all the dirt under the carpet.Never ever think of bullying someone,at least I am not the guy to be bullied by these ........ admins.[[User:Holywarrior|Holywarrior]] 07:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
::See here how these ppl shamelessly protected themselves.CVU deletion may be revived again.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit].plz check history because these ppl keep on erasing my comments to suit their vandal interest.[[User:Holywarrior|Holywarrior]] 05:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC).I think I have answered all the questions raised against me.But what about Devonshire and company.They need to proove themselves and their organisation in question.Your Bad manners are furthered by your Bad manners alone.[[User:Holywarrior|Holywarrior]] 05:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
::If ever blocked for username,I want answer for these questions[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Holywarrior#Your_user_name].[[User:Holywarrior|Holywarrior]] 05:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[Special:Emailuser/Mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]] teaches Holy Warrior how to use spellcheck.
::'''if ppl involved in discussion don't have answers but have conscience,I propose to them to put warning tag on their page by themselves. sometimes satan misleads even wisest of individuals'''.[[User:Holywarrior|Holywarrior]] 08:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
::FOR RECORD:All of them failed to show they have either of the two.[[User:Holywarrior|Holywarrior]] 07:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::Sometimes PPl who have habit of hunting lame ducks catches a wounded tiger by mistake .[[User:Wmnnzzr|Wmnnzzr]] 12:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
As a totally uninvolved user, I gave {{user|Holywarrior}} a [[WP:NPA]] warning over his calling another user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&curid=5149102&diff=60295704&oldid=60295450 "third rate liar"]. Since then, he has been harrassing me calling me an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ragib&diff=prev&oldid=60489775 admin-bully], and to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ragib&diff=prev&oldid=60490287 "gang up against"] him, and finally he issued a threat against me saying [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ragib&diff=next&oldid=60490316 "Do you know what you deserve ."]. I believe such disruptive behavior (and a look at his contribution, which mostly contains similar threats/comments/bad-faith edits){{fact}}deserve a block for disruption. Thanks. --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 14:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::Plz look here for true story [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ragib#Response] ,Rajib has deleberately presented in the manner which may be misleading .[[User:Holywarrior|Holywarrior]] 15:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:Also, please take a look at his [[User:Holywarrior]] user page being used as an attack page. I'd request such personal attacks to be removed. Thanks. --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 14:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::Dear Rajib Plz don't pretend to be non-involved in this case.Infact you were one who were waiting for the opportunity to post a block on me.Your warnings were one sided being an admin why you failed to take similar action against others engaged in more heinous act even when you were shown who were these.You were retending to be on wikibreak.My userpage is not attack page ,It contains true story of how I was attacked by reckless admins one of whom are you.[[User:Holywarrior|Holywarrior]] 14:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you remove your [[User:Holywarrior|attack page]], this is against wikipedia's policy. As I referred above, you deserved a [[WP:NPA]] for calling another editor "a 3rd grade liar". Please refrain from making funny remarks about me "pretending to be non-involved". Nobody's "waiting for an opportunity". Find some other target for harrassment. --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 14:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::Why are you feeling harrassed,I have made no such remarks on you which may harass you.Infact it is me who has been unduly harrased by many ppl and reason was not given and they have disrupted my work plz try to be honest with your comments.And it is you who sounds funny---You are trying to present facts in slanted manner.By voting against me you have just shown your bad temperament ,I think you should along with others review your ability as admin if you ppl have any conscience.By the way are you a voting admin only ,I have found you voting on many ocassions.Anyway Majority rules and you are fortunate to be along that side but Knowledge gets the other side.I am afraid ppl like you will kill the wiki mission.[[User:Holywarrior|Holywarrior]] 15:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::If my user page looks like an attack page I am sorry but I have not written most part of it.They are all true stories written by many ppl.One of them is you too.If it sounds Horrific let us face it because they are merely records of wikipedia---which conforms to wiki policy.Do you disagree????[[User:Holywarrior|Holywarrior]] 15:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:::So much effort in response to a justifiable [[WP:NPA]] warning (further evidence of my "ganging up against you" as part of a vast world conspiracy??) !! I request you to remove your attack page, which is against wikipedia's policy. Thank you. --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 15:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::Sorry you could not justify it.If warning were to be issued in this manner then bots will do a better work.My contention is it was one sided. [[User:Holywarrior|Holywarrior]] 16:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::Sorry they are all just hyperlinked pages.Can you remove those original pages.If wikipedia allows one person to be abused and takes no action against any other what is the use of any of its policy and admins likes of you.[[User:Holywarrior|Holywarrior]] 15:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::And the manner in which you put up "Request" abuses the word itself.I hope some gas must have blown out of baloon.[[User:Holywarrior|Holywarrior]] 15:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
"Third rate-liar" is a personal attack and any editor (admin or not) would be in the right to place an NPA warning on the talk page of the issuant. [[User:Holywarrior]]'s user page is also inappropriate in my opinion by listing diffs with spurious added commentary by him (e.g. "CVU deletion trial" as opposed to an MfD that failed) and ("Admin who tried to bully me"). The entire commentary above is suggestive of trolling. I've blocked him for 48 hours for trolling, and submit the block for review on [[WP:AN#Holywarrior block]]. -- [[User:Samir_(The_Scope)|Samir]] <small>[[User_talk:Samir_(The_Scope)|धर्म]]</small> 20:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::Charges made by Samir looks dubious,he himself is not sure of why he is blocking him.Infact I had been co-editer of Holywarrior and also one of his admirers (POV may be expected),he is not known for what he has been accused of.Why people who had been counter questioned does not come up with answers,I think that would better clarify the situation.Samir summarises the charges including those which has been well refuted by holywarrior with solid proofs.Is he not shooting in the dark.Regarding Rajib's behavior I will say yes he issued warning like a bot (subject to rv by wikipedia policy).[[User:Wmnnzzr|Wmnnzzr]] 11:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Uhm, it's pretty clear why the block was made. Personal attacks, attack user page and trolling. Diffs above. [[WP:RFCU]] coming next -- [[User:Samir_(The_Scope)|Samir]] <small>[[User_talk:Samir_(The_Scope)|धर्म]]</small> 20:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Wow you are really great man .Would yu like to know more.It is me who had created his id we know each other for a long time.He is my chat frnd(earlier roommate too) and very poor in computer applications.Holywarrior does horrific typing mistakes and wanna know why he visited encyclopedia.I had asked him to comment on Buddha's birth mystery.See [[Talk:Kshatriya]].Any clue of his existence on wikipedia before that??? I had made his id because I was afraid he will never make it and all his work would go unnoticed.Regarding your other apprehensions,Yah I contribute very casually most of the time read only what others have done.[[User:Wmnnzzr|Wmnnzzr]] 09:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:::After going through entire commentary above HolyWarriors nomination as Vandal by [[User:Conrad Devonshire]] is in retaliation of CVU afd,nothing more than that.Much of his accusations are based on what Vandal/Pandal patrol says.I also found he has misled the board by misrepresenting Frymasters comments(I have checked the original version).The Accusation session must stop as soon as possible.[[User:Wmnnzzr|Wmnnzzr]] 11:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
==Felicity4711 and smartquotes==
[[User:Felicity4711|Felicity4711]] has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Felicity4711#Please_don.E2.80.99t_unilaterally_impose_stupid_.E2.80.9Csmartquotes.E2.80.9D_on_articles_which_previously_didn.E2.80.99t_contain_them asked to refrain from forcing "smartquotes"] or directed quotes, but, as far as I can see, is unilaterally imposing them, as in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monochrome_painting&curid=512487&diff=60250422&oldid=59432035 Monochrome painting] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Felicity4711 other edits]. I don't know enough about the technicalities, but I think someone who does ought to check this out. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 23:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:Ugh, to me this is borderline vandalism, unilaterally imposing a style that is widely disagreed with on dozens of articles without discussion. It makes the source impossible to read. - [[User:Merzbow|Merzbow]] 23:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::I’m unsure whether it is my place to post my opinion here (as I am not an administrator); however, apart from the html v. unicode argument, what objection could anyone have to the use of ‘smart quotes’ over the use of " & '? It seems to me an entirely irrelevant issue (as long as the unicode, rather than the html versions are used). Personally, I am lukewarmly in favour of the use of ‘smart quotes’ - they are typographically correct, and somewhat more æsthetically pleasing - though I am not as zealously committed to the cause as [[User:Felicity4711|Felicity4711]] is. If she wants to go around, doing the mammoth menial task of swapping " for “ & ” and ' for ‘ & ’ in the many myriad articles of Wikipedia, then good luck to her - it’s not a negative thing to do (although, I '''could''' think of better things to do with my time). It would be inappropriately authoritarian for Wikipedia to impose the exclusive use of one form over the other (particularly the less correct " & ' over ‘, “, ’ & ”); slight differences of style are to be expected in an encyclopedia with so many editors. Please, tolerate some inconsequential diversity of style, and allow [[User:Felicity4711|Felicity4711]] her harmless pedantry. [[User:Doremítzwr|Doremítzwr]] 03:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Thank you, Doremítzwr. I’ll be careful to use Unicode directed quotes from now on. [[User:Felicity4711|Felicity4711]] 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I agree with Doremítzwr, especially this part: '''as long as the unicode, rather than the html versions are used'''. The &ldquo; and &#8221; nonsense has got to stop, but other than that I see no problem. —[[User:Keenan Pepper|Keenan Pepper]] 03:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Unicode it is, then, from now on. [[User:Felicity4711|Felicity4711]] 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Yes, the unicode is fine, but the HTML stuff is rubbish. If she modifies any more articles in that way I'm going to exercise my right to harmless pedantry to make then readable again with the unicode. - [[User:Merzbow|Merzbow]] 06:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::As long as the end result is still directed quotes, you will in fact have my gratitude for changing them to a more-agreed-upon standard while maintaining their directedness. In the meantime, I am also going back through all my contributions and changing the HTML directed quotes to Unicode directed quotes. [[User:Felicity4711|Felicity4711]] 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Changed to unicode smart quotes or keyboard apostrophes and primes (I presume that you mean the former; however your meaning is rather ambiguous)? If you do the latter, she’ll probably just go back and revert your changes; however, if you coöperate and change them to the former, it may encourage her to do so as well, and agree to only use unicode smart quotes in future. Shall I send her a message on behalf of you all, asking her to do so? [[User:Doremítzwr|Doremítzwr]] 14:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Exactly, Doremítzwr. I am going back through all my contributions and changing the HTML directed quotes to Unicode directed quotes.
:::Doremítzwr is only partially correct: typographer's quotation marks are correct in a ''printed'' document. Wikipedia is not a printed document. Typographer's quotes have absolutely no place in the content of Wikipedia articles which are not themselves about typography, and Wikipedia policy should be revised to make this fact explicit. -- [[User:Bblackmoor|BBlackmoor]] <sup><small>[[User_talk:Bblackmoor|(talk)]]</small></sup> 01:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should therefore strive for the same professionalism as a printed encyclopedia. If Wikipedia outlaws directed quotes completely, I might as well not even bother having an account. [[User:Felicity4711|Felicity4711]] 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Her work is going to be changed, as has already happened with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monochrome_painting&diff=60330010&oldid=60250422 Monochrome painting]. - [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 15:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:I’ll take that as a yes. [[User:Doremítzwr|Doremítzwr]] 18:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
For reference, I have posted [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:20060624-Calvin_Trillin_quotes.gif this screenshot] showing how the quotes added by [[User:Felicity4711|Felicity4711]] to the article [[Calvin Trillin]] appear on the latest version of Internet Explorer for the Macintosh when the user is logged in in Japanese. The quotes are double width because IE renders them in a two-byte Japanese font. I suspect that similar problems may occur in many Chinese, Korean, and other non-English computer systems. [[User:Tomgally|Tomgally]] 22:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:I don’t mind if my work is changed from HTML directed quotes to Unicode directed quotes. If the quotes are made undirected, I will change them back to directed, but this time in Unicode. [[User:Felicity4711|Felicity4711]] 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:Does this happen with html smart quotes only or with unicode ones as well? Either way, it’s the final nail in the coffin for html ones. If this also happens with unicode smart quotes, then perhaps it is best that smart quotes in general are discouraged; I personally find an extra space where it shouldn’t be more obtrusive than primes used in place of quotation marks. However, if unicode smart quotes do '''not''' cause this phenomenon, then I reïterate that it should be a matter of personal choice. I don’t see the validity of Bblackmoor’s distinction betwixt a printed document and Wikipedia - both are read, and users (including me) often print articles. I think it best that Wikipedia does not legislate on this matter; it is not important enough, and to do so is simply creating another point of conflict. [[User:Doremítzwr|Doremítzwr]] 20:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::Well said. [[User:Felicity4711|Felicity4711]] 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
== Yet more usernames... ==
Sigh...
*{{vandal|Corn-hole}}
*{{vandal|Eros St. Voyeur}}
*{{vandal|Erotic lust}}
*{{vandal|BREASTS!}}
*{{vandal|CUT13W1TBUTTY}}
*{{vandal|Lesbian courtesan}}
*{{vandal|Sorry, I couldn't think of a username}}
And also, there's a not recently registered user with the name [[User:This user has left wikipedia|This user has left wikipedia]] that I warned earlier about his username.--[[User:Conrad Devonshire|<font color="Green">'''Conrad Devonshire'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Conrad Devonshire|'''<font color="Purple">Talk</font>''']]</sup> 05:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:Uh, This user has left wikipedia had his username changed to that as part of [[m:right to vanish]]. No reason to block. --[[User talk:Rory096|Rory096]] 07:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:I do not see Corn-hole as sexually suggestive or offensive. I indef blocked Eros St. Voyeur and Erotic lust. BREASTS! already indef blocked earlier. For the last one I don't think it's suggestive or offensive, though others may disagree. [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] 07:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
::"Cornhole" is a word that refers to the anus, similar to asshole.--[[User:Conrad Devonshire|<font color="Green">'''Conrad Devonshire'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Conrad Devonshire|'''<font color="Purple">Talk</font>''']]</sup> 07:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:::It can also refer to the [[Cornhole (game)|game]]. See [[Cornhole]]. --[[User talk:Rory096|Rory096]] 07:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
::(Two edit conflicts) By Wikipedia's standards, I think corn-hole would be considered offensive. "Sorry, I couldn't think of a username" is not offensive, but it is unwieldy and my cause confusion. If the person becomes a regular contributor, perhaps he or she should be asked to change names. -- [[User:Kjkolb|Kjkolb]] 07:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:::[[WP:AGF]] says we have to assume that he means the game. The other isn't really bad, and certainly not worth a block. --[[User talk:Rory096|Rory096]] 07:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:::: [[WP:AGF]] has nothing to do with it. The username policy is quite clear that it is not if the creating user finds the name offesnsive, but if others do, thus a name created in good faith but offensive to others is still unacceptable. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 08:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Why would you find the name of a game offensive? --[[User talk:Rory096|Rory096]] 17:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::: And your point is? I haven't said the name is offensive, I have pointed out that [[WP:AGF]] has nothing to do with if a name is offensive of not. We block the name, not the user. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 14:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::It's technically possible that a user named "Corn-hole" is only interested a game, just like it's possible that a user named "Ass-wipe" just likes cleaning donkeys. I wouldn't put any money on either one, though... -[[User:Hit bull, win steak|Hit bull, win steak]]<sup>[[User talk:Hit bull, win steak|(Moo!)]]</sup> 19:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::Someone will want to block Lesbian courtesan, no ambiguity about that one. My school's proxy server filters URLs with certain words so I can't block. [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] 07:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
::And that someone is me. Blocked as of now. [[User:Zscout370]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]</sup></small> 17:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
==A trivial matter I need help with==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H5N1&diff=60376814&oldid=60363977] [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 20:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
: What action do you want admins to take? -- [[user:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] 20:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
::Indeed. I believe the trivial matter of you removing links has been handled already. - [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 20:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:::If [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]'s spam is OK then no action at all is needed. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 02:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::::And if you'd stop calling a legitimate link spam, you'd be less insulting. If you object to a link, you remove it, and it's replaced, you need to detail why you feel it's inappropriate on the article's talk page, not merely call it "spam" in an edit summary. - [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 16:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Just as the [[H5N1]] and [[Flu]] articles are spread over two suites '''Flu''' ([[Flu]], [[Flu season]], [[Flu vaccine]], [[Flu treatment]], [[Avian flu]], [[H5N1 flu]], [[Flu research]]) - '''H5N1''' ([[H5N1]], [[H5N1 genetic structure]], [[Transmission and infection of H5N1]], [[Global spread of H5N1]], [[Social impact of H5N1]], [[Influenza Pandemic]])); so too should the links be placed in the most appropriate article, not in as many articles as someone thinks they can get away with. Your links do not belong at [[H5N1]]. The exact ___location you added your links recommends [[Global spread of H5N1]] as a proper place for good and useful links about H5N1 in the category of ''News and General information''. The comment with my latest deletion of your two links said ''take to talk page''. You should have. You didn't so in lieu of an edit war, I brought it here. Links spamming is affecting all of wikipedia and so I was also hoping for this episode to either benefit from or add an example to the general wikipedia wide effort concerning spamming. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 17:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:And you ''still'' haven't taken your concerns to the appropriate talk page. - [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 17:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
== [[User:RJII]] ==
This "user" admits to being a shared account used by multiple people. While I cannot find the exact policy, I am certain this is prohibited, and have blocked the "project" accordingly. Unblock if I was incorrect. --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Shazaam|Shazaam!]]'' - [[User_Talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|<*>]] 20:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:Although I have absolutely no love for RJII, I do think you should have probably asked here before blocking if you can't find any policy. I don't see what's so wrong with sharing an account, as long as all people sharing take responsibility for the actions of the others using it. That's how I see it anyway. [[User:The Ungovernable Force|The Ungovernable Force]] 21:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
::[[m:Role account]] is the page you might've been looking for, Jeffrey. ~ [[User:PseudoSudo|PseudoSudo]] 21:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:::There's definitely a page on enwiki about that, but I can't remember. The term used is "public account," though. --[[User talk:Rory096|Rory096]] 21:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Here we go, [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy#"Public" accounts]]. The block was valid. --[[User talk:Rory096|Rory096]] 21:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Also, [[WP:SOCK#.27Role.27_accounts]]. --[[User:Andrew Norman|ajn]] ([[User talk:Andrew Norman|talk]]) 21:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::If different users posted from a same IP, doing same kind of edits, wouldn't you block them as sockpuppets? [[User:Vision Thing|-- Vision Thing --]] 09:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, the self-admitted aim solely to push their POV into Wikipedia is more than enough reason to block. --[[User talk:Rory096|Rory096]] 21:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:So then why weren't they banned a long time ago? It's been pretty obvious they were pov pushing for quite a while, yet they were allowed to complete their little project anyway. What's the point of blocking now, just 6 days before they voluntarily leave? [[User:The Ungovernable Force|The Ungovernable Force]] 21:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
::Did they ever come out and say that they were doing nothing but inserting their POV into Wikipedia? If not, we'd have to [[WP:AGF|assume that he's (they're) acting in good faith]]. --[[User talk:Rory096|Rory096]] 21:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:::They often admitted to considering Wikipedia a battleground. Besides, AGF only goes so far, and this has been pretty obvious. Anyways, RJII doesn't care about assuming good faith (they have said it themself), so why should we assume good faith with them? [[User:The Ungovernable Force|The Ungovernable Force]] 21:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Fine, so maybe he should have been blocked earlier. That doesn't mean this block is invalid. --[[User talk:Rory096|Rory096]] 21:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::True, I just wish it would have happened much earlier. [[User:The Ungovernable Force|The Ungovernable Force]] 21:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:::RJII's edits go way beyond the realm of good faith. I myself have abandoned articles because fighting RJII's relentless POV-pushing was just too time-consuming. In fact, RJII is a major reason why I have more or less stopped editing Wikipedia at all. -- [[User:Bblackmoor|BBlackmoor]] <sup><small>[[User_talk:Bblackmoor|(talk)]]</small></sup> 01:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:Endorse. - [[User:f-m-t|FrancisTyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 21:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
::Blanked soapboxing on user page. Concur with block, this is a self-admitted POV push and using WP as their playground. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 21:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
There's a bigger problem here: The editors behind RJII were being '''paid''' to engage in POV-pushing on wikipedia 24/7, and they managed to slip by the checks and balances currently in place. They have fooled the wikipedia community for a year and a half. By any measure, this is a collossal blunder on our part. I believe a review of existing rules and procedures must be launched to ensure this does not happen again. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 22:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:How do you know this, and, even if it were true, how is it significant;y different than any unpaid POV-pushing? [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 22:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
::I agree; the motivations behind POV-pushing are irrelevant. I have no problem with people being paid to edit. I wouldn't mind a little kickback. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 22:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:::There is a problem, actually: People being paid to POV-push have much more time on their hands than the rest of us. RJII could routinely impose his POV against large teams of other editors. He created entire POV forks that are still largely POV to this day. Simply put, 1 paid POV-pusher = 10 unpaid ones. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 01:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::::1 paid = just as easy to block as 10 unpaid. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 05:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:Not as bad as you think, the account of the users in question would probably not have lasted much longer. Furthermore, anything too egregious is likely to just get diluted in the normal process of editing. Besides, how many articles of the million or so we have can they really have hoped to have "fixed up". Honestly, a more interesting statistic would be how long before their contribution is effectively reduced to nil. - [[User:f-m-t|FrancisTyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 22:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
::Interesting question, especially since they claimed that measures were in place to ensure their contributions would remain, with details to be provided. Without those details, it's hard to say. Perhaps it's something as simple as having their contributions in the edit history where like-minded editors can find it. Still, their little screed seemed like just so much masturbatory self-congratulations without those details of how they did what they claimed to have done. [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] 22:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I think it's more a matter of including the same information in numerous articles. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 01:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:You all are assuming this is true, as well. rjii.com remains but a placeholder. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 22:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:A casual look through RJII's contributions (dated May 2006 and earlier) will show you that no one could possibly have time to edit that much and go to work - or, for that matter, do anything else during the day other than eat and sleep. No one person could keep up that pace for a year and a half. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 01:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::I don't know what you're looking at, but I just scrolled their last 5000 edits and it is decidedly '''not''' 24/7 like they would like to claim and like you seem to see, and follows a pattern of activity and inactivity (analguous to any other busy user). --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Shazaam|Shazaam!]]'' - [[User_Talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|<*>]] 09:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I have had a number of dealings with RJII, and there was nothing unusual about the extent of his editing, and he was considerably less active than hundreds of other contributors over the same period. I would be particularly shocked to learn he had a research assistant, as his sources never seemed to go beyond what one could easy to find with a Google search. In this case, I feel that [[Occam's Razor]] makes RJII being a single user with a penchant for self-aggrandizing fiction a considerably more likely scenario to him being a team of covert and well-funded operators. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 19:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I too have dealt with RJII, and fully agree with SimonP. Enough already of the conspiracy - it's a single user jerking the chain. It's a wind up, and you're taking the bait spectacularly. [[User:ElectricRay|ElectricRay]] 23:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Concur. - [[User:f-m-t|FrancisTyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 23:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:RJII's actions didn't "slip by" -- the root of the problem is that Wikipedia does not have a responsible editorial policy. It's no surprise that RJII was able to use Wikipedia as his/her/their personal soapbox. What is surprising is that it doesn't mappen more often than it does. -- [[User:Bblackmoor|BBlackmoor]] <sup><small>[[User_talk:Bblackmoor|(talk)]]</small></sup> 01:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
If you are talking to me, than you should know I'm personally not taking any bait, thank you (it was obvious from the get-go he was spewing hot air), and I personally don't give two fucks if he is not a they, as he/they say they are a they then they were blocked. --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Shazaam|Shazaam!]]'' - [[User_Talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|<*>]] 00:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:Jeffrey, I'm mot talking about you specifically, but this discussion generally. Also, what's with the attitude? Have you recently given up coffee or something? Lighten up. [[User:ElectricRay|ElectricRay]] 08:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
== Blocked IE users no longer lose edits ==
Today, I submitted a patch for [[bugzilla:4990]], which [[User:Robchurch|Rob Church]] applied with some modifications. Thus, the page shown to blocked users now has a textbox that contains the source of the page, or, if they were already editing when the block was applied, the content they were trying to save. This has two major effects:
# Blocked users can now view the source of a page without resorting to odd tricks like [[Special:Export]].
# [[Internet Explorer]] users no longer lose their edits if their IP is blocked while they are editing.
The latter should reduce the severity of the collateral damage from blocking shared IPs (either directly or through the autoblocker) quite a bit. I'm sure a lot of AOL users will be thankful. —[[User:Ilmari Karonen|Ilmari Karonen]] <small>([[User talk:Ilmari Karonen|talk]])</small> 23:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:How come IE users lost their edits? <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|ana]]</font>|<sup><font color="orange">[[User talk:Kilo-Lima|t]]</font></sup> 16:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::Pressing "back" in IE doesn't preserve form content, whereas it does in Firefox/Opera. [[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] <sup>[[User talk:Sam Korn|(smoddy)]]</sup> 16:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
== [[User:Burningbuddha]] ==
Would this user need a username block? --[[User:GeorgeMoney|GeorgeMoney]] <sup>([[User talk:GeorgeMoney|talk]]) ([[User:GeorgeMoney/Help Me Improve|Help Me Improve!]])</sup> 01:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:I would say yes, as a user with the name "Burningjesus" would probably get a block. --[[User:Mr. Lefty|'''Mr. L''']][[WP:EA|<font color="Green">'''e'''</font>]][[User:Mr. Lefty|'''fty''']] <sub>[[User talk:Mr. Lefty|''Talk to me!'']]</sub> 01:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::Blocked. [[User:Zscout370]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]</sup></small> 01:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:::We need another username block on [[User:Retardtv]] --[[User:GeorgeMoney|GeorgeMoney]] <sup>([[User talk:GeorgeMoney|talk]]) ([[User:GeorgeMoney/Help Me Improve|Help Me Improve!]])</sup> 01:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::::A mentally retarded transvestite? <cough> (There is, btw, a possibility with some religions and philosophies that "burning" would not be an insult, but rather X in purification/divinity. I doubt that's the case here.) [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 14:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::I think the username in question is actually a drug reference, although it could easily be misinterpreted. If I'm correct, that's still a block, so no big deal. (The Buddha one, not the other.)-[[User:Hit bull, win steak|Hit bull, win steak]]<sup>[[User talk:Hit bull, win steak|(Moo!)]]</sup> 13:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Retard TV. <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|ana]]</font>|<sup><font color="orange">[[User talk:Kilo-Lima|t]]</font></sup> 16:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::About the Burningbuddah block, I was in email communication with the user. He used the name before when he did artwork for many years, so not surprisingly, he asked for the name to be unblocked. I said no, due to the reasons yall cited above. He is still welcome to create another account with another name, but I am not inclined to unblock Burningbuddah. [[User:Zscout370]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]</sup></small> 21:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
== [[User:PoolGuy]] ==
PoolGuy was recently the subject of an Arbitration case, which decided that after [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_PoolGuy major sockpuppetry] he should be put on probation, and limited to using one account. In the two days since the arbitration case closed, he has made two formal requests (on [[WP:RPP]]) and several other requests on his and others' talk pages for [[User:GoldToeMarionette]] (a sockpuppet) to be unblocked/unprotected, on the specious grounds that since the ArbCom didn't specifically find that the account should have been blocked, they implicitly decided that the account should not be blocked. This sort of sophistry and barrack-room law is typical.
PoolGuy has made no edits to articles, as opposed to talk pages and the WP namespace, since March [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=PoolGuy&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0]. His edit history prior to March is not extensive (about 50 edits to articles in the last year, mainly typos and capitalisation correction, and eleven edits since November). He has caused a great deal of disruption since then, but contributed absolutely nothing to Wikipedia. I suggest we're way past the stage of exhausting the community's patience. Does anyone have any objections to a permanent block? --[[User:Andrew Norman|ajn]] ([[User talk:Andrew Norman|talk]]) 05:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
: I'd certainly agree, his pointless [[Wikipedia:Wikilawyer|wikilawyering]] got old months ago at this point I cannot see it as anything other than trolling. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 14:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:: I've permanently blocked the account. If any other admin feels he's worth unblocking, go ahead. --[[User:Andrew Norman|ajn]] ([[User talk:Andrew Norman|talk]]) 16:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:::No problems here, he keeps abusing unblock claiming that ArbCom had no basis for it's ruling, if he keeps it up a protect is in order -- [[User:Tawker|Tawker]] 18:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe a permanent IP block is necessary since IP autoblock is only around 1 week.--[[User:Bonafide.hustla|Bonafide.hustla]] 21:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
== Bizarre userpage chain ==
Hello. I have found a series of user accounts that are apparently being used for some kind of personal game project. User accounts [[User:Drama freak]], [[User:Modella]], [[User:Pressure Resilient]], and [[User:Big Brother Teen]] are hosting content in userspace for what appears to be an imaginary game show. Nearly all of the edits for these accounts are to their own userpages. I don't know what the policy is on this kind of thing, so I'll leave it in your hands. -[[User:Joshuapaquin|Joshuapaquin]] 10:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:They fail [[WP:USER]] and [[WP:NOT]]... [[User_talk:NSLE|NSLE]] 10:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::That I figured, but what happens? Do the accounts get zapped? -[[User:Joshuapaquin|Joshuapaquin]] 10:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::: I've deleted the pages and left a note. I don't think the accounts should be blocked right now, as they have had little or no warning about what they were doing. If they continue now, that will be another matter of course. --[[User:JoanneB|Joanne]][[User talk:JoanneB|B]] 10:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:::: Woops, I just blocked them all for a week. I don't wish to revert only because my gut tells me thay all knew exactly what they were doing, and had almost no encyclopedia edits or community interaction aside from whateverthefuck they were doing. --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Shazaam|Shazaam!]]'' - [[User_Talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|<*>]] 10:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::::: Well, my reasoning was (but perhaps that was a bit of too much good faith?): they find this place they can edit and see it as a most convenient place for their games. They don't encounter any policy pages, as they're just sticking to their own userpage. No one is telling them not to, so why would they stop? I won't revert your block though, I see your reasoning as well. --[[User:JoanneB|Joanne]][[User talk:JoanneB|B]] 10:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::::: Looking at the histories, they even edited anonymously, and the IPs I checked didn't come back to any other edits. They knew exactly what Wikipedia is and they knew exactly what they were doing. However, if someone were to unblock, I'd be cool with it (mostly because I'll be offline for the next day or so and can't follow up as exstensively as I want). --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Shazaam|Shazaam!]]'' - [[User_Talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|<*>]] 10:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::''Woops, I just blocked them all for a week.'' Man, I hope I never get on your bad side :) -[[User:Joshuapaquin|Joshuapaquin]] 10:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::Time for Geogre the scold, I suppose. We should warn them first, but I also think they have to know they're doing something wrong, even if they haven't read any of our policies. They know this isn't MySpace, whatever else they know. It's very likely school chum message boarding. So, I'd say we should warn first, but then we don't need to give more than 2 unpurposed edits before slapping down with a block. Kids sitting in their IT class or library have used article talk pages to chat with each other, in the past, so these are at least polite enough to do it in talk pages. (Then again, awareness of talk pages takes some knowledge of how Wikipedia works and, arguably, knowledge of what it isn't.) [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 14:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:Incase you are interested - <s>this</s> ''[[User:Pressure Resilient]]'' looks like [[Deal or No Deal]]. [[User:Ian13|<span style="color:#067"><u>Ian</u>¹³</span>]][[User talk:Ian13|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">/t</span>]] 18:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
== [[User:KymeSnake2]] is self-admitted role/"public" account ==
See [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Iasson]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Iasson&diff=60232953&oldid=60207273 Here's a diff of it]. This account seems to not be allowed on wikipedia, as in [[m:Role account]] and [[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#.22Public.22_accounts]] for being an account intentionally shared by multiple users. [[User:Kevin Breitenstein|Kevin_b_er]] 16:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:I have indef blocked this self-admitted public account. If Iasson's friends want to edit Wikipedia, they should each get an account. [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] 18:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
== Personal Attack by Eep² ==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Life&action=history SecondLife Edit History]. This user has a long history of disruptive behaviour. Upon attempting to clean up the SL article I found that in May he had overlinked the entire article. Investigated revealed a total of about 20 articles he's overlinked. I've cleaned up all but 8. He went through and linked just about every word (or part of a word) he could find on wikipedia, and those he couldn't he linked to wiktionary. He marks every edit as minor, even when he removes and or adds entire sections to an article. --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 16:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
== Perpetual hoaxer? ==
What do you do with a user who actively works on adding hoaxes to Wikipedia? It can't be speedied -- {{tl|db-nonsense}} specifically excludes hoaxes. How do you keep bumping them down the disciplinary road to eventually get them off Wikipedia? — [[User:WCityMike|'''Mike''']] • 19:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:Actually, hoaxes are a trouble spot on CSD. Some of us (many of us, actually) consider them vandalism. Vandalism is always a CSD. They're not nonsense (lj;lkjl;kjlkj), but they're clearly malicious edits designed to deface: vandalism. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 20:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::If the user is unambiguously a hoaxer then tagging as vandalism is fine. I'll happily speedy multiple hoaxes. It's one-offs which may just be obscure which are the problem. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 22:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Okay. If anyone wants to help with the monitoring, [[Special:Contributions/Afi0956|here's the link]]. The Crocodile stuff, however, is legit. — [[User:WCityMike|'''Mike''']] • 22:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
*I've seen multiple articles that look like hoaxes at a first glance, but turn out to be real after a bit of research. Of course, they should be citing sources, but I guess CSD is made to protect such articles that are legit, despite not looking the part. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 22:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I should say that I have to be '''sure''' that it's a hoax before I consider it vandalism. When a kiddie writes an article saying that "Bobby won the Grand Prix at Monaco in 2007 and thats real good for a ten yearold," I put it into the same category as a vandal. Indeed, the clever hoaxes are harder, but they also demonstrate more of a desire to deceive and are, therefore, worse. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 23:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree with the above. If an article is entirely one obvious hoax, it can be speedied as silly vandalism; and if a user constantly adds hoaxes, then they can be reported, warned, and (if necessary) blocked as a vandal. And if you're ever having trouble figuring out what to do with an article that obviously should be deleted, remember {{tl|prod}}; it's quick and easy, and five days of just sitting there generally isn't going to do too much damage. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] 00:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:(Uninvolved dude, who just dealt with another hoaxer): You may find the template {{tl|hoaxer}} usefull. [[User:68.39.174.238|68.39.174.238]] 02:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
== 12.34.238.243 ==
He's vandalizing random user's talk pages, and he is editing even though he has been blocked. He has also been repeatedly warned. Bot? (I doubt it, though.) [[User:Fredil Yupigo|Fr]][[User:Fredil Yupigo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Fredil Yupigo|ddie]] <sub>[[User Talk:Fredil Yupigo|Message]]?</sub> 19:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:12.34.238.243 Blocked]. <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|ana]]</font>|<sup><font color="orange">[[User talk:Kilo-Lima|t]]</font></sup> 16:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
== Holywarrior block ==
I've blocked {{vandal|Holywarrior}} for 48 hours per the below (see relevant above thread):
:"Third rate-liar" is a personal attack and any editor (admin or not) would be in the right to place an NPA warning on the talk page of the issuant. [[User:Holywarrior]]'s user page is also inappropriate in my opinion by listing diffs with spurious added commentary by him (e.g. "CVU deletion trial" as opposed to an MfD that failed) and ("Admin who tried to bully me"). The entire commentary above is suggestive of trolling.
I submit the block here for review -- [[User:Samir_(The_Scope)|Samir]] <small>[[User_talk:Samir_(The_Scope)|धर्म]]</small> 20:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:Despite the fact, that I don't consider [[User:Holywarrior]] to easy to deal with (and a change of username may be an option), the thread above has a prehistory, as [[User:VandalPatrol]] (now indef blocked) and socks were busy making threats against [[User:Holywarrior]] and try to give the impression of acting as delegates of the CVU. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:VandalPatrol&action=history userpage history of VandalPatrol] of and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhurabal]]. Anyway, 48h block may be OK for cooling down. --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 21:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::Just for clarification, I have no prehistory with [[User:Holywarrior]] (Please review my [[Special:Contributions/Ragib|contributions]]). My only "Ganging up" activity was issuing a [[WP:NPA]] against this user, for reasons cited above (i.e. calling another user a "3rd rate liar"). Following that, I looked in the other comments in the talk page, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_22&diff=prev&oldid=60399032 voted here] in a CFD for renaming, which Holywarrior opposed (My comment there was : ''Rename: as per Mareino'' hardly even a comment). Holywarrior turned his actions against me (see his last 15 edits or so) and claimed I pretended not to know anything and was bullying him [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ragib&diff=prev&oldid=60490287][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARagib&diff=60493802&oldid=60493372]. Well, as I said, my only knowledge of this affair is ANB, and I don't really care to delve into the past or present disagreements this user has with others. That seems to be what Holywarrior has against me, and for this, I had the honor of making an entry in his [[User:Holywarrior|attack page]].
::Well, I hope he cools down, and gets back to editing. His recent edits in the last week show only reverts or attacks in different pages, and a very dubious nomination of [[WP:CVU]] for deletion. I hope a 48 hour break will change such behavior. Thanks. --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 21:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::Holywarrior as a vandal, nominated by Debonshire, itself need a review.Possibility of story being the reverse is not ruled out.[[User:Wmnnzzr|Wmnnzzr]] 13:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
== copy of Half-life computations ==
I need to obtain a copy of the last version of the Half-life computation article prior to deletion for personal reference and was referred here to leave a message to that effect to which any administrator can respond. Thanks. <small> ...[[User:Pce3@ij.net|IMHO]] ([[User talk:Pce3@ij.net|Talk]])</small> 23:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
== [[:CAT:CSD]] header information. ==
A discussion regarding the design of the [[:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]] page is ongoing at: [[:Category_talk:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion#Category_Header_Information]]. If you use this page, please stop by and contribute. — [[User:Xaosflux|<b><font color="#FF9933" face="monotype"><big>xaosflux</big></font></b>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Xaosflux|<font color="#00FF00">Talk</font>]]</sup> 01:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
== Apologies, Reporting myself here. ==
{{vandal|HawkerTyphoon}}. I am really rather sorry, chaps. In an attempt to stop a flame war, I have [[Talk:Majin_Buu#Note_to_Everyone|done this.]] In doing so all the old notes have been archived, and I have deleted a few user's messages. Please accept my apologies, I have apolgised to the users concerned, but I was concerned that the talk page was getting a bit heated, and it seemed like a drastic solution to keep everyone quiet over the hoo-hah with [[User:Wiki-star]]. Block me if you must, I'm confessing 100%, and I know it's vandalism, but I hope you're lenient. [[User:HawkerTyphoon|HawkerTyphoon]] 03:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:Prbbt! Unless you'd gotten a vandalism warning or something like that, you could have been ''rude'' and just deleted. Since you archived, there probably isn't a problem. You didn't have a bunch of warnings from admins, did you? [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 04:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:Go read [[Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not]], in particular the "Bold Edits" part. --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 13:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
== Administrative comment on WP for the Seattle Times? ==
Like the headline says. I have a reporter who has contacted me looking for an administrator to comment on Wikipedia's issues in the public eye. To quote, "I'd like to be able to include a Wikipedia administrator's response is to some people's claims of inaccuracy, and especially about schools/teachers prohibiting its use as a resource for school papers." [sic]
To protect that address from spamming, any interested administrator should edit my talk page, or contact me through [[Special:Emailuser/CorbinSimpson]], or use AIM and message "Corbin Simpson". Timely replies appreciated. - '''<font color="#003399">[[User:CorbinSimpson|Corbin]]</font>'' '''<sup><font color="#009933">[[User_talk:CorbinSimpson|Be excellent]]</font></sup>'' 04:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:Please refer the reporter to [[Wikipedia:Contact_us/Press_inquiries]]. [[User:TruthbringerToronto|TruthbringerToronto]] 04:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:I think you might also want to make sure that the journalist in question understands the nature of adminship on Wikipedia, and gets the fact that admins are just ordinary users who have been around for a while and passed an RFA, not employees or representitives of the Wikimedia Foundation. Of course, that might be what they're looking for. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] 00:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
== Block links on history pages ==
Is it just me or do these new links seem a bit unecessary to have for every user that edits a page. They just clutter up the history page and make the summaries go over to the next line more (kind of messy). I'd rather have it back to the way it was before. Rarely can I just know enough to block a user right from the history page.'''[[User talk:Voice of All|<font color="blue">Voice</font><font color="darkblue">-of-</font><font color="black">All</font>]]''' 06:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:I thought that was new! I actually find it quite helpful, but that's just me (perhaps because I'm not an admin, so I don't have all the special tools you often have, at least I think you have special tools, I'm not really all that sure). [[User:The Ungovernable Force|The Ungovernable Force]] 07:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
==Homeontherange==
This extremely biased 'administrator' consistantly attacks articles on individuals and groups on the UK traditional conservative Right. He rubbishes and demonises them, and he is currently running around sneakily flagging them up for deletion. He is largely responsible for a legal dispute on one of them. He needs disciplining. [[User:213.122.50.183|213.122.50.183]] 09:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:Dude, seriously. Nobody is fooled by this. Give it up. (Just for reference in service of the curious, this is about the perma-block of [[User:Sussexman]] for legal threats). -[[User:Hit bull, win steak|Hit bull, win steak]]<sup>[[User talk:Hit bull, win steak|(Moo!)]]</sup> 13:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
== Authorship of A Course In Miracles article, nominated twice for deletion ==
The article [[Authorship of A Course in Miracles]] has been nominated twice for deletion. It passed the first deletion attempt, obviously (or else it wouldn't be around to be nominated a second time). The current vote demonstrates by great majority that consensus is that the article should be kept. However, why should we have to vote on this again when we just settled it two months ago? And having settled this matter two months ago, what if the consensus once again is to keep the article (which will likely be the case), and then someone comes along in two more months and nominates it again? It will just go on and on and on.... Is there anyone who can put a stop to this? This is a waste of everyone's time. -- [[User:Andrew Parodi|Andrew Parodi]] 09:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:There are [[WP:NBD|no binding decisions]] (either way) on Wikipedia. Just as multiple AfDs resulting in Keep indicates that the content is probably encyclopaedic, it also indicates that there is something about the article which inspires scepticism. In this case, despite the presence of references, it looks so much like [[WP:OR|original research]] that I can see why it would get nominated. I am not sure how that can be fixed, other than by citing more reliable authorities. At present the dispute which the article documents looks rather like The People's Front of Judea vs. The Judean People's Front - a dispute between two groups of no evident significance, over a document whose significance outside those groups is also open to question. I guess you could start by making the case in the article for why anyone should actually care? [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 11:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::JzG is, to be sure, correct (and two months is a good period of time during which more evidence might arise or during which an article might change substantially); in any event, for articles that have incurred an exorbitant amount of AfDs, see [[Gay Nigger Association of America]] (18 noms, of which many were substantive) and [[Daniel Brandt]] (at least 8, I think). [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 22:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
== Holy fancruft, Batman! ==
[[Deadhead]] documents the term "deadhead", meaning a fan of the Grateful dead. Most of what is in this article is uncited, and some editors are arguing that Usenet is a reliable source since no other source exists. I think this article needs to be around 1/3 the current length. Maybe some others with more experience of rock culture could have a look? [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 11:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
== Trigger Happy ==
Dear Administrator(s):
I, like you, am an editor; I create articles and make edits.
But, many, I am sure many other people out there, are tired, frustrated and angry with the behavior of many Administrators. I am certain that it is appallingly easy to revert and article, that someone has undoubtedly spent allot of time and effort writing. I have, in the past spent hours, researching, planning, writing, checking and revising an addition to an article only to have the whole lot deleted forever three minutes afterwards.
I know that deletion of material is essential in a free-to-edit encyclopedia, but if you see an article that someone has anonymously devoted their time to writing, why could you not revise it, change it or give a reason for you action? They deserve one.
I know all Administrators are not all Drunk-With-Power-Trigger-Happy-Nazis, many of you do an excellent job and you know who you are.
In closing: Create, don’t Destroy. Make a distinction between “what is right, and what is easy”. Be enriched and enrich others with the knowledge of other people.
And keep that finger off the trigger.
(If I don't cop flack for this one, I will climb the Reichtag Bulding in a Spiderman outfit).
[[User:Dfrg.msc|Dfrg.msc]] 11:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:Please provide a photo of your climbing the Reichstag in a Spiderman outfit. [[User:Proto|<span
style="text-decoration:none">Proto</span>]]<I><B>/</B>/<B>/</B></I><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">type</span>]]</small> 11:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::When will you be climbing the Reichstag? I'll try to be around :)) (and could provide the photo then) [[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] 12:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:We are the [[WP:ROUGE|rouge admin cabal]] and will block you indefinitely for violating the [[Hoax|Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman]]. Also, we will extend this block to everybody you have ever met because you violated [[WP:BALLS|Wikipedia:Don't post incidents without giving people the faintest clue what the f**k you're on about]], which is definitely policy. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 12:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
*Ok, but you forced me into this. Scaling a major landmark is harder than it looks.
[[Image:ReichstagClimb.jpg|400px]]
::You also fell foul of [[Godwin's Law]] pretty quickly. [[User:Bornhj|<font color="#336699">--<b>james</b></font>]] <sub><font color="green">// bornhj</font> [[User_talk:Bornhj|(talk)]]</sub> 12:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
[[Image:superche.jpg|thumb|200px|Che!([[Che Guevara]])]]
::I may be a trigger happy administrator drunk with power, but I am not a Nazi! I'm a commie bastard, thank you very much (not really). But seriously, if we don't get an example of what you are talking about, we can't determine where (or if) the system broke down or if someone acted improperly. -- [[User:Kjkolb|Kjkolb]] 13:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
: You have less than 100 contributions to main space. Do you care to tell us which of your contributions were carefully researched and planned? I don't know if [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albert_Einstein&diff=prev&oldid=59779062 this edit to Einstein] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Exodus&diff=prev&oldid=60621624 this edit to Exodus] were carefully researched and planned. Could you provide some enlightenment? --[[User:Elkman]] 13:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
why are you inserting this image ([[:Image:Superche.jpg]] at random talk pages? --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 15:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:Image nuked, since it had no copyright tag or source for over 7 days. [[User:Zscout370]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]</sup></small> 15:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::What you mean this picture? [[User:Dfrg.msc|Dfrg.msc]] 23:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
*This user has been [[WP:BALLS|indefinitely bollocked]] for violating policy ([[Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman]]). [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 10:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
* See also [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Trigger Happy]], begun 6 June. User:Ceyockey (<small>''[[User talk:Ceyockey|talk to me]]''</small>) 23:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
== User:Vision Thing ==
When people reduce detail of minority POV in an article, as per [[WP:NPOV]], Vision Thing reverts them without discussion.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&diff=60643252&oldid=60636695]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&diff=60649670&oldid=60648550]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarcho-capitalism&diff=60644068&oldid=60522778]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarcho-capitalism&diff=60650104&oldid=60647240]
As well as engaging in minority POV pushing, he engages in provocative commenting repeating that his own view is significant. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnarchism&diff=60649424&oldid=60587419] (WickedWanda is a suspected sockpuppet of blocked user Hogeye). Anyone who is familiar with the subject matter would realise the falsehood in this statement. I request that he be blocked for disruption and failure to comply with WP:NPOV. -- [[User:Infinity0|<span style="color:red;">infinity</span>]]'''[[User_talk:Infinity0|<span style="color:red;">0</span>]]''' 13:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
PS. This is not an isolated incident. He makes edits like this all the time. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Infinity0/Evidence#Vision_Thing_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29] for details. -- [[User:Infinity0|<span style="color:red;">infinity</span>]]'''[[User_talk:Infinity0|<span style="color:red;">0</span>]]''' 13:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
== Article ownership on [[Slovakia]] ==
I ask other admins to keep an eye on the [[Slovakia]] article. A user known as [[User:Juro]] is reverting and blanking almost all edits not his own. When a new section of the article was opened on tourism, the user blanked it twice without explanation. When approached about this, the user proceeded to write a very nasty talk page message, bordering on a [[Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks|personal attack]], calling the recent edits "uppermost stupidty" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Juro&diff=prev&oldid=60648872]. I am not that active on the site anymore, but this kind of bullying and article ownership attitude is highly uncalled for. -[[User:Husnock|Husnock]] 13:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:Seems to be primarily about whether to include Husnock's couple of sentences on tourism in Slovakia. While Juro's talk page message mentioned above was not the epitome of civility, Husnock's material in dispute is at best stub-like and at worst rather naively unencyclopedic. Juro's other contributions to the Slovakia page have been very worthwhile. The solution there earlier today - to put Husnock's sentences in a separate stub at [[History of Slovakia]], referred to from the main article and available to be improved by others, was perhaps a good one, though one which now seems to have been edit warred away from. Maybe someone with more time than me can mediate... [[User:Martinp|Martinp]] 01:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::As a compromise, the material was moved into a new article [[Tourism in Slovakia]]. [[User:Juro]] promptly blanked the article again and has twice reverted information which he does not personally agree with. Other admins should keep on certianly eye on this. -[[User:Husnock|Husnock]] 02:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Update to this. [[User:Juro]] was blocked for violation of the three revert rule after 4 reverts to the article. A quick look at the user contributions shows heavy POV pushing and personal attacks against other users. This might become an edit war problem if the user returns. As for me, I'm done for the night. -[[User:Husnock|Husnock]] 03:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
== Disappearing Categories ==
A iterim 'management' revision in speedy deletion of categories seems to be in order as three 'maps' categories pages interwikied from [[the commons]] (See: [[:Category:Maps of Europe|tagging example]]) top-down heirarchial reorganization were deleted <u>here</u> despite several correctly showing reflected images of content in the commons. See [[Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_deletion#Disappearing_categories]] for detail and request to check for the templates (Example at right) being used in the interwiki category reorganization.
<div class="infobox sisterproject">
<div style="float: left;">[[Image:Commons-logo.svg|50px|none|Commons logo]]</div>
<div style="margin-left: 10px;">''<u>Main Article</u>: '''[[Example article title| Example article title]]'''''</div>
<div style="margin-left: 60px;">[[Wikimedia Commons]] has image media such as pictures and maps related to:
<div style="margin-left: 10px;">'''''[[Commons:Category:Category link on the commons|Category link on the commons]]'''''</div></div></div>
Note also, any pages which should be ''exempted'', by you all, from speedy deletion will be showing the auto-category: [[:Category:Wikipedia categories equalized with Wikimedia Commons categories]] (Which long winded name resulted from the Cfd, mine was shorter! <g>). Questions or suggestions on how to reconcile the project with the speedy deletion criteria to [[user talk:fabartus]] or below. Thanks // <B>[[User:Fabartus|Fra]]</B><font color="green">[[User talk:Fabartus|nkB]]</font> 17:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
== ''How to edit / view source'' ==
eh, way too wordy, could someone change it back to just ''view source''? fully protected, so only a sysop or higher can edit it, thanks--[[User:64.12.116.200|64.12.116.200]] 20:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:Yes - I do slightly dislike it myself - I think its a software setting, unless it's under [[Mediawiki:]]. [[User:Ian13|<span style="color:#067"><u>Ian</u>¹³</span>]][[User talk:Ian13|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">/t</span>]] 20:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:: Discussion which caused the change is [[Template_talk:Sprotected#New_proposal_-_modifying_MediaWiki:Viewsource|here]]. It's been changed since, but I don't think the current version is much better (something like "Edit page (read only)"). In general to hunt down the relevant Mediawiki: entry, try [[Special:Allmessages]] --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 21:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I was fine with ''view source'', but apparently that confused some people who were looking for the "edit" button. ''How to edit'' makes no sense to me, so I changed it to ''edit this page (read only)'', which seems more intuitive. —[[User:Keenan Pepper|Keenan Pepper]] 21:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::::"view source (editing disabled)" appealing? ~ [[User:PseudoSudo|PseudoSudo]] 02:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Ooh, I like that one. It has the time-tested ''view source'' but also includes the word ''edit'', and it's not too long. —[[User:Keenan Pepper|Keenan Pepper]] 04:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::I like "edit?" or "edit mode (read only)". In any case the word ''edit'' should be prominent because people will expect to find some sort of edit button, this being a wiki. [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 09:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I should add that what prompted me to change this tab is that people keep removing all text from [[Template:Sprotected]], leaving either nothing or a tiny icon. I think this is confusing to newbies who don't get any explanation why they can't edit pages like [[George W. Bush]]. Giving them a button with the word "edit" on it is at least something, though I would still prefer having a short visible text at [[Template:Sprotected]]. [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 09:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
*How about just making the tab say ''protected'', ''protected page'', or ''protected from editing''?--[[User:64.12.116.200|64.12.116.200]] 17:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
== Protecting to prevent requests for unblock ==
Recently I have started seeing a couple of admins protecting user talk pages specifically to prevent users from placing an {{[[Template:unblock|unblock]]}} request. As I understand things, policy allows protection of user talk pages only in the case of persistent vandalism so I'd like to get some comments on what others think of this practice. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 01:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:Some people re-insert the template after their first request is denied, to the point of disruption. If anyone (for example) kept inserting the template every 5 minutes after their first {{tl|unblock}} is denied, I'd consider protecting due to {{tl|unblockabuse}}. But if they haven't made their first request yet, the user talk page shouldn't be protected. [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] 01:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::Can you be more specific about what actually is an ''unblockabuse''? Once an admin (whoever he/she is) has removed the block template any reinsertion is an abuse? What if one disagree with the reason given by the admin or the lack reasons or with the right of that specific admin to remove the unblock request (considering that any other attempt to ask for help is impossible due to the block)?--[[User:Pokipsy76|Pokipsy76]] 11:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:Per Kimchi.sg's remark, it's appropriate to do this in cases where an editor has a history of abusing the {{tl|unblock}} template, particularly if they've received multiple confirmations from different admins that a given block is reasonable. The idea is to prevent [[CAT:UNBLOCK]] from filling up with spurious requests, so that admins can actually find and address actionable unblock requests. I hope that admins aren't preemptively applying protection, except where there is a long history of abuse. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 02:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::Thank you. The uses I had seen did ''not'' seem appropriate to me (protection after the 'unblock' request was placed only once or twice... and both the original blocks and unblock request removals made by admins who had been actively edit warring with the users), but the '''intended''' use you describe is more acceptable so I'll worry about the specific case still open (it's on an indefinite block) rather than the process in general. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 02:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Why call efforts to revert items that sometimes fail to meet [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:NOR]], edit warring?--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 03:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::::'''Because it is'''... when you do those things more than once. And that's even assuming you are ''correct'' about them being 'RS' / 'NOR' issues. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 03:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Ah, '''no it isn't'''...if misinformation posted uses websites that are not peer reviewed and are in the hands of but a few or solitary webmaster, they control the content. And that's because I can read if the source material constitutes [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:NOR]]. Or are we now insinuating that I am possibly mistaken about what is a reliable source.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 04:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::No, sorry for the lack of clarity. I was saying that it '''doesn't matter''' whether you are correct about the hypothetical being a reliable source or not. If someone adds a reference they honestly believe provides 'evidence that snails control our thoughts' from the webzine of the 'Divine Union of Moonbat Believers', you revert it, they re-add it, and you revert it again... that's [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit warring]]. No ifs, no ands, no buts. It just is. 'Being right' is not an excuse for edit warring and does not make it stop ''being'' edit warring. You still are supposed to go to the talk page and discuss it and try to get agreement and then if that doesn't work go to dispute resolution... rather than switching the contents of the page back and forth a few times and then blocking the person. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 10:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::If the source is unreliable as a reference, and they have been told this by numerous editors and they continue to put the information in the articles, then removing this unreliable information is not edit warring. At what point do you get the picture. These editors have primarily one focus...spam the articles with info they have gleemed from unreliable websites...these websites do not have a peer review process...they are controlled by a small number of webmasters...they do not pass the mustard as [[WP:RS]]. I would do my best, if I were you to not post [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=60817208 insulting edit summaries such as this again.]--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 11:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::MONGO, I honestly believe that you are very mistaken about the intended definitions of terms like 'edit warring', 'vandalism', and 'NPOV' on Wikipedia. I thought that these were fundamental 'bedrock' principles of Wikipedia and thus am non-plussed by the seeming controversy. You have called this series of edits >[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=next&oldid=59109112] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=next&oldid=59152448] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=59258911&oldid=59256695] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=59303787&oldid=59258911] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=next&oldid=59303787]< 'reverting vandalism followed by a justified vandalism block'. I have called it 'edit warring followed by an improper block over a content dispute'. Presumably, one of us must have an incorrect understanding of the intent of Wikipedia policy. If you are certain it is me why not review the policies and cite some sections you think justify your position? I have previously done so for my views [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/MONGO#Applicable_policies|here]]. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 12:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm very worried that MONGO has his own definitions of NPOV, edit-warring, and vandalism that are different than what the rest of us use and are biased to support his position. If MONGO were just a normal user the damage would be limited, but he's an admin, and we've seen him using his buttons to block users he's in content disputes with. And now it doesn't appear that he's admitting to doing any wrong, and he seems intent on continuing. So, what do we do? --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 13:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:Now that more experienced people are following the 9/11 pages, I'm sure we will soon reach a consensus on how to handle the persistent attempts of conspiracists to add their pseudo-scientific nonsense to the articles. I will respect whatever that consensus is, although I personally might stop short of telling them to fuck off, except in the most extreme cases. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 13:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:While I obviously don't agree with MONGO on these definitional issues I also don't think he can be significantly faulted for them given the simple fact that a majority (though not 'consensus') at the [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO|RfC]] on the issue support him. I don't think that means he's right... the policies and dozens of ArbCom rulings still say what they say, but I would argue that it's hard to fault him for having these ideas when most people seem to share them. So, 'what do we do'? My, less than popular, approach has been to say, 'look policy 4 sub-section 3.1 clearly establishes the precedent of being nice... and that is sound policy because not being nice is un-nice'... which I concede is never very pleasant to be on the receiving end of, as I think you (Cyde), Tony, Kelly, MONGO, Tom, Huey, Duey, Luey, Karmafist, Locke Cole, Netoholic, the ArbCom in general (and the prior one), Moe, Larry, Curly, Mark, Jimbo, and perhaps one or two other people might agree. Possibly. If you don't all get together and stone me first.
:We're all trying to 'make things better' and don't like to have our methods of doing so challenged... so I'm open to suggestions on better ways to challenge people's methods. :] --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 15:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
==[[User:CrnaGora]] 2==
Similar to the complaint [[WP:AN#User:CrnaGora|above]], I have another thing to report. User CrnaGora is constantly harrasing me and attacking me personally. He has called me many offensive words in Serbian and English, like "kurva" which means "whore" ([http://www.krstarica.com/recnik/srpsko-engleski/index.php?u=kurva proof]), "you damn Serb", "budala" which is something like "numskull" ([http://www.krstarica.com/recnik/srpsko-engleski/index.php?u=budala proof]), "I spit on you", "Are you that stupid...", and the list goes on. I have politely asked him to stop contacting me, because I do not want conflict with him, I just want to be left alone, but he keeps leaving me messages, personal attacks and provocations. He even admitted that he has "anger issues on Wikipedia". All of the quotes can be found on my and his talk pages. He has been warned before, several times, I leave it to you, the admins, to decide what to do with him. --[[Image:GrbSrbije.PNG|26px]] [[User:Bormalagurski|<font color="#003399">'''serbiana'''</font>]] [[Yugoslavia|'''-''']] [[User_talk:Bormalagurski|<font color="#A61022">'''talk'''</font>]] 01:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
: Can you provide diffs? This looks to me like something which is spilling over from the Serbian Wikipedia, where as I understand it you are an admin - and [[User_talk:CrnaGora#Blocked|this]] doesn't fill me with confidence that it's a legitimate complaint as far as the English Wikipedia is concerned. The only occurrences of the word "kurva" on either talk page are on yours - where's the original edit where you claim he called you this? --[[User:Andrew Norman|ajn]] ([[User talk:Andrew Norman|talk]]) 15:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::Boris's description of CrnaGora doesn't sound like the CrnaGora I know. What I do know however is that Boris blocked him on the Serbian Wikipedia [http://sr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BD%D0%BE:Log&type=block&page=%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:Crna_Gora], under the same pretext as here, and as far as I know, such a thing would be viewed as an unacceptable abuse of admin privileges at enwiki. See the explanation for yourselves [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACrnaGora&diff=60594836&oldid=60532779], and I do find it interesting that CrnaGora has remarkable few edits on srwiki [http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BD%D0%BE:Contributions/Crna_Gora], so where is the personal attack (unless he was blocked on srwiki for something he did on enwiki)? --[[User:Telex|Tēlex]] 15:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:::This has little to do with Serbian Wikipedia. I blocked him for persistent personal attacks there, and here he continued the personal attacks. Since the rules of sr wiki don't allow personal attacks (and I'm hoping there are such rules on en wiki as well), he was blocked. Here, he continued making personal attacks, by calling me stupid, a numskull and confirming that he spits on me, and not just Serbs. I didn't think there would be a need to provide diffs since the entire conversation can be found on my talk page, as well as his (which I noted above). Now, he HAS personally attacked people before, there was a similar complaint a few days ago, and a little warning block wouldn't hurt, it would give him the time to calm down, after all, he did admit to having "anger issues on Wikipedia". --[[User:Bormalagurski|<font color="#003399">'''serbiana'''</font>]] [[Yugoslavia|'''-''']] [[User_talk:Bormalagurski|<font color="#A61022">'''talk'''</font>]] 00:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
==[[User:Prometheuspan]]==
I have blocked this editor because he's stupid, he hasn't edited an article since March, and he has launched the most pernicious attack on a valued editor. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Prometheuspan]. It would be sheer idiocy to permit such obvious trolls to continue their abuse. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] ([[User talk:Tony Sidaway|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tony Sidaway|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small>
I fully endorse the block. Nothing but severe trolling to MONGO and other junk. [[User:Jaranda|Jaranda]] [[User_talk:Jaranda|<sup>wat's sup</sup>]] 03:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:Were you planning on [[User talk:Prometheuspan|telling him]]? --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">LV</font>]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">[[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]]</font></sup> 03:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:I agree with Tony's block... though not particularly his choice of phrasing. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 03:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::(After edit conflict with CBD, who appears to express the same sentiments as I, only much more succinctly.) I know that many think that once it is evident that a user is editing disruptively, especially where such disruption appears volitional, we ought not to treat him/her with undue courtesy, and I generally agree, if only because we needn't to concern ourselves with users with whom the community no longer wish to interact (which is not, of course, to say that we ought to be actively vituperative, only that we needn't consciously to avoid making untoward remarks). I think, though, that Tony's use of the appellative ''stupid'' is gratuitious and unnecessarily provocative; in any event, even as ''stupid'' here surely refers to what Tony (as I) perceives to be puerile rather that intellectually infirm, it's not the most precise term and oughtn't to be used. AFAIK, users aren't blocked in view of their being adjudged stupid (if they're incapable of editing, that's a different story) but in view of their disruptive tendencies; Tony's unnecessary choice of word serves no purpose. [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 03:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
: He's a troll. Our only appropriate words to him are "fuck off.". --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 03:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::"You've been banned" is appropriate. "Fuck off" is not. It's important to be civil, or at least pretend to be, even when unpleasant actions must be taken. Civility is ''supposed'' to be a hallmark of behaviour here, no matter what the provocation. - [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 03:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:Tony, you're a real dick sometimes. You're often arrogant and condescending to other editors, and all too frequently neglect the social niceties that help keep a community running smoothly. The block notice above encapsulates this problem perfectly, and it's almost like you're snapping your fingers under our noses—daring us to slap you around a bit for your lack of civility. You really do have it coming.
:That aside, the block is sound. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 03:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::Forgive me for recognizing the irony but does calling Tony a "dick" really set the best example? [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 16:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::(my turn for edit conflict)Great. Nevermind that silly NPA and civility stuff. Antagonizing already volatile people as much as we possibly can will no doubt discourage them from any further attempts to disrupt Wikipedia.... if we lived in Bizarro-world. :] --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 03:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Sheesh. Tony, you blocked him seven minutes after I warned him he'd get blocked IFF he harassed MONGO any more, and he didn't edit once between my warning and your block. That's not ideal. :-( [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 03:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC).
: I sincerely suggest that "fuck off" is almost too kind for this pernicious and stupid troll. This is an encyclopedia, not a dance hall. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 03:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::It's also not a beer hall. Name-calling, brawls and shouting matches: not part of building an encyclopedia, and not part of the repertoire of behaviour acceptable to the community. - [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 03:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::Even if you're right, this is unproductive. Do you wish to convince us that you're capable of being just as immature as any troll? How many of us have to point out that civility matters before you believe it? Why not be a model of civility, instead of a terrific example of how not to act on a Wiki? Can't you do it? -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]<sup>([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]])</sup> 03:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Apt block, but you really shouldn't egg on with such a block summary. -- [[User:Samir_(The_Scope)|Samir]] <small>[[User_talk:Samir_(The_Scope)|धर्म]]</small> 03:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:Addendum: edit summary and inflammatory comments such as those above -- [[User:Samir_(The_Scope)|Samir]] <small>[[User_talk:Samir_(The_Scope)|धर्म]]</small> 04:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::I don't object to the edit summary. The conjunction of warning and block remains not ideal. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 03:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC).
:::Edit summary doesn't hurt my feelings either. I think Tony may have decided that the editor had little constructive additions to add and perfomed the block based on that liklihood, rather than anything to do with trying to annoy you. Interestingly, CBDunkerson had just posted on my page and was online the entire time, but no intervention. Oh well, it's probably nothing.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 04:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::::MONGO, as I have been trying to get you to understand, my objections have nothing to do with the individuals involved - only the actions taken. Tony wasn't edit warring with Prometheuspan so it wasn't improper for him to block the user (especially as he left the talk page UNprotected to allow further discussion / request for unblocking) and I didn't object. Tony ''did'' however toss 'civility' and 'no personal attacks' policy right out the window... and you'll note my participation in the 'intervention' on that. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 10:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Your incessant and wrongful accusations that I edit war are growing tiresome...I recommend you stop such baseless accusations.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 10:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Bishonen, you could always withdraw your warning. In the circumstances, withdrawing the block would be inappropriate. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 04:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[[Image:DoNotFeedTroll.svg|right|frame|"Don't feed the troll"]]
:I'm kind of puzzled by your initial post, Tony. It's like a whole heated argument took place and we're just seeing the last comment, or as if you are anticipating arguments and preemptively calling dissenters idiots (I don't think I've ever seen that before, well done). If you had said that you indefinitely blocked the user for attacking another editor and such, people probably would have said "fine" or perhaps suggested a stern warning and a temporary block instead of an indefinite one. Also, while everyone has their limits, I think that we should be civil to other people, even if they are uncivil to us. It does not mean we have to kiss their butts, just refrain from name-calling and the like. It shows class and professionalism. It also prevents inflaming the situation further. Even when users are to be indefinitely blocked, they should be treated civilly. It will increase the chances that they will simply leave and not go around bad mouthing Wikipedia to everyone they meet, come back to vandalize the project or make bringing down Wikipedia their life's purpose, which it seems, sadly, that some people have. Finally, our behavior, especially that of admins, is under scrutiny from enemies, a skeptical media and new users. We should not give them ammunition, a lurid story or a reason to become disillusioned. It's likely that comments here will be used out of context (or that people won't know how to check out the evidence given here like "diffs") and when people see them, they'll think that there is no excuse for that kind of behavior. Then, if we explain ourselves, we'll have to admit that we said those things and our excuse will probably be that the other person behaved poorly first, which is pretty lame, and our explanation will probably not be heard by all of the people offended by the comments. It's better to just be civil in the first place. If we need to take out our anger and frustration somehow, we should do it in some other way. -- [[User:Kjkolb|Kjkolb]] 09:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:It's unfortunate that Tony's block appears to contradict Bishonen's warning, but there are a thousand of us helping to maintain this project, contradictions happen, and they're only important when they have a negative effect. Clearly that's not the case here. This is an editor which has not participated in writing this encyclopaedia for an impressive three and a half months [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Prometheuspan&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0], and has no reason to be left hanging around. Yes, he should have been blocked, and yes, he can fuck off. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 11:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Why doesn't anybody block these people who keep using words like "fuck off" against an user for violation of[[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:CIVIL]] like it has happened for many other users?--[[User:Pokipsy76|Pokipsy76]] 12:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::For the record, I would be extremely unlikely to use Tony's choice of words myself, but I don't consider them particularly reprehensible. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 16:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Are you suggesting that I can safely say "fuck off" to other user that hurts me without violating [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:CIVIL]]?--[[User:Pokipsy76|Pokipsy76]] 16:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Moreover I would like to make you notice that given the fact that [[User:Prometheuspan]] in his page asserts to have the [[Asperger syndrome]] (being this true or not) to attack him as a "stupid" in the way it was done is really bad taste.--[[User:Pokipsy76|Pokipsy76]] 13:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:Being an Aspie is no excuse for anything on Wikipedia. Behave or else. FWIW, Wikipedia should be ideal for most people with AS. Its community does more than most other communities to spell out its mores in its policies. ''Ceterum censeo'' that commenting on the editor rather than the edits is not a good thing. [[User:Avb|AvB]] ÷ [[User_talk:AvB|<small>talk</small>]] 00:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
::I don't see the relevance with what I have said: I was not interested to comment [[User:Prometheuspan]]'s behaviour, I was speaking about Tony's bad taste together with his violation of [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:CIVIL]].--[[User:Pokipsy76|Pokipsy76]] 16:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I think we can safely say you've made your opinion regarding Tony's behavior crystal clear. The Aspie comment, however, remains a non sequitur. [[User:Avb|AvB]] ÷ [[User_talk:AvB|<small>talk</small>]] 23:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Your unnecessary remarking using words like "Aspie" also is a bad tasty violation of [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]]--[[User:Pokipsy76|Pokipsy76]] 13:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Tasty is about right. But a bad violation? Me? Never! Perhaps I'm an Aspie myself. It sounds like a good way to be. And being lumped in with Tony is not a bad thing either in my book. Even though he called an intelligent editor "stupid", for a scond addressing the (extremely intelligent) editor instead of some (extremely stupid) edits. [[User:Avb|AvB]] ÷ [[User_talk:AvB|<small>talk</small>]] 14:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:Being an aspie is a fad. [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Aspie] [[User:DyslexicEditor|DyslexicEditor]] 01:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
::It can be, like [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Dyslexia dyxlesia]. But some really [[Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em|'ave 'em]]. [[User:Avb|AvB]] ÷ [[User_talk:AvB|<small>talk</small>]] 23:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:::My name isn't meant as a fad, but as a joke. [[User:DyslexicEditor|DyslexicEditor]] 02:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::::I was aware of that. Did you click on the links? I'm afraid [[User:Pokipsy76|Pokipsy76]] will find it all in very bad taste indeed, but you may find the [[Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em#Alleged_subtext|'ave 'em]] link exceedingly hilarious in this context. [[User:Avb|AvB]] ÷ [[User_talk:AvB|<small>talk</small>]] 14:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Blocking is fine, but telling people to fuck off is uncalled-for, and a violation of NPA. It's unnecessarily confrontational, and if you're an admin you should really know better. When you've got The Button, you need to set a good example because all the new users are going to take their cues from you. -[[User:Hit bull, win steak|Hit bull, win steak]]<sup>[[User talk:Hit bull, win steak|(Moo!)]]</sup> 13:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:Brutal language there Tony Sidaway, block aside. Such language is sooner "feeding the troll". [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 13:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:No surprise, I'm sure, that I object to Tony's language and actions. If you're furious, hand it off. Egoism is the morality of trolls and children. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 13:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Fuck the trolls. Oops. --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[Special:Emailuser/Mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]] 21:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I won't comment on the block, as it's probably deserved, more in civility. Most importantly, calling someone a troll is now the most common form of trolling. Secondly, Tony, I am sure you are upset, but saying things like "I have blocked this editor because he's stupid" here is bad because the words are saved and can get you quoted and made fun -- [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Bureaucratic_Fuck#Tony_Sidaway for example] [[User:DyslexicEditor|DyslexicEditor]] 02:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:God bless [[Encyclopædia Dramatica]]; what would we do without them? -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]<sup>([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]])</sup> 02:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
::Once again, a perfectly good report of admin action by Tony Sidaway turns into a Tony-bashing session. For the record, I support the ban. Prometheuspan has made less than 40 main article edits, almost all on his first day of editing. Since then he has done nothing but troll in article talk, user talk, and wikipedia talk spaces. It is my belief that the account is a [[stalking horse]] for someone else; certainly this account, whoever is operating it, has no useful contributions and a net negative effect. [[User:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 12:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Please don't interpret my "God bless ED" as Tony-bashing. I think Encyclopedia Dramatica and Tony Sidaway are both fantastic, mmmkay? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]] ([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/GTBacchus|contribs]]) 18:14, June 28, 2006.</small>
:::As you may notice Thatcher, not many people here are "bashing" Tony's ban, but instead are commenting on how "fuck off" and "this user is stupid" is grossely inappropriate. For the record, if it was any other user, they would have gotten a block, and you can't deny that. How can you possibly defend one's use of "fuck off". If he can do that without a block, you can expect many other users to use this as an example of being able to get away with attacking someone. [[User:Chcknwnm|'''Ch''']][[User:Chcknwnm/Esperanza|<font color="Green">u</font>]][[User talk:Chcknwnm|'''ck''']]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Chcknwnm|(contrib)]]</sup> 16:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:::It's like if a school teacher told a kid who was misbehaving that (s)he was stupid and then the teacher cussed at him/her. [[User:DyslexicEditor|DyslexicEditor]] 02:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::::The ban is fine, the comments about "fuck off" and "stupid" are out of order. Not the first time, sadly, that I have had to note Tony's behaviour being out of order. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 14:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::If Tony isn't blocked for this, how can this site ever block anyone ever again for incivility or personal attacks. [[User:Chcknwnm|'''Ch''']][[User:Chcknwnm/Esperanza|<font color="Green">u</font>]][[User talk:Chcknwnm|'''ck''']]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Chcknwnm|(contrib)]]</sup> 19:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
==[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker]]==
The Deathrocker arbitration case has been closed and the results are published in full at the link above.
Deathrocker is placed on revert parole. Leyasu's revert parole is modified. Leyasu was already, in a prior case ([[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu]]) on personal attack parole, revert parole, and probation.
This report is made in my capacity as a clerk of the Arbitration Committee. I took no part in making these decisions, I just report them. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 04:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
== [[User:CoolKatt number 99999]] part 2 ==
A new incident occurred regarding [[User:CoolKatt number 99999|CoolKatt number 99999]] but the discussion was placed in his [[WP:AN#User:CoolKatt_number_99999|previous WP:AN report]], which has scrolled up the page far enough that it's not getting much love. Briefly, he placed sockpuppet notices on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AOpabinia_regalis&diff=60420025&oldid=59765236 my userpage] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ACrossmr&diff=60419953&oldid=59699820 Crossmr's userpage] claiming that we were somehow sockpuppets of [[User:Apostrophe|Apostrophe]] on the basis of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural references in Pokémon 4|this Pokemon-related AfD]]. Reactions have started to splatter into other places that are less sensible than this one, and this guy does appear to have a history of, err, lapses in judgment. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] 04:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:Hey a new day and I'll ask again: Whats it take to get an admin in this place? It speaks volumes that there has been an RFC open for over a month on this person, and a message on this place for a week and not a single shred of input.--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 15:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
"Not a single shred"? [[User:A Man In Black]] and [[User:RadioKirk]] both left comments on this page. The first one's been archived, but AMIB's is still above. --<font color="#999fff">[[User:Firsfron|Firsfron of Ronchester]]</font> 20:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:To which AMIB has stated that he won't do anything admin-like because he's involved in the situation. To me that doesn't count as admin-input. I'm also looking and I don't see a comment from Radiokirk up there. I also don't see any comments by Radiokirk on their talk page, nor any comment on the RFC from radiokirk either. and if you knwo where this archived comment is, maybe you can link to it. I find no mention in the last two archives, and if its that old, we need new input on the new issues that have occured. The fact of the matter is since a legal threat and a torrent of personal attacks, the only admin to stop by has said "I'm involved in it and can't do anything with it"--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 21:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::Sorry, Crossmr, it was posted on [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents]], and actually concerned a ''different user'' that CFIF is having problems with (other than the two he has reported and wants blocked over on ''this'' page). It's so easy to get confused when there are quite a few. As far a AMIB, he ''did'' say more than that: he said he felt this user could be salvaged, and someone else said "this isn't kindergarten". Seemed like you didn't want the input.--<font color="#999fff">[[User:Firsfron|Firsfron of Ronchester]]</font> 21:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I said it wasn't kindergarten, which this isn't. I was making a point that when users behave poorly beyond a certain point and show no indication of actually changing their ways, there is no point in coddling them because it damages the community. I didn't feel AMIB was making any kind of admin decision with that statement because he'd already indicated he wasn't going to do so, I felt he was only giving his opinion on a possible course of action. The fact of the matter is the user made legal threats, and personally attacked several users and we haven't heard boo from an admin who can actually do something here. --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 22:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:::and as further proof of CKs inability to behave appropriately they just tagged their RFC with an AFD. I don't understand your defense of this person, or the abscence of the admins in this situation. This isn't a spat between two users. This is a user who is consistently attacking and irritating everyone around them. --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 22:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::::I agree it can be difficult to try to build an encyclopedia with someone who appears to be paranoid and accusing other users of sockpuppetry. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACrossmr&diff=60790956&oldid=60782426 CK apologised, and Rollosmokes recommended you not accept it], and you haven't. Beware of hyperbole: earlier you stated you'd received "not a shred" of input, but there ''has'' been input. You state he's "attacking and irritating everyone around [him]", but I've worked with him and he hasn't irritated me. You state There have been "endless personal attacks and legal threats", but I only saw one legal threat, made a full month ago, and the majority of personal attacks listed on his RfC page were ''not'' unprovoked. Check the histories yourself. And two of the "personal attacks" listed on the RfC are no such thing.
::::This user was treated poorly, and has not responded well. He's lashing out. If the users around him ''had been civil to him from the very beginning'', I very much doubt this situation would ever have escalated. The people who could have helped to guide CK#99999 to better edits chose instead to treat him poorly: "Crap", "worthless", "tool", lots of other "mean" words. When they were asked to tone it down, they refused outright. ''That'' is why I defended this user on his RfC, and why I think everyone should just take it down a notch.--<font color="#999fff">[[User:Firsfron|Firsfron of Ronchester]]</font> 22:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::He accused 9 people of being sock puppets on the Pokemon AFD and went so far as to put sock puppet tags on two of their user pages. The legal threat has only been sitting for a month because no one has bothered to address it. And if you bothered: [[User_talk:CoolKatt_number_99999#Sockpuppetry]] You would see after he made that apology, I went to his page and reached out to him explaining what would be seen as a turn around in this case. He's not done that, he's apologized to no one else that I've seen, and he went and tossed an AFD link on his RFC, which again indicates that he's not interested in being reached out to. I was only explaining to rollosmokes that I wasn't going to simply drop it because he gave a half-hearted apology. I stated there hasn't been a shred of input by admin. AMIB said hes' not assuming an admin role in this, so as I stated, his input is not from an admin. No other admin has bothered to try and deal with this. I was never uncivil to him. I had never even spoken with him until I logged on and found the sockpuppet tag on my user page. So no, his behaviour isn't appropriate he's shown no interest in changing it, and I see no reason he shouldn't be banned for his behaviour. He's responsible for his own actions, regardless of how others treated him. I put an article up for AFD and was personally attacked numerous times, called several things and hounded for asking an honest question on the article prior to putting it up for deletion. Did I lash out at anyone? no. I discussed situations like an adult. i expect no less of the other people here. If he can't do that, I see no reason to be lenient. --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 23:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Stop this madness now! I was only angry! Leave me alone!
::::::Remember, we all get mad sometime, we should just end this discussion. [[User:CoolKatt number 99999|CoolKatt number 99999]] 23:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::so you putting the AFD on the RfC was just a continuation of your anger from the pokemon AfD? how long should we expect you to continue? --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 23:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::He's trying to get sympathy points again ("Leave me alone!"). CoolKatt, '''Get real!''' --[[User:CFIF|CFIF]] [[User talk:CFIF|(talk to me)]] 01:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::With over 8000 edits, it looks like CK's bitten newbie card is expired. (As a general comment, there are enough good editors around that investing time and effort "guiding" consistently poor ones seems... misguided?) At any rate, I imagine we'll hear about another shot to the foot before long. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] 02:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Allegedly I'm uncivil for suggesting someone who irritates numerous people, personally attacks several individuals, and makes legal threats should get a permanent ban. [User_talk:Crossmr#Sorry]. I think I'll make note of this in case I ever feel like having a bad day. --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 22:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:::If you still feel like the half-hearted apology wasn't enough, you could lodge a complaint at [[Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard |the Personal Attack Intervention Noticeboard]], I guess. They're really very good over there, IMO. I hope ''something'' helps; clearly, you feel wronged, and no editor should have to feel like he or she has been wronged and then ignored by the admins. I hope the link I provide helps in some way. I really do sympathise, even if I feel this situation was handled badly from the very beginning. --<font color="#999fff">[[User:Firsfron|Firsfron of Ronchester]]</font> 04:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Well its not just the half-hearted apology. Its the continued behaviour on his part after the personal attacks launched against myself and others. This is what I meant about how certain people are more trouble than worth. I've seen it in other communities, and I can see it snowballing here. Users have to want to help themselves when the community reaches out, and if they're not, there is nothing you can do. He'd have to be blind not to realize that what he's doing is not working here, but he's shown no indication he's interested in changing his behaviour and only continues the downward spiral unfettered even when reached out to. To me its not so much the initial behaviour, its the reaction to that behaviour. Did he learn from it and try to better himself? no. He just continually lashes out at everyone who disagrees with him and continues to do so. --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 04:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::I think you have some valid points, and I hope there ends up being some solution you'll be happy with, Crossmr.--<font color="#999fff">[[User:Firsfron|Firsfron of Ronchester]]</font> 04:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if someone would closely monitor CK#9999's conduct on project pages. I'm ready to block it indefinitely to get it out of my hair, which would probably not be a good decision, but something needs to be done. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In <font color="black">'''Bl♟ck'''</font>]] <small>([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]])</small> 04:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::No need to worry about ''that'', AMIB. Judging from the dialogue on various talk pages, there are plenty of users monitoring his every move.--<font color="#999fff">[[User:Firsfron|Firsfron of Ronchester]]</font> 04:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I feel I must add something recently stated by this user that is most troubling. Visit [[User talk:Amnewsboy]] in the AETN section. Mr. Kat has basically stated that if something he makes up makes sense to him, it is "not speculation."
First of all, this throws into question every single "Callsign meaning" on every local TV station page (and really, they should be deleted, because the only ones that are clearly true are... well, obvious, like WTWO referring to channel 2)... but mainly, this is a dangerous position for a WikiEditor to take - just because something makes sense to him, it should be taken as fact? No. No. No. [[User:Lambertman|Lambertman]] 14:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:And to expand on that "callsign meaning" point, Lambertman, he assumes every "W" in a callsign means "We're". (here's a prime example: [[User:CoolKatt number 99999/Callsigns]]) That is simply false and not true. If the admins could take some intervention here, it would be really nice. [[User:CFIF|CFIF]] [[User talk:CFIF|(talk to me)]] 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:And looking at those worthless and unneeded subpages, it brings me back where he assumed a station would become [[My Network TV]] just because they were sister station to a Fox affiliate, which was completely false [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WBPG&diff=46411117&oldid=40505335]. --[[User:CFIF|CFIF]] [[User talk:CFIF|(talk to me)]] 15:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:This user plays the victim all the time also, and I'm tired of it. He constantly says "Leave me alone." to make it appear as if we are "bullying" him for telling him that his edits are primarily speculation. Ban him please. --[[User:CFIF|CFIF]] [[User talk:CFIF|(talk to me)]] 15:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
== {{vandal|Jesus On Wheels}} ==
Username violates both the policy of no usernames that contain names of religious figures and the policy of no names that resemble those of prolific vandals. The user states on his page that he has used the name for some time and is known by it, but unfortunately it goes against [[WP:Username]] policy and his account needs to either have its name changed or be blocked.--[[User:Conrad Devonshire|<font color="Green">'''Conrad Devonshire'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Conrad Devonshire|'''<font color="Purple">Talk</font>''']]</sup> 07:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:If you want to sanction personal choices on WP ex post facto, then go ahead, but you will be embarking down a '''SCARY''' road. This contributor is hurting no one. You must [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] with regard to this user - it has demonstrated its desire not to offend or vandalize. Pre-emptive blocks are useless against it, since there is nothing to preempt.
I think he needs to also change his internet account as well, and thus his IP adress, along other contact details such and the locks on his doors and his phone number, <span class="plainlinks">[[User:pgk|pgk]] ([[User talk:pgk|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pgk|contribs]] • <font color="002bb8">[{{fullurl:Special:Log/block|user={{urlencode:Pgk}}}} blocks]</font> • <font color="002bb8">[{{fullurl:Special:Log/protect|user={{urlencode:Pgk}}}} protects]</font> • <font color="002bb8">[{{fullurl:Special:Log/delete|user={{urlencode:Pgk}}}} deletions]</font> • <font color="002bb8">[{{fullurl:Special:Log/move|user={{urlencode:Pgk}}}} moves]</font>)</span> is quote as commenting (on Jesus On Wheel's talkpage) that it is "Because no doubt the user ceases to function or be able to contribute to wikipedia under an alternate name less likely to cause religious offense?" [[User:Myrtone86|Myr'''tone''']] -- 07:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:I don't see how a username change would render anyone functionless on Wikipedia, and regardless, the username still goes against '''policy'''.--[[User:Conrad Devonshire|<font color="Green">'''Conrad Devonshire'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Conrad Devonshire|'''<font color="Purple">Talk</font>''']]</sup> 07:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:: I guess Myrtone86 doesn't understand [[sarcasm]] --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 08:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
: We don't have a policy on which ISP someone uses, nor their contact deails, nor the locks they user nor their telephone details. We do however have a policy on what constitues an acceptable username. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 08:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:Looks like a long-standing user. Leave it be. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 08:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:: A long standing user who never edits, apart from reappearing to accept an RFA nom from Myrtone86. The username policy doesn't contain exceptions for long standing editors, the question really is about if people believe there to be a problem with the name. I do, maybe not as dire as some which get created, but still outside what I believe is accetable. Since account renaming is available then why not? --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 08:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I agree, a name change should be in order. Most of the discussion on his talk page also has the cry for a username change. [[User:Zscout370]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]</sup></small> 08:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:Jesús is a popular personal name, and Jesus is an acceptable alternative spelling. As for the wheelie bit, if this user does indeed hardly edit, his name can hardly cause any problem. But anyone who's worked up about it might suggest a name-change to him. (How about Jesús on Skates?) -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 09:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I will only agree with Horay if Jesus On Wheels can prove that this popular Spanish name is actually his "real" name (his name as a person, i.e. the name of the person who occupies te account). [[User:Myrtone86|Myr'''tone''']] -- 09:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:Please do not request any internet user (let alone any Wikipedia editor) to provide any personally identifiable information they do not wish to, ever, particularly in a public forum. [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">Proto</span>]]<I><B>/</B>/<B>/</B></I><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">type</span>]]</small> 11:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::Actually I'm assuming that Jesús/Jesus is not his real name, not least because people tend not to use their real names. (Stunning revelation: My real name is not "Hoary"!) As far as I'm concerned, he's welcome to call himself Diego, Pablo, Raul, Fidel, Jesús, whatever. And he can be on skates, rollerblades, a pogo-stick, or even (since he's already firmly mounted on them, with little or no irritation other than to himself) wheels. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 11:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:::No, I'd never dream of using my real name as part of my username. Oh, wait... [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 11:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This is the second time his name has been noticed this month. That is in itself reason enough for him to get a username change. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 11:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
There is (possibly by coinsidance) another [[:Category:Wikipedians in South Australia|wikipedian in South Australia]] that has also been largely inactive, albeit for a longer time, {{user5|Immanuel Goldstein}} – although a registered user – has only ever made one edit on wikipedia, way back in 2004, to my knowledge, there are no admins at all in the category. [[User:Myrtone86|Myr'''tone''']] 13:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:No real reason to force him to change; strongly encourage perhaps, but not force. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 15:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::Also, {{user5|Rachel Cakes}} has also been inactive, albeit since the 13<sup>th</sup> of this month, she is also from [[Adelaide]], [[South Australia]]. [[User:Myrtone86|Myr'''tone''']] -- 04:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a close and unhealthy relationship between Myrtone and Jesus on Wheels. Myrtone [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jesus_on_Wheels nominated JoW for adminship], when it was clearly a completely hopeless case. JoW had less than 100 edits and did not even answer the standard questions. Myrtone has recently [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/JustPhil nominated JustPhil] which was equally futile, with question answers that read like a send-up, not unlike Myrtone's comments above. Myrtone has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Myrtone86&diff=59380451&oldid=59364150 recently been blocked], as ''"continuing nonsensical comments and votes on various RFAs show that you are purposefully trying to disrupt Wikipedia."'' I suggest an inquiry into sockpuppetry would be in order. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 02:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:'''HEY!''' It is not our place to judge a relationship between consenting adults! :-) --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[Special:Emailuser/Mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]] 02:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
It is if they're purposefully trying to disrupt Wikipedia.:-( I note [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=57975796 your previous inappropriate comments] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mboverload#Separation_of_media Splash's advice], which does not seem to have been taken. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 02:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Please stop this ignorant critism of me, my views are (at least in theory) as valid as those of other wikipedians, who says I have no right to nominate someone else for adminship when other wikipedians do, just becuase my views are different/unusual, does not mean they are inferior, [[User:Nathanrdotcom|Nathan]] has emailed {{admin|Robchurch}} on this subject. [[User:Myrtone86|Myr'''tone''']] 01:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:Yes you have the right to unorthodox views, but its not unreasonable for people to ask you to explain them. You have consistently ignored such polite requests for several months now. Eventually it becomes reasonable to assume you are more interested in making a [[WP:POINT|point]] than in making constructive improvements to Wikipedia. If you continue to act like a [[WP:DICK|dick]], don't be surprised when people's patience runs out and they start to treat you like one. [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 01:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
== Nintendo Wii article ==
The [[Wii]] article is essentialy FUBAR, with the article being moved to [[Wii WITH ANAL JUICE!]] and being a Wikipedia newbie, I screwed up attempting to fix it, so an Admin will have to step in to fix the mess. My apologies. --[[User:TheHeadSage|TheHeadSage]] 08:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:Fixed and page move vandal indef blocked-- [[User:Samir_(The_Scope)|Samir]] <small>[[User_talk:Samir_(The_Scope)|धर्म]]</small> 08:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::Page has also been semi protected. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(meow)]]</sup> 11:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
==User:Mywayyy==
[[User:Mywayyy]] was blocked for 24 hours for violating the [[WP:3RR]] on [[Greco-Turkish relations]]. He insists on evading the block with (seemingly endless) IPs. I have been blocking each IP as it comes up for 24 hours and then incrementing the block on [[User:Mywayyy]] for 24 hours. So far the block stands at 96 hours. The IPs in question are: {{user|88.218.38.182}}, {{user|88.218.54.203}}, {{user|88.218.35.125}}. Another one has come up, {{user|88.218.47.30}} and I have yet to take action. I now realise that I have acted against [[Wikipedia:Banning policy]], as that states that the ban should be "reset" rather than incremented. My question is as follows, would it be reasonable to ban the user for 1 week for constant disruption or should I reset the ban to 24 hours? - [[User:f-m-t|FrancisTyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 13:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks, Francis. I'm not sure the Banning policy is the most relevant reference here (he's not banned, he's just being blocked for disruption). I think in similar cases escalation of blocks to much longer periods has been pretty common, hasn't it? In view of the fact that almost all his activity on Wikipedia for the last weeks has been in making petty reverts over deleting or inserting Turkish and Greek placenames in geography articles, and that he has openly announced that he will "keep reverting forever" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tilos&diff=60120324&oldid=60112780]), a good long block, perhaps soon even a community ban (at least on that particular issue) would well be in order. Just my 2c. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 13:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:Aye, you may be right. I'm usually pretty leniant in these matters, but if people agree I don't have a problem extending his block to a month. It really is getting a bit tedious... - [[User:f-m-t|FrancisTyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 13:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:A longer block is unlikely to help much as long as he has access to more IP numbers. I'd also s-protect the relevant pages. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 13:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::Trouble is, it's actually quite a large number of pages. Every article on Greek and Turkish placenames is a candidate. He must have been doing this on at least a dozen of them during the last two or three days alone. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 13:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::Not really much need for sprotection I don't think, there is only one user and he's fairly consistent, I think Fut.Perf. is doing a good job of reverting and I also think that there are some new users who want to work on the articles in question seriously. - [[User:f-m-t|FrancisTyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 13:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
== User uploading own image under fair use ==
I've posted a problem like this before, but I can't remember what we did :/ [[:Image:Fac2577.jpg]] was admittedly created by the uploader but he only licenses it as fair use {{tl|albumcover}}. How is this handled? [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 15:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:Delete the image, because any editor's own contributions must be under a free license. Or so I recall. [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] 15:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::It says so on the image upload page. [[User:Zscout370]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]</sup></small> 16:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:Is it absolutely clear that the user is actually the designer? Even if they are, they may be nevertheless behaving responsibly. They may not be able to relicense their work under a free, reusable license depending on the contract with Virgin records. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 16:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
: Just to be pedantic "licenses it as fair use" is contradictory. Fair use images are images which aren't licensed for us to use. The fair use doctrine allows use without a license in certain circumstances (and our own rules restrict us a bit further). When you say "created" by the uploader, do you mean he did the physical scanning or he composed the artwork in it's original form and retains copyright to it? I would guess it not be the latter in which case he isn't the creator and so can't license it to us, so fair use is probably the best we can do anyway. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 18:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
wait, if I publish a CD and upload my own CD cover as a fair use image, it will be deleted, but if I have my little sister upload it, it will be kept? That doesn't make much sense, does it. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 18:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
: There is a good chance you won't own the copyright on the CD cover anyway... But in principle yes, cd covers are a pretty odd example in that they are one of few items where there isn't an alternative but to use a fair use image. Most other images we should be using a free image if one is available, and allowing creators to not license but "allow fair use", detracts from our goal of using free images wherever possible. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 19:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
: I think the right action is actually to change the tag to {{tl|GFDL}}. If they own the copyright, by uploading they agreed to license under GFDL. This is no different from the "your contribution will be GFDL" notice for text. [[User:Deco|Deco]] 03:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
::But the user isn't claim to own the copyright, but merely to be the author of the work. It appears that the user is the author of the cover, but does not own copyright, yet is asserting that Wikipedia can make use of it under fair use provisions. That sounds reasonable to me. [[User talk:Snottygobble|Snottygobble]] 03:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Ah, right you are then. [[User:Deco|Deco]] 06:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The artwork is for an [[Electronic (band)|Electronic]] single, and the designer was [[Peter Saville]] [http://www.worldinmotion.net/electronic/discography/singles/1989/GettingAwayWithItSleeveTapeUK.jpg], so the user is ''not'' the author of the cover (it's further complicated by the fact that Saville used a credited image from a photographic library, rather than original artwork). I think what we have here is a reasonably common confusion, with someone thinking that if they scan or photograph someone else's artwork, they somehow are the "author" in copyright terms of the image they have made. It's currently tagged as fair use, which is right. --[[User:Andrew Norman|ajn]] ([[User talk:Andrew Norman|talk]]) 19:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
While we're on this subject, I have to say that [[Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images]] doesn't make much sense to me. If I'm interpreting policy correctly, an image with a valid fair-use defense uploaded without any permission from the copyright holder will be kept; but the same image, with the same fair-use defense, uploaded by the copyright holder ''with permission for use in Wikipedia'' will be deleted on sight as having a non-free license. I have to say, I don't understand the reasoning behind this at all; if the goal of the policy is to ensure that Wikipedia stays as free as possible, surely it makes sense to keep images used ''with'' permission over those ''without'' permission, all else being equal? —[[User:David Wahler|David Wahler]] [[User_talk:David Wahler|<small>(talk)</small>]] 01:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:Not quite. If it's fair use, it's fair use, whether we have permission to reproduce it or not. But if it is marked ''only'' "with permission" and is not marked to indicate that it is fair use on the article it is being used for, yes, it will be deleted. [[User:Mindspillage|Mindspillage]] [[User talk:Mindspillage|(spill yours?)]] 04:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::Ok, thanks for the clarification. —[[User:David Wahler|David Wahler]] [[User_talk:David Wahler|<small>(talk)</small>]] 03:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
==Mailing list for unblock requests, pt. 2==
As proposed [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive42#Mailing_list_for_unblock_requests.3F|here]] on AN previously, unblock-en-l for unblock requests is now live. It's not being advertised as an avenue for blocked users to appeal yet until there are more admins manning it; please consider [http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/unblock-en-l signing up] if you would like to help with this. [[User:Mindspillage|Mindspillage]] [[User talk:Mindspillage|(spill yours?)]] 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
== [[User:Richb1111]] ==
I have indef-blocked {{vandal|Richb1111}}, since his sole purpose on Wikipedia seems to be to push a single conspiracy theory. All contribs are tendentious edits to {{article|American Airlines Flight 77}} and have been speedily reverted by editors on that article. If we decide to undo this then he needs at least a 24 hour block for 3RR violations. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 18:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:Content isn't really legitimate, even if his additions are totally nuts. It would be better if you were the one to reduce it to 24 hr and then escalate if he keeps it up. Better yet would, of course, be a prohibition from editing that content, but I don't think we can institute those by fiat. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 19:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:I support the block. See also [[WP:PAIN]], and the user's block log. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 19:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::Hmmm. There is no history to this account other than tendentious edits to that one article - not even the related articles on the 9/11 conspiracy theories. The nasty suspicious bastard in me suspects a role account. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 19:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:::FYI...[[User:Richb1111|Richb1111]] also uses {{User|139.222.100.226}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=139.222.100.226]--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 20:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::::He's been doing this since April 10. -[[User:Kmf164|Kmf164]] (<small>[[User_talk:Kmf164|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Kmf164|contribs]]</small>) 20:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:::According to his email:
::::''do you believe that the wings of an airliner can vaporise and/or be folded into the fueselage of the plane upon impact with concrete wall? If you do then you are just stupid, and its not your fault. if you do not, or you do not care, then god forgive you, you fucking coward.''
:::I have explained that it is the behaviour, not the content, which is the major problem. He seems uninterested. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 21:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::::That is par for the course as far as his emails to me were as well...not that we can punish him here for what he does in emails, but he has also made similar comments in this website...[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmerican_Airlines_Flight_77&diff=57543448&oldid=57519469], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Airlines_Flight_77&diff=prev&oldid=50078085]. I had long chats with him via email..he reminds me of [[User:Beckjord|Beckjord]] and I didn't mind him but there is nothing constructive about his efforts here.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 21:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::Well, he's being a disrupter in that case and unable to control his passions, so that's different. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 21:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
== [[The Best Page in the Universe]] ==
{{user2|Floyddoorz}} keeps adding a "Related sites" to this article since June 8. They have been reverted six times. One of those times the related sites were added under {{user2|24.147.174.105}}, removing the comment not to add any knock-offs and adding the ''same exact'' list that Floyddoorz added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Best_Page_in_the_Universe&diff=60719037&oldid=60543356]. I reverted it and added a notice to the talk page. Today {{User2|209.6.194.240}} added the same exact list [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Best_Page_in_the_Universe&diff=60851597&oldid=60837772], even down to making some of the same corrections that 24.147.174.105 did. I believe that sockpuppetry is going on here, even more so because Floyddoorz was blocked for 3RR on "The Best Page" back in March. I honestly don't want to revert because I'm afraid of being implicated for 3RR s well. [[User:Hbdragon88|Hbdragon88]] 20:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:Just revert it on site. I'll warn him if it continues further. '''[[User:Sasquatch|Sasquatch]]''' [[User_talk:Sasquatch|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Sasquatch|c]] 21:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
*Warned for disruption anyway. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 21:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
*209.6.194.240 just readded the links...I removed them again. [[User:Hbdragon88|Hbdragon88]] 21:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
*Anon and Floyddoorz both blocked for 24h. Floyddoorz had blanked his talk page of warnings (also not the first time), this has also been reverted. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 21:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
== Confusion over deleted category "Gay icons" ==
I'm perplexed; [[Beatrice Arthur]] lists [[:Category:Gay icons]], which was deleted and salted some time ago. However when I check [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Category:Gay_icons&limit=500&from=0 Whatlinkshere], I get no mention of that article. Is that possibly because of the salting? If so, how many other bad category links might we have out there? I haven't deleted it yet because I don't want to destroy the evidence of whatever's going on with the software here (the edit has been there since at least July 2005, so I don't think it's a caching issue). Please advise. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 22:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:Now I'm perplexed: I don't see that category on the page, and it appears to have been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beatrice_Arthur&diff=51758160&oldid=51605993 removed] on 5 May. It's eminently possible that I'm nuts, though. [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 23:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::Crazy times. I don't see it anymore either, and that 5/5 edit wasn't in the logs when I went through. I'm pretty sure I've never viewed that article before today, so it wasn't cached AFAIK... maybe my work proxy is a closet homosexual. Nevermind? -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 04:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
== Persistent vandalism to Philip J. Kaplan entry ==
Can you please block the entry for Philip J. Kaplan from editing by the public? He's just a person and not much changes quickly in his life that would make his page need to be edited frequently. Random strangers are not likely to add much to the neutral bio that is already in the entry. And it is vandalized daily by obsessed internet stalkers of his. I am getting really tired of reverting the vandalism every day. Please help.
[[User:71.198.37.231|71.198.37.231]] 00:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:See [[WP:RFPP]] to formally request page propection. Ironically, if it does get protected youw won't be able to edit it... [[User:Hbdragon88|Hbdragon88]] 02:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
== SuperSTO ==
[[User:SuperSTO|SuperSTO's]] ([[User talk:SuperSTO|talk]]) [[Special:Contributions/SuperSTO|edits]] (see also deleted contributions), with few exceptions, have fallen into two categories:
A) Promoting his website [[Chao Universe]]; the article has been twice deleted - [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chao Universe|once by AFD]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Chao_Universe a second time speedied as recreation of deleted material]. He has also spammed the link in a few articles.
B) Vandalising articles on [[Skulltag]] or creating articles on it's creator, Brad Carney. Often this is just simple vandalism. Other times, it is the insertion of claims regarding users of skulltag being "hacked" (see edits to skulltag from May 28 and prior). Admins should see the contents of some of his deleted articles for more. This user has claimed that they are trying to warn people about the danger of skulltag, and should be allowed to make those claims under free speech. The user has been asked numerous times to provide a source. Thus far, the only source this user has provided was the name of an AIM user "Marcus101RR". A little searching I did on the Skulltag forums shows that some individual called Marcus has some sort of vendetta against skulltag. Granted that was about a month ago, and I forgot about the details. In fact, it was only just now when I saw the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skulltag&diff=60915781&oldid=60914289 summary of this edit] that was reverting vandalism in the skulltag article (I will contact that user for more info), and re-read SuperSTO's message regarding the AIM user that I even payed attention to the Marcus in the name. This confirms to my mind that this AIM user is SuperSTO himself.
Judging from SuperSTO's comments, it seems he believes the article on his website was deleted simply for advertising a website, and that is therefor grounds for the Skulltag article to be deleted ([[Talk:Skulltag]]), as (to paraphrase) "all articles should be treated the same" and we are very obviously "hosting/advertising Skulltag". This user has ignored the reasons I gave them for their article being deleted. Yet he has not once tried to submit it to AFD (instead he blanks the article). Today when I opened my watchlist, I checked the edit history of Skulltag to see that it had been repeatedly vandalised by three different IPs, one in particular replacing the content with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skulltag&diff=60910436&oldid=60408284 "Advertisement Removed - Treat Members FAIRLY!"], another with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skulltag&diff=60922461&oldid=60922130 "NO ADVERTISEMENT! TREAT ALL MEMBERS FAIR! OR DON\"T HOST SKULLTAG!"]. It is my belief that SuperSTO/Marcus (especially in light of this [http://www.skulltag.com/forum/impse.php?t=4222&highlight=marcus Skulltag forum topic]) recruited some others to attack the page. [[Special:Contributions/24.92.160.125|One IP]] has previously attacked the page, and I believe it to be SuperSTO, as the first attack by this IP user was a few days ago, and they have previously added an external link to Chao Universe to other pages.
It is my suggestion that SuperSTO and the IP he uses (can someone checkuser it to be sure?) be blocked for a period deemed warranted.--[[User:Drat|Drat]] <small>([[User talk:Drat|Talk]])</small> 05:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:First, let me say that there should not be any doubt that [[User:SuperSTO|SuperSTO]] is Marcus, and that I believe that one of the random IPs, [[User:24.92.160.125|{{{2|24.92.160.125}}}]] ([[User talk:24.92.160.125|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/24.92.160.125|contribs]]), is also him. Some incidents I observed to believe this are:
:*A quick look at SuperSTO's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=SuperSTO contributions page] shows [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=50300109 an edit] to the Sandbox that describes a Marcus Koller founding Chao Universe, the page which was deleted. In the Skulltag thread Drat linked to about Marcus, the website URL http://h1.ripway.com/ChaoUniverse2/index.html is linked, which appears to have been terminated (this link was also posted by SuperSTO [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skulltag&diff=60264048&oldid=60056165 here]).
:*As for 24.92.160.125, the IP edited the [[ZDoom]] page to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZDoom&diff=prev&oldid=60910810 add a link] which was [http://forum.zdoom.org/potato.php?p=223512#223512 also posted] by a user named Marcus on the ZDoom Forums. It was actually the second one he had added - the first was removed from the forum thread due to being potentially illegal. The exact same IP also demonstrated [http://doom.wikia.com/index.php?title=Brad_%22Carnevil%22_Carney&diff=20643&oldid=19987 a edit] at the Doom Wiki on an article about the creator of the port. It is similar to that of SuperSTO's behavior and occurred more than two months ago.
:Truthfully, I do not have any evidence that either the anon I reverted or the other two IP's that vandalized the article were actually Marcus. If not, there is a good chance they were forum members recruited by him, as Drat suggested (especially after seeing [http://z7.invisionfree.com/Chao_Universe/index.php?showtopic=165 this thread] on his forum).
:As Drat, I feel that SuperSTO should be blocked as it appears he has simply come here to spam his website and deface Skulltag, not to help out the encyclopedia in any way. [[User:DomRem|<font color="red">Dom</font><font color="FF9900">Rem</font>]] | <small>[[User_talk:DomRem|Yeah?]]</small> 06:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
== Large number of articles to be deleted ==
Please take a look at [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28assistance%29#Deleting_nearly_50_articles|my comments at the village pump]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_United_States_musicians|this AfD page]] for more information. --[[User:Stellis|Stellis]] 06:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:I have asked you to provide a list of what to delete. [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] 06:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
== [[User:Natashasalve]]'s "renovations" ==
Natashasalve [[Special:Contributions/Natashasalve|(contributions)]] keeps on creating pages whose sole purpose is to give advice about home renovation and most edits she has made so far seems to fail [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] in content and style as well as making one inappropriate spam link on [[ServiceMagic]]. Having already reverted some of her edits twice, I don't want to break the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule]], but Natashasalve seems to be quite persistent in agenda (which I can't figure out) and she has not once acknowledged any messages left by me or [[User:SM247]] on her talk page. Though she has stopped for now, what should we do if she resumes her edits? -- [[User:Netsnipe|Netsnipe]] 09:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:To be fair, it was only about an hour ago. Perhaps this user has not seen them yet. If the edits persist, something else could be done, but wait for a response (for a reasonable time). [[User:SM247|SM247]] 09:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the user may be in good faith and if she resumes flustered she should be handed with velvet gloves to make sure she knows we are not attacking her and that we appreciate her attempt at helping us out. --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[Special:Emailuser/Mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]] 06:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
== IP blocks ==
I seem to be running into an increasing amount of IP blocks that extend beyond 31 hours...and these are cases where there is 0 evidence that the IP is static, i.e. that it's the same user as before. Most IPs are NOT static, which means that if you block them for longer than 31 hours (sometimes less), you are going to cause collateral damage. So please be more careful folks. [[User:Woohookitty/IPs|Here]] is a short writeup I did on the difference between the 3 types of IPs. We can't assume that an IP is static. We have to assume it isn't or else we are blocking innocent users. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(meow)]]</sup> 10:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:Amen. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 13:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:I'm not sure we should assume IPs are dynamic unless proven otherwise. With the obvious exception of AOL, most IPs are at least semi-static. I have an ostensively dynamic IP address here with Shaw but it changes less than once a year. The majority of providers in Canada work the same way. Is this not the case elsewhere? Of course, it is a different matter if the IP is specifically marked as shared. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] 13:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
::Most cable companies use a semi-dymanic, IP changes once a month or every so months. Same with DSL in Canada. Woohookitty's definition of static IPs is flawed IMO because of this. [[User:Onthost|Mike]] <sub>([[User_talk:Onthost|T]] [[Special:Contributions/Onthost|C]])</sub> [[Image:Star_of_life2.png|20px]] 01:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Hmmm.... but then that would mean that we would have to keep on watching their contributions and see if they are static or dynamic et al. <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|ana]]</font>|<sup><font color="orange">[[User talk:Kilo-Lima|T]]</font></sup> 15:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
== FOTW pictures ==
[[User:Bkell|Bkell]] has recently taken it upon himself to tag a large portion of [[:Category:FOTW images]] for speedy deletion under CSD:I3. Most of these can probably qualify under fair use (at the very least), and many of them are probably {{tl|PD-flag}} or uncopyrightable as faithful reproductions of public ___domain material. However, I do not have time to deal with this right now so I am passing it off onto someone who can. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 12:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:I tagged most of the images in the category with the template {{tl|FOTWpic}}, however the systematic deletion of this scale should be stopped or slowed down for now. I tagged some of those images too in that category with a redundant type tag, so some will be on their way for speedy deletion and some will have to sit on the servers for a while before we will sort this out. And as an editor and member of FOTW, I am partially responsible for this, so I encourage Bkell and others to talk to me.
:As for the PD-flag template, that template has been redirected into a general fair use template for flags by me. Some flags are PD by law, such as national flags, but some others have copyrights to them. Some nations, like Germany and the US, attach a "creativity" element for copyrights while some nations, like the UK, might have tougher standards. This is a debate that is currently going on right now, but most of the flags in that category will be replaced by me or others under a free license, so I hopefully believe this issue could become moot once we get the SVG flags drawn. [[User:Zscout370]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]</sup></small> 01:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
==Fair use==
Since I am not confident with copyright law I thought I would queation this here. The [[:Image:Sovereign_Hill.jpg|image]] used in [[Sovereign Hill]] is tagged as promotional material (which it is - I found the source). The tag states that a copyrighted image such as this may be used to illustrate the product in question when a free alternitive is not availiable. There is a free alternitive availiable, it was replaced when [[User:Ansett]] added that image. I am requesting assistance because 1. I want to make 100% sure - the image replaced was pretty terrible, but it was still free. 2. I feel like I am hounding this user - I have recently pulled them up a number of times for blanking pages, inserting links to their own page into articles where they did little to illustrate the subject matter and because I nominated an article created by them for deletion. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 13:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
: This is a practical matter. Our objective is producing a free encyclopaedia, fair use images are not free, so if a free alternative exists we use that. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 15:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
::Yeah I was aware of that, just wanted to makre sure/not further pressure the user.[[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 01:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
==case for an IP check?==
I am blocking about two "[[:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Shivraj Singh / DPSingh|suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Shivraj Singh / DPSingh]]" a day now; not much work, but all the same just clutter in the database. Could we look into the IPs of this account to see if there is a range that could blocked for longer periods without too much collateral damage? Or how should we handle such cases of extremely persistent trolling? [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 14:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:Check this: {{checkip|220.227.48.12}} [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 14:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
::An IP of a [[Mumbai]] ISP, Reliance Infocom Ltd http://www.relianceadagroup.com/ - we probably can't impose long blocks without locking out much of Mumbai, but we can keep an eye on what range is actually used. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 15:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
== [[User:RichardHarrold]] block request ==
After a 3-month move war in which [[User:RichardHarrold]] repeatedly moved [[Train station]] to [[Railway station]], saying that British English was correct, RichardHarrold has decided to quit Wikipedia ([[Talk:Train station#Work it out here first]]). He has requested to be blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia. '''''[[User:Schzmo#|<font color="#6495ed">SCH</font><font color="#3cb371">ZMO</font>]]''''' [[User talk:Schzmo|✍]] 14:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
''(removing extra header since we both did "add new section" at almost the same time)''
After a bit of a content dispute on several pages over the differences between American English and British English (as can be seen on [[Train station]] and others from his contribs), {{user|RichardHarrold}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Train_station&curid=102450&diff=61020270&oldid=60917826 has requested] an indefinite block of his own user account following his decision to leave the project. While I can, as an admin, initiate the block, I'm a little unsure on the policy. Could others take a look, please? AdThanksVance. [[User:Slambo|Slambo]] <small><font color="black">[[User talk:Slambo|(Speak)]]</font></small> 14:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:I didn't see any policies against it, so I've initiated the indefinite block against {{user|RichardHarrold}} per his request on [[Talk:Train station]]. [[User:Slambo|Slambo]] <small><font color="black">[[User talk:Slambo|(Speak)]]</font></small> 15:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
::Hmmm... I think in the past we have not indef blocked. We just tell them not to edit anymore if they don't want to edit. I think it had something to do with someone else using the IP address being forever blocked as well. I don't really do a lot of blocks, but I know I had asked for an enforced wikibreak a while back, and was told they couldn't do so. Someone with more insight wanna have a go? --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">LV</font>]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">[[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]]</font></sup> 15:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Somone using the same IP would be blocked for 24 hours, longer if they repeatedly tried to edit in order to see if the block was still in effect as the autoblocker would be reset. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]] 18:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
== {{User|MarcosBot}} ==
(moved from talk)
I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User:MarcosBot indefblocked] {{user|MarcosBot}} . The account was used to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MarcosBot add] spam links to [[Ravi Shankar]]. The manner of edits clearly shows it is not probably a bot, and a spam account. Thanks. --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 22:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:This should really go on the main page, not the talk page, please. --[[User:Deskana|Lord Deskana]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Deskana|Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS]]</sup> 22:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
::Oops, sorry, moved to ANB. --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 22:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
== {{User|Rastishka}} ==
Please review my blocks on [[User:Rastishka]] since I am a party of the edit conflict with her over the article [[Lazar Kaganovich]] [[User:Alex Bakharev|abakharev]] 23:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:3RR is 3RR, block is bueno. --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Shazaam|Shazaam!]]'' - [[User_Talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|<*>]] 00:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:...but if you are "party to an edit conflict" with the user, might be better next time to list at [[WP:AN3]] and have an uninvolved 3rd party do the block. (Note I took the above at face value and did not check if the facts are valid.) [[User:Martinp|Martinp]] 03:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
==Immediate attention needed==
[[User:Armking6]] is currently reditecting massive numbers of articles to other unrelated articles; one popped up on my watchlist, and after reverting it I checked his contributions, found he had done so to twenty articles or so, and when I clicked refresh one minute later, four more articles had been redirected. I have not had time to warn, and apologize if this is out of process but this is an immediate concern--[[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]] 05:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:Update: User states on his user page that: "i am an armking sockpuppet". I will duplicate on WP:AIAV to get more immediate attention, many more articles have been redirected already.--[[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]] 05:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:: User has been blocked. --[[User:JoanneB|Joanne]][[User talk:JoanneB|B]] 06:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
==Copying from Memory Alpha==
Will an admin who understands GFDL/Creative Commons issues have a word with {{User|Ostrich11}}? He or she has started cutting and pasting (literally, it appears, as the inappropriate links are intact) articles from Memory Alpha (a Creative Commons-licensed site). Plagiarism in general, incompatible licensing, etc. Also, are those articles speediable? --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 07:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:Yeah - I'd speedily delete them under CSD A8 (Material is unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider ('''e.g. encyclopedia''') (my emphasis), within last 48 hours (yup), no assertion of fair use (yup) and contains only copyvio material (yup). Tag them as such. [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">Proto</span>]]<I><B>/</B>/<B>/</B></I><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">type</span>]]</small> 08:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::I'd assumed that the "encyclopedia" ref was to commercial ones like Britannica, not wikis, but I'll go mark them. Meantime, the note to Ostrich11? I'm not really qualified to do that. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 09:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Never mind, I left a note. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 09:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Well, technically it's probably not exactly the intention of CSD A8, but they're unquestionably articles that should be deleted forthwith, and quibbling over the speedy deletion of such blatant copyright violations would be policy wonkery at its finest. And if the admin trawling C:CSD doesn't agree, nothing's stopping them removing the tag. Be bold, Calton! Beeeeee boooooold!! [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">Proto</span>]]<I><B>/</B>/<B>/</B></I><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">type</span>]]</small> 11:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Proto's last words as he fell of the cliff.... --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Shazaam|Shazaam!]]'' - [[User_Talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|<*>]] 12:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::I always thought my last words would be 'You'll never take me alive, coppers!' [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">Proto</span>]]<I><B>/</B>/<B>/</B></I><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">type</span>]]</small> 13:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Mine will be "I need to block that vandal....AOL *sigh*" lol Anyway Calton yes, you don't have to be "qualified" for stuff like that. As the admin page says, every user can do most tasks that admins can do, including warnings. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(meow)]]</sup> 15:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Perhaps not so much "qualified" as "coherent enough", especially in rendering an informed opinion about license incompatibility, lost editing histories, the morality of plagiarism, yada yada, things which I'm still a bit unclear on. So I solved it the Wikipedia way by attributing that opinion to someone else, namely a handy 'graf from the [[Memory Alpha]] itsownself explaining things. As for my own last words, I'm hoping they'll be something like, "Again, honey?" Though with my luck, it'll more likely be, "Watch this!" --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 01:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:I don't understand. If they're Creative Commons, aren't they eligible for copying here? [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 02:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::Creative Commons is a group of licenses some of which are not "free", such as the non commercial ones and we certainly could not copy one that does not allow derivative works as an article. Copying an article in that is a "sharealike" would also have problems. The best we could do would be have the article as whatever license the sharealike one was, and have all changes to is licensed under the GFDL. Mixing licenses is not really worth the hassle though. The only CC license that is remotely compatible is cc-by, and that is only one way (cc-by -> gfdl), and only upon making a derivative work (we cannot distrubute the original as gfdl). [[User:Kotepho|Kotepho]] 05:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:The second graf of the [[Memory Alpha]] article says:
::''The contents of Memory Alpha are licensed under the [[Creative Commons]] Attribution-Non-Commercial license. Because this license does not allow commercial reuse, it is incompatible with the [[GNU Free Documentation License|GFDL]], and material from the site cannot be copied into projects that use the GFDL. This distinction makes Memory Alpha a "sister project" of the GFDL-based [[Wikia]] which are hosted by [[Wikia, Inc.]]'' --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 04:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
== [[Template:Mergeto]] ==
Could the admins involved in the SVG [[Template_talk:Mergeto#Downgrade|controversies]] please try to follow [[WP:BLOCK]] in their operations? I'm all for [[WP:SNOW]], but only where it applies. Thanks. -- [[User:Omniplex|Omniplex]] 10:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
==[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole]]==
This arbitration case is closed. For full details see the link above.
* For persistent edit warring, {{user|Netoholic}} is banned from editing in the template namespace for one year from the end of this case, and is restricted to one revert per page per day.
* {{user|Netoholic}} and {{user|Locke_Cole}} are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia.
* {{user|Netoholic}} is reminded to follow Wikipedia's fair use policy.
* {{user5|Locke_Cole}} is banned for one month for harassing Netoholic.
* {{user|Locke_Cole}} is placed on revert parole for one year.
Delivered for the Arbitration Committee in my capacity as clerk. I take no part in making these decisions. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 10:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:As Netoholic is an admin on the Simple Wikipedia, shouldn't ''{{user|Netoholic}} and {{user|Locke_Cole}} are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia.'' read ''{{user|Netoholic}} and {{user|Locke_Cole}} are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in '''the English language''' Wikipedia.''? [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 02:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:: The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] on English Wikipedia has no jurisdiction outside the English Wikipedia, so references to Wikipedia are implicitly limited to English Wikipedia. In my purely personal opinion, it would probably be a good idea if they avoided interaction elsewhere, too. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 18:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
==[[User:Shmila]]==
Personal attaking users, removig AfD tags from his articles. Seems like a sock puppet of [[User:Marina T.]] (who seems like a sock of [[User:Nnimrodd]] who has been banned from all Wikimedia projects [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Nnimrodd]. --[[User:Haham hanuka|Haham hanuka]] 17:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
== Sockpuppet block of [[User:Professor33]] ==
I have indefintely blocked [[User:Professor33]] as a sockpuppet of blocked user [[User:Giovanni33]]. I have also extended [[User:Giovanni33]]'s block to 1 week for repeated 3RR and for using a sock. Rationale behind the sock:
# Usernames.
# Edit pattern. I blocked Giovanni @ 16:22, June 29, 2006 for violating 3rr [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Giovanni33]. At 16:25 Professor comes in and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_Christianity&diff=prev&oldid=61218481 reverts] to Giovanni's preferred version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_Christianity&diff=61218481&oldid=61208202 diff].
# They edit similar articles in similar ways. [[Special:Contributions/Giovanni33]] , [[Special:Contributions/Professor33]]
Professor has indicated that he is not a sock [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Professor33&diff=61224479&oldid=61222308] and that he intends to mail admins about the issue [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Professor33&diff=61225637&oldid=61225282]. I'm bringing it here for full disclosure and review.
[[User:Wikibofh|Wikibofh]]<sub>([[User_talk:Wikibofh|talk]])</sub> 17:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:I've reviewed checkuser evidence in this matter and I do not believe that there is any sockpuppetry going on. The secondary evidence is also weak. I strongly urge an unblock and an apology. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ([[User talk:Kelly Martin|talk]]) 05:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::Kelly, there is extremely strong linguistic evidence, combined with the fact the we know that Giovanni has a record of using puppets, and there is a long history of new users turning up, supporting Giovanni, reverting to his version, following him from one page to another, and using the same linguistic idiosyncrasies. I will e-mail you the linguistic evidence. Obviously, I do not want to make it available in public, as that will alert him to what he should avoid with future puppets. The admin who blocked was not aware of the linguistic evidence, at the time of blocking, though I have since e-mailed some of it (not all, as I was changing from one computer to another). Deskana and some other admins are also aware of it. I will also post a fuller statement here when I get time. I would urge that nobody consider unblocking without reviewing the evidence, which I am willing to e-mail to any administrator on request. When he first arrived at Wikipedia, he did not know about userchecks. Now that he does know (having been caught out after putting on a pretence of not knowing BelindaGong, while she was following him around, reverting aggressively to his version, taking advantage of our reluctance to report new users), he is unlikely to make that particular mistake again. By the way, Giovanni is claiming on his user page that I'm not a linguist, and don't have any degrees in lingsuitics yet. I'm also willing to e-mail evidence of my bachelor's and master's degrees and several diplomas in language studies and linguistics. [[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] [[User talk:Musical Linguist|<b><font size="3">♫</font></b>]] 08:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::AnnH is entirely correct that the linguistic evidence alone strongly indicates that these posts, as well as those of MikaM, Kecik, etc., propagate from one real-world user. Please do accept her offer of e-mailing the details. Combine this with the editing patterns, and the presumption of reasonable doubt is no longer tenable.[[User:Timothy Usher|Timothy Usher]] 08:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Giovanni also claims that he's never used sockpuppets before. To be frank I'm getting sick of cases like this. It's clear that at the very least Professor33 is a meatpuppet, due to certain things which I've observed which cannot be just random chance. I refer to the evidence that AnnH speaks of. --[[User:Deskana|Lord Deskana]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Deskana|Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS]]</sup> 08:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:::: I endorse this block as well. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] <sup>[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну?]]</sup> 09:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::::: I also endorse this block. I stumbled across this incident via IRC and upon looking at both accounts contributions, it seems evident to me that both accounts are being controlled by the same person per the extremely similar writing styles and tone [[User:Hoopydink/Esperanza|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''hoopydink'''</span></font>]][[User talk:Hoopydink|<sup>Conas tá tú?</sup>]] 10:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::While we're at it, can we also indef block puppets [[User:MikaM]] and [[User:Kecik]], to whom all these lines of evidence equally apply? I have no problem with this user editting Wikipedia, so long as he sticks to one username.[[User:Timothy Usher|Timothy Usher]] 10:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:I do ''not'' endorse this block. Kelly Martin has performed the checkuser and there is little solid evidence (read: something that you can prove) to that these two are related. Professor33 sent me a polite e-mail last night asking for help in this matter, and I agreed to look in to it. In addition to the checkuser showing negative results, the "linguistic evidence" that was used was sketchy at best. I am not convinced that these two are the same. I am going to look into this further, but I am heavily leaning towards unblocking this user. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] ([[User_talk:Linuxbeak|AAAA!]]) 13:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::In the interest of full disclosure, here is the e-mail that I sent to Professor33 in response to the e-mail he sent me. I will not post the e-mail he sent me unless he gives me permission to do so. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] ([[User_talk:Linuxbeak|AAAA!]]) 13:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Eugene,<br>
First off, I would like to note that a "CheckUser" has been performed on both your account and
Giovanni33's account. The results were not similar at all, so there is very little "solid" evidence
that you and Giovanni are one in the same. If you wish to provide further evidence of who you are,
such as some type of identification, feel free to email me and I will forward it as necessary.<br>
Secondly, in the interest of full disclosure, I am a devout Christian. That, however, does not
affect how I edit articles. I intentionally avoid most Christianity-related articles, and therefore
I can not say anything one way or the other in regards to any Christian-focused cliques, extreme or
otherwise.<br>
Reviewing your edits, I must say that you could have made better usage of the talk pages. When I say
"better usage", I am refering to the multiple reverts that have taken place. It appears that you
have been involved in a few edit wars which could be viewed as disruptive. Although you are probably
not connected to Giovanni, edit wars are bad. Try to seek a clear consensus before doing something
that a number of people disagree with. If this fails, I suggest that you seek mediation. Also, don't
be afraid to walk away from an article for a while. If you let things cool down a bit, you'll find
that people are easier to deal with.<br>
At this point, I will suggest that you are unblocked pending any concrete evidence of sockpuppetry.
My suggestion is to tread lightly when you are unblocked, and do not be afraid to ask for advice
and/or help if and when you find yourself in a dispute.<br>
If you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to e-mail me.<br>
Regards,
Alex Schenck
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Linuxbeak</code>
Hello, Linuxbeak. First of all, I wonder what you mean by saying that "the [checkuser] results were not similar at all". Have you ''seen'' the checkuser results? I thought only people with usercheck privileges saw checkuser results, and Kelly didn't say that they "weren't similar at all". She said she did "not believe that there is any sockpuppetry going on". She didn't say that they were in completely different areas. I never expected Giovanni to be caught a second time with a checkuser — he ''knows'' about it now. He didn't know at the time when he either registered a second account as BelindaGong or got his wife to join in order to get an extra three or more (often more, as we didn't want to report newcomers) reverts per day, and to follow him around, support him on talk pages, and vote on issues he was voting on. Do the checkuser results show that it's so far away that it couldn't be his work address, or another place that he drives to in the morning? The receent pattern has been that the last edit as Giovanni33 each morning is around the time that he would be leaving the house for work (according to his time zone), and then Professor33 logs on about an hour or two later, logs off around the time that he'd be finishing work, if he's in Giovanni's time zone, and doesn't edit at weekends. Giovanni then logs on as Giovanni33 around the time that he'd be getting home from work, and then edits in the evening and the night. Also, if his story that Freethinker99 is a separate person is true, we know that he's capable of getting a friend to join in order to revert to his version (which is still a violation of [[WP:SOCK]]. When he accidentally signed while logged on as Freethinker, he claimed that he was over at his place, and was showing him how to use Wikipedia (i.e. showing Freethinker how to revert to Giovanni's version while Giovanni was blocked).
Secondly, what do you mean when you say, "The linguistic evidence that was used was sketchy at best"? The linguistic evidence has not been made public, and can't be, as it would alert Giovanni to idiosyncrasies that he should avoid in future, so how can you know that it's sketchy? I will e-mail you the evidence if you send me an e-mail requesting it — on condition, of course, that it is not made available to anyone other than an administrator. Please note that Giovanni has a history of puppetry, gross violations of 3RR (I mean REALLY gross violations, continuing defiantly after warnings — on one occasion making 11 reverts within 19 hours, despite warnings — not the kind of accidental fourth reverts that could happen to anyone), and gaming the system, taking advantage of our reluctance to report a newcomer; and that several new users have started reverting to his version and supporting him on talk pages straight after registering.
Please note, as well, that Giovanni publicly acknowledges his IP, and on any occasion when one of the suspected puppets made a not-logged-on edit and acknowledged it, it was '''''always''''' geographically close. Please see also [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Giovanni33]] and [[Talk:Christianity/Archive_24]]. Also, when he was blocked after the BelindaGong puppetry was revealed (they had put up an active pretence of not knowing each other while she was reverting to his version and following him to different pages, voting for what he wanted), {{User|Freethinker99}} arrived at the Christianity, talk page, said he was new but had read the talk page and agreed with Giovanni (first edit)[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christianity&diff=prev&oldid=39651101] and then reverted back to Giovanni's version (second edit).[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=prev&oldid=39651383] He was asked to review [[WP:SOCK]], and said, "I have. Thanks."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Freethinker99&diff=prev&oldid=39653019] Giovanni was asked on his talk page (the only page he could edit) to state frankly whether or not he had any connection with any of the new users who were reverting to his version, and he denied it — but forgot that he was logged on as Freethinker99![http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giovanni33&diff=next&oldid=39651547] He then changed the signature[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giovanni33&diff=next&oldid=39658454] but we had already seen it.
Various explanations were given — he was married to Belinda, and had not wanted to make that public. He was a friend of Freethinker, and was at his house, showing him how to use Wikipedia. When he denied having any connection to any of the editors about whom he had been asked, he had not seen Freethinker's name, which had been added to the original question later, but had been on his talk page for fifty minutes when he answered, and was '''''DIRECTLY''''' above the first words of his denial while he was typing.
It is extremely disturbing that Kecik has 40 reverts to Giovanni33 out of a total of 45 article edits, that his seventh edit was a vote for something Giovanni wanted[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transubstantiation&diff=prev&oldid=36669860] at a page he'd be unlikely, as a new user, to find by chance (and he didn't have "e-mail this user" enable), and that he was here for nearly four months before he made his first edit to an article that Giovanni was not looking for support at (and then only after I had commented so many times on the pattern of his contributions) — and that nothing has been done about this. MikaM's contributions are similar — [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transubstantiation&diff=prev&oldid=36751905 this] vote is his/her ''sixth'' edit, and as with Kecik, e-mail was not enabled, and it's unlikely that a brand new user, who was supporting Giovanni at [[Christianity]], would find that page just by chance.
And yes, I stand by the linguistic evidence linking Giovanni33 not just to Professor33 but also to eight other users. I strongly urge admins to e-mail me for the evidence before they consider unblocking. [[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] [[User talk:Musical Linguist|<b><font size="3">♫</font></b>]] 14:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
* I brought the block here so that it could be reviewed. Personally, I believe he's a sock, and don't have access to checkuser. Kelly and Linux are respected admins, and if someone decides to reverse the block I'm not going to be upset. However, even if [[User:Professor33]] is unblocked, I do think that [[User:Giovanni33]]'s block should stay, and have said so to him in reply to him via email. This was his 5th unique 3RR block by 5 different admins. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Giovanni33] and perhaps a week will be a wakeup call. I considered a [[WP:RFCU]], but the notices at the top gave me the indication that I should not do that given the evidence I had. If people are interested in the emails I have sent to both the Professor and Giovanni, I will happily post them, but they don't say anything I haven't said in public. [[User:Wikibofh|Wikibofh]]<sub>([[User_talk:Wikibofh|talk]])</sub> 14:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, '''I''' have seen the checkuser evidence, and it's certainly not inconsistent with the idea that they are sockpuppets. Moreover, I've seen the other evidence as well, and some of it is quite compelling. Please remember that checkuser is not a magic crystal ball; it can certainly be helpful in proving or disproving sockpuppetry, but ultimately decisions about sockpuppeting are made the old-fashioned way. As has been the case in the past with Giovanni33, there's either standard sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry going on here, and the evidence indicates to me that it's far more likely that it's plain old sockpuppetry. In my view the block is justified. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 14:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Comparing the edits, it's clear to me that Professor33 is Giovanni33. The writing style, word choices, and habitual errors are all consistent. His timely arrival to support Giovanni just when he 'runs out' of reverts is icing on the cake. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 15:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
== {{User:195.93.21.100|195.93.21.100}} ==
User has consistently engaged in personal attacks on me going so far as to vulgarly proclaim to having sex with my mother.
1. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Wayne&diff=next&oldid=57359024]
2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Wayne&diff=prev&oldid=57358356]
3. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Wayne&diff=prev&oldid=57355569]
4. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Wayne&diff=next&oldid=60855831]
I took this to the Personal Attack Intervention Noticeboard [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3APersonal_attack_intervention_noticeboard&diff=61017700&oldid=61016837] and the only action taken was a warning added to the users talk page. Shown here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A195.93.21.100&diff=61017420&oldid=60587635]. You'll see that it is at least 20-30 times this user has been warned about vandalism and personal attacks.
I understand he's using AOL, but that in itself is '''NO''' excuse to allow him to continously vandalise articles and engage in vulgar personal attacks on me. I find it highly inappropriate that he's allowed to continue his vile rampage simply because he's using AOL. If any other user had said the things he's said about me (i.e. accusing me of being a pedophile, having sex with my mother) they would have been permanently banned from editing here.
I look forward to hearing/seeing a more appropriate response to his personal attacks than a simple warning on a talk page to go along with his MANY other warnings for the same thing. [[User:Batman2005|Batman2005]] 19:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
==I need help at [[Chinky]]==
Before I revert for the third time, I would like to ask for somebody's help at [[Chinky]] and the associated AfD. I found a crappy article about a slur and took it to AfD. In mid-AfD another user replaced the contents wholesale with another article on an British slang term referring to Chinese takeouts. Now the AfD has been obviated, AfD participants are getting confused, and I am losing patience and yelling at people. He's been a little too BOLD for my taste. Would someone calm please come and restore order? Thank you. - <b>[[User:Crzrussian|CrazyRussian]]</b><small> [[User_talk:Crzrussian|talk]]/[[Special:Emailuser/Crzrussian|email]]</small> 19:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:My advice would be to close the AfD yourself, as a keep, since you're saying yourself that if the decision on the now-removed version was "delete", you'd replace it with the version [[User:Uncle G]] has written. It does, however, need to be made plain in the "Uncle G version" of the article that "Chinky" is widely regarded as a racial slur, even when only applied to takeaways. --[[User:Andrew Norman|ajn]] ([[User talk:Andrew Norman|talk]]) 19:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::OK, I will close the AfD. - <b>[[User:Crzrussian|CrazyRussian]]</b><small> [[User_talk:Crzrussian|talk]]/[[Special:Emailuser/Crzrussian|email]]</small> 19:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
== Username? ==
<span class="plainlinks">[[User:Salvador_Allende|Salvador_Allende]] ([[User talk:Salvador_Allende|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Salvador_Allende|contribs]] • <font color="002bb8">[{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=move&user={{urlencode:{{ucfirst:Salvador_Allende}}}}}} page moves]</font> • [[Special:Blockip/{{ucfirst:Salvador_Allende}}|block user]] • <font color="002bb8">[{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=block&page=User:{{urlencode:Salvador_Allende}}}} block log]</font>)</span> is an odd choice of username, and the editor has an interesting edit history. What to do? [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 20:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::what if that's his name? I don't see the significance of the name perhaps? [[User:Batman2005|Batman2005]] 23:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Allende is the former [[Chile|Chilian]] President that was replaced by Pinochet in the 1970's. [[User:Zscout370]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]</sup></small> 01:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
AHHA! Right you are, screw that username then! [[User:Batman2005|Batman2005]] 03:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::I thought that Wikipedia's policies were permissive of user names of individuals with notoriety who have perished. Am I wrong in my thinking? [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 08:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I don't think ''Hitler'' is permissible. [[User:Tintin1107|Tintin]] ([[User_talk:Tintin1107|talk]]) 11:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::::What if you can prove for fact that your last name is Hitler? I had a buddy in high school who seriously had that last name, he hated it, but he couldn't change it. [[User:Batman2005|Batman2005]] 14:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Really? I am sure you can: [http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/n6w/index/family_parent/family/change_of_name.htm], and [http://www.guardian.co.uk/netnotes/article/0,,802511,00.html]. :-) <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|ana]]</font>|<sup><font color="orange">[[User talk:Kilo-Lima|T]]</font></sup> 15:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Well yes, legally he could have, but his family was Austrian and they'd been "Hitler" long before the Adolf guy came around, I think it was more of a "we've got this really great last name"....1930-1945 rolls around and some guy ruins is, I just think they didn't want to change it, not that they couldn't have. [[User:Batman2005|Batman2005]] 15:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
== Today's SPUI blocking ==
Hi everyone. Today [[User:SPUI]] was blocked based on claims that he had created a user page subpage that some users claim crashes their browsers (seems he can't keep out of trouble). The page contents had already been removed. The initial block was indefinite, but was then modified by <s>another</s> the same admin to one week. It'd be helpful if some of you could review this blocking, or move this comment to an appropriate forum to get some wider discussion around the action. Thanks. [[User:Deco|Deco]] 20:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
*06:34, June 29, 2006 Physchim62 blocked SPUI with an expiry time of indefinite (page User:SPUI/jajaja, i.e. using WP for testing browser blocking code, completely contrary to WP:5P.)
*06:48, June 29, 2006 Cyde unblocked SPUI (There's no community consensus for this.)
*07:13, June 29, 2006 Physchim62 blocked SPUI with an expiry time of 1 week (violation of probation)
[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 22:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:Isn't jajaja months old? I seem to recall hearing about it a looooong time ago. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In <font color="black">'''Bl♟ck'''</font>]] <small>([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]])</small> 23:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
: Seems to be a blocking made under the terms of SPUI's probation. The page in question doesn't exactly crash browsers, but it was obviously created for the purpose of provocation, and SPUI has experimented (albeit in userspace) with transcluding it. SPUI can be blocked for up to one week for provocative edits, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SPUI&diff=prev&oldid=60625902 this and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SPUI/jajaja&diff=prev&oldid=60625250 this (beware of potentially odd browser behavior in both of those) are certainly provocative. Thus it's the blocking admin's call, and I decline to tread on his toes on that score where an Arbitration Committee-imposed limitation on editing is involved. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 23:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::If that was aimed at me, I wasn't disagreeing with the block, merely noting that it seemed to be really late. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In <font color="black">'''Bl♟ck'''</font>]] <small>([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]])</small> 23:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::I'm sorry, I neglected to mention that the page in question was created a long time ago - it predates the probation. I'd argue that it's unfair to punish someone under the terms of probation for an action taken prior to its commencement. [[User:Deco|Deco]] 23:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I have to agree; this block is rather late. I'm not sure who is worse, SPUI for constantly testing limits or the rest of you for constantly overreacting to him when he does. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ([[User talk:Kelly Martin|talk]]) 23:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Concur. [[User:SPUI|SPUI]], tone down on the ducks in a pram, eh? Everyone else, stop jumping down his throat and go edit something, eh? '''[[User:Robchurch|robchurch]]''' | [[User_talk:Robchurch|talk]] 23:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Concur. ~ [[User:PseudoSudo|PseudoSudo]] 02:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
: The creation of the page predates the probation, but SPUI'd provocative edits extend into recent days. Blocking SPUI to persuade him to stop his tiresome provocation is the very purpose for which his probation was imposed.
::If that's so, then ban him for ''that'', with the edits in question clearly defined for everyone to review. It looks to me as though there is agreement here that blocking for an ancient page is not on. I recall seeing that page long ago, I rolled my eyes and moved on. I would suggest that everyone do the same here. As there are so many people agreeing that this block is not valid, as it relates to old news, I'm going to remove it in an hour (giving time for last minute discussion). -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] [[User talk:Sannse|(talk)]] 09:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I'll support an unblock since this disruption was a long time ago (and hardly a blockable offense then as well). Even with a probation in place, blocks are preventative, not punitive. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 09:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
: <s>In reply to Deco's in itself rather provocative choice of section header, , "Today's SPUI blocking", and his use of the word "again", I'd like to add: until today SPUI hadn't been blocked in recent days. His last block was under the three-revert rule on [[Waterways forming and crossings of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway]]. This was two weeks ago, and the blocking administrator was [[User:Voice of All]]. The suggestion, implicit int he section heading, that SPUI is subject to daily blocks, is simply untenable.</s> --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 23:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the blockings were frequent. I've tweaked my language to emphasize my original intention. If the reason for the block was recent provocative edits by SPUI then I support it, given that the length is proportional to and typical for the severity of the offense. [[User:Deco|Deco]] 23:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::: Withdrawn. As discussed on IRC. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 00:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
<s>Is the contents of this "crashing page" up for review? That sort of claim sends up bright red flags for me. Or, who are the accusers? Where are their accusations?</s> I have reviewed the page, and a few months ago it was revealed that an image of huge size in IE would crash the browser or even the whole computer. It was patched. Although highly unlikely, it could be the users remembered this and made up their accusations. This is just being a devils advocate here. --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[Special:Emailuser/Mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]] 05:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:For the record, SPUI is currently blocked for one week as of 13:13 (UTC) 29 June as a result of having created and kept the page [[User:SPUI/jajaja]], which I consider to be a serious abuse of userspace. This block has been notified to ArbCom [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FPedophilia_userbox_wheel_war&diff=61198615&oldid=61104699 here], as [[User:SPUI|SPUI]] is on probation. This block is open to review, as are all admin actions. I would just like to point out that a newbie user who created such a page would have been blocked indefinitely without any discussion: [[User:SPUI|SPUI]] has been warned many times about his behavior by the highest authorities of WP, I do not see why he should be treated more leniently (even if I respect his article edits). [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] [[User talk:Physchim62|(talk)]] 10:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::Look at the history - I created it in January *2005*, when I was a relative noob. For the record, the page was deleted several days ago after an MFD; it only exists now because of the VFU. As far as I know, there are not enough big tags on the copy on my user page to cause browser problems - please let me know if there are! I don't want my main user page to cause any crashes. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/SPUI|C]]) 11:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Unblocked as agreed above. -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] [[User talk:Sannse|(talk)]] 10:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/SPUI|C]]) 11:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
== KungFu Censorship and Incorrect Applications of Vandalism Policy ==
So I get warned for one piece of vandalism, and I was pretty annoyed, so I responded with the words "fuck off". (This in retrospect was a bad idea, my apologies).
However, I then get this "test 4" vandalism warning for my "personal attack". I found this strange as I had read the policy at [[WP:VAND]] after been linked to it, and it says clearly under the '''"What vandalism is not"''' section that "Harassing or Making Personal Attacks" are not vandalism. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VAND#What_vandalism_is_not]
Once again, I was pretty irritated. So I made my points on the issue. KungFu decided it would be appropriate to censor me though by "protecting" my talk page and not explaining how getting angry and insulting people is vandalism, despite it saying otherwise in your policy.
His talk page is also protected and the only place I could find to get some rationale seems to be here (I hope).
My apologies for my personal attack, but how can people possibly learn if you have administrators and webmasters going around warning people for breaking the wrong policies, then seemingly ignoring the points raised and censoring them instead? [[User:172.212.30.51|172.212.30.51]]
: Did you really need a policy page to tell you that Vandalism and personal attacks are wrong? --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 21:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
: You seem to be very knowledgeable and confident with editing wikipedia and seem know your way around, yet you've only made 5 edits. Hmm.--<font style="background:white">[[User:Andypandy.UK|Andeh]]</font> 22:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I've unprotected your usertalk page, as the page should not be protected while the editor is not blocked. However, if this editor continues to vandalise or make personal attacks, they may find themselves blocked and their talk page reprotected. [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] 22:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)`
==[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark]]==
This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.
* Blue Aardvark is banned from Wikipedia for one year.
* All involved administrators are admonished not use their administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus, and to avoid using them so as to continue a block war. Raul654 in particular is warned not to repeatedly unblock when he is reversed.
For the Arbitration Committee. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 00:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:Only one year, huh? Wonderful. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 02:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::Arbcom doesn't typically ban users for more than a year. - [[User:A Man In Black||]] 02:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:::What is this discussion and consensus of which the ArbComm speak? :) [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 05:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:People banned for one year either leave completely or get their ban extended thru sockpuppetry or other abuse. Who was the last person to serve their year without violation and then return to active editing? [[User:NoSeptember|NoSeptember]] 10:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::Is this worth adding to [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle]]? [[User:Proto|Proto]] 11:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
: I see to recall that Mr Natural Health came back after a long ban. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 18:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
== [[User:Batman2005]] ==
I took a look at this user's userpage, as he complained about personal attacks. I was suprised to therefore see a long list of celebrities being described as "racist whore, fuckin traitor, homosexual, murdering liar", and so on. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, don't own your userpage, etc. I removed the section, but he restored it. So, question - is the abuse of real people encyclopedic? [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">Proto</span>]]<I><B>/</B>/<B>/</B></I><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">type</span>]]
</small> 06:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:I think it should be reomved and protected if needed. [[User:Ian13|<span style="color:#067"><u>Ian</u>¹³</span>]][[User talk:Ian13|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">/t</span>]] 12:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::Clearly, this isn't encyclopedic, but I think the [[WP:USER|user page guidelines]] need to be clarified. It says that longtime users are often given a great amount of ''latitude'', but to what extent? Some users have had pages devoted strictly to showcasing images of nudity; some are okay with it and some aren't (but the user page guidelines don't really help to clarify whether it truly is okay). And it looks like the same type of situation exists here. The question of whether we should give Batman2005 ''this'' much latitude is not answered within the user page guidelines.
::However, I would like to note several statements that implicitly attack certain types of people. From his ''people I wish would die in a fire'', he mentions [[Zac Efron]] and [[Jesse McCartney]] simply because he's homosexual. He says that people who think [[Freddy Adu]] is sixteen are dumbasses. This kind of statement...
:::''This fucking page likely contains unnecessarily vulgar or offensive statements. If it bothers you, then '''you should go outside and play hide and go fuck yourself.'''''
:: ...is just downright insulting. And this...
:::''Now, cry babies, don't go crying to the admins (who will likely be included) this isn't a personal attack, i don't wish you dead (most of you) this is just my way of saying..."hey, no matter what you say to me on here, you're still dead to me, so i'm not going to pay any attention to your comments.''
::..., once again, just creates hostility. There's even an explicit death wish in there (for those who don't fit under ''most of you'').
::In addition, I'm quite fascinated by your question: ''So, question - is the abuse of real people encyclopedic?'' Wikipedians ''are'' real people too, aren't they? Okay, okay, I know what you're saying. But let's pretend [[Bill O'Reilly]] were to become a Wikipedian. Or perhaps [[Paris Bennett]] were to start editing Wikipedia. Then Batman's page would ''absolutely'' be making personal attacks against Wikipedians. So, the personal attacks against famous people in reality are equivalent to personal attacks against Wikipedians. We would not (I hope) allow something to say about an Wikipedia editor, ''no talent, ugly, annoying voice, cocky, ugly, etc, etc.'', or allow any editor to call someone else a ''fat ass windbag'', so why should we allow people to do the same for celebrities who may or may not be Wikipedians? Batman's user page is far from encyclopedic and serves only to create an uncomfortable environment for people (albeit famous people). Portotype, in my opinion, you did the right thing. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Joturner|r]] 12:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The invitation to "hide and go play fuck yourself" near the top of the page is pretty clearly a PA toward real users, not potential ones. As such, the above question (while interesting in theory) is kind of a moot point. -[[User:Hit bull, win steak|Hit bull, win steak]]<sup>[[User talk:Hit bull, win steak|(Moo!)]]</sup> 14:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::Firstly i think its ridiculous that this was listed without me being told about it, how disrespectful! Secondly, this has been brought to this very page several times in the past and several times in the past it has been established that my user page violates '''NO''' set wikipedia policy! None whatsoever! There is not a single personal attack towards a wikipedia user on my entire page, if Paris Bennett were to become a wikipedian and object then I would remove the offending comment about her. As is though, there is no policy violation on my page, simply put...if it offends you, then discontinue looking at it. [[User:Batman2005|Batman2005]] 14:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::: i actually see how inviting users to play "hide and go fuck yourself" could be construed as a personal attack towards wikipedia users, as such I shall remove that. [[User:Batman2005|Batman2005]] 14:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::::'''Note''' I have decided on my own to remove the offending part of the page, it still contains a list of people who I do not like...however it does not now implore them to die in a fire. As I added the information in the first place it was done to illustrate a point, that while wikipedians claim that wikipedia is not censored, it is in fact VERY censored. As such, the point has been proven to my satisfaction and I have declared myself the victor, bring me the finest wine in the land. [[User:Batman2005|Batman2005]] 14:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::As another note, I think the swearing should be removed (infact, from any userpage where it is used). Some find it offencive (it doesn't really bother me), and although the Wikipedia isn't censored - people don't expect to find that on a userpage. [[User:Ian13|<span style="color:#067"><u>Ian</u>¹³</span>]][[User talk:Ian13|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">/t</span>]] 16:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Note, I'm going to disagree there, requiring me to remove swearing is blatant censorship, let me point out that MUCH more offensive stuff is on wikipedia...(Note: disturbing image warning) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Prince_Albert_Piercing.jpg] If this garbage is allowed to stay on wikipedia but a couple curse words aren't how is that not censorship? [[User:Batman2005|Batman2005]] 16:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::::As I implied, a userpage is not where this would be expected. I think you need to understand that the content of the encyclopedia may not be censored - but that does not mean people can say or do what they like. Also, talk pages and userpages are not part of the encyclopedia. Please see [[Wikipedia:Profanity]] (''Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.'') If you are looking for somewhere where nothing is censored - then you are in the wrong place. Your usages of such possibly offencive words does not improve the content of Wikipedia. [[User:Ian13|<span style="color:#067"><u>Ian</u>¹³</span>]][[User talk:Ian13|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">/t</span>]] 17:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::The problem here isn't that its offensive, the problem is that it violates no set wikipedia policy. You highlighted an article that is a guideline, but not a policy. If certain users find my userpage offensive, as you do, then you are free to navigate away from it and spend your wikipedia time elsewhere. There is no policy about foul language on userpages, if you believe there should be one then there are ways to go about getting that policy enacted. But to require/request that I remove it is censorship at its finest, and that is specifically against wikipedia policy. I also grow very tired of people saying stuff like "I think you should understand <insert something here>" as if i'm too dense to read and understand wikipedia, or as if they're somehow more educated on the subject than I am. I have read all the pertinent policies, which is why i'm safe in my contention that I have violated no policy. Perhaps other users should become as familiar with said policies as I am. [[User:Batman2005|Batman2005]] 17:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Wikipedia policy isn't intended to be interpretted word for word. Otherwise we would have loads of people reverting 3 times a day just because they feel they have the right too. [[User:Ian13|<span style="color:#067"><u>Ian</u>¹³</span>]][[User talk:Ian13|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">/t</span>]] 17:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
* I have been MORE than reasonable during this discussion. I chose, on my own, to remove the offending part of the userpage, which was the reason it was brought here for discussion. I did so without needing to be convinced and did so against past consensus that my page was acceptable by all standards and violated no policy whatsoever. I will not remove the profanity as it violates no current policy on wikipedia. To contend that the policies herein shouldn't be interpreted word for word is both ludicrous and laughable. If we don't take policies word for word does that mean i'm free to interpret it however I see fit? Am i then free to levy personal attacks because i'm not interpreting that part as written? Policies are meant to be interpreted exactly how they are written, unwritten rules do not apply here nor do they carry any weight with me. If the editors en-masse want to get together and pass a policy specifically against profanity on userpages then I will follow that policy exactly as written. Until that time, I will not remove profane words from my userpage, nor should any user be expected to. If someone is offended, as I said earlier, they are free to navigate away from the page and abstain from visiting in the future. [[User:Batman2005|Batman2005]] 17:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
*:Right. Please see [[Wikipedia:Interpret all rules]] (yes, yes, it's not official policy - but we are a community here). [[User:Ian13|<span style="color:#067"><u>Ian</u>¹³</span>]][[User talk:Ian13|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">/t</span>]] 18:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Would you care to show me a policy i've violated? Or are you just going to continue to link to things that have nothing to do with my userpage and don't prove your position right? If you want to interpret the rules to say that my userpage is offensive fine, then don't visit it in the future...problem solved. I however will interpret wikipedia policy to mean "policy" and guideline to mean "guideline." Policies are things I will follow to the letter as that's the meaning of a policy. As such, you and everyone else, has failed to show me a wikipedia policy that my userpage violates, thus...it will remain. Please do not waste more of my time by linking to things that are irrelevant, if you are able to link to solid policy about my userpage than I will entertain that position, if not I have better things I could be doing, as I'm sure you do. [[User:Batman2005|Batman2005]] 18:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::::It seems you havn't considered anything I have said. [[User:Ian13|<span style="color:#067"><u>Ian</u>¹³</span>]][[User talk:Ian13|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">/t</span>]] 18:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::::[[WP:CIVIL]] I notice several references to that on your talk page. Your user page is only a continuation of that behaviour and is uncivil. --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 18:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::While I have been warned about incivility in the past, you'll notice that in no way is a userpage covered in [[WP:CIVIL]]. You no doubt have read the policy as I have, and i'm sure you saw the first sentence where it clearly says ''Civility is a rule for the conduct of edits, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias.'' None of my edits that are deemed "inappropriate" occur on a talk page or edit summary. Are YOU able to provide a policy that my page violates? If not I would also ask that you not waste my time with things totally unrelated to userpages. [[User:Batman2005|Batman2005]] 18:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Quite the contrary, I have considered it and gave it some thought, however...you fail again to produce a policy discussing the use of profanity on userpages. Like I said, if it really offends you that much you're free to propose a new policy specifically outlining userpage profanity, until such time as a policy like that is enacted, my page will remain, regardless of how one or two users feel about it. I stand by my contention that wikipedia is not censored, and i'm both shocked and amazed that someone like you who so clearly understands wikipedia policies would fail to understand that basic concept. [[User:Batman2005|Batman2005]] 18:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Not at all. The policy directly addresses the issue here. You are required to be civil in ALL edits, your edits to your user page are not civil. They don't need to address profanity, because the profanity is only a part of the greater uncivil behaviour exhibited by your actions on your user page. Protection from censorship does not give you the right to be as uncivil as you like. --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 18:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::You may also wish to reread the policy on censorship and pay close attention to this sentence: " ''some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography)''" The exception is only set forth if the objectionable material is necessary to the article, it is not a blanket protection for user pages. Nor a protection to insert objectionable language in articles unless required by an article, for example one on profanity, or perhaps listing a famous quote from a movie/individual/etc--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 18:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::Perhaps you should spend less time linking to things that are irrelevant and more time trying to find a specific policy that I have violated. You cannot do so, thus my page will remain. [[User:Batman2005|Batman2005]] 18:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::I'll also point out that the page on censorship is a guideline, not a policy. Thus it is irrelevant, guidelines are not final. Policies are. Once again, my page will remain. [[User:Batman2005|Batman2005]] 18:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I've linked you to the policy you violated. Just becuase you choose to bury your head in the sand and ignore that fact doesn't mean no one has shown you it. WP:CIVIL is a policy, not a guideline. As is WP:NOT which discusses objectionable content. --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 18:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::::And [[WP:CIVIL]] does not pertain to userpages, if it did it would clearly state that in the paragraph, as such it only pertains to talk pages and everything else in there. There is no policy that my page violates. If you don't like the page, don't visit it, simple as that, problem solved, stop wasting my time saying the same wrong stuff over and over again. [[User:Batman2005|Batman2005]] 18:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::It doesn't need to specify user pages becuase it specifies "''Civility is a rule for the conduct of edits, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias''" it doesn't say "This only applies to articles and their talk pages" or "only to articles and all talk pages" it says "edits" and the content added to your userpage was done via an "edit". [[WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored]] which is a policy only extends protection to articles where the content is relevant. It doesn't say user pages can contain whatever objectionable content they want. --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 18:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::You are wrong my friend, and I'm sorry my page offends you, but like I said, you're free to visit the million other pages. I have provided the "what can my user page not have" link and nowhere does it say profanity, [[WP:CIVIL]] is all well and good and I'll be civil in my edits, on talk pages and elsewhere, but it '''does not''' pertain to userpages, i'm sorry you don't see it that way, but I do. My page will remain. I would also like to point out the thousands of other user pages that have profanity on them and are not the subject of such heated debate here. I would advise those people who are offended to surf elsewhere and discontinue visiting my page. [[User:Batman2005|Batman2005]] 18:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:::You've given no evidence to show that this does not extend to userpages. I've given evidence that it extends to all edits, which were necessary to create your user page. i've also made a list of things you have to remove as per the ''guideline'' you wish to follow after stating above that you wouldn't follow any guidelines. You also need to remove anything that falls under "''Opinion pieces not related to Wikipedia or other non-encyclopedic material''" which covers everything I listed before but also the dead to me list and that would fall under "or other non-encyclopedic material". And you might also want to have a look at this statement: "''Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere''" This means WP:CIVIL applies to your user page. --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 18:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::Well, my only question here is...what right do you have to tell me what to do? Are you my mother? [[User:Batman2005|Batman2005]] 18:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::: Now that you've been proven wrong, you're going to resort to that? You do not own your page, and it currently contains content in violation of more than one policy. You can choose to remove it, or procedure can be followed to remove it permanently. --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 18:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
* Let me also point to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F] which clearly states what a userpage cannot have on it, and profanity is NOWHERE to be found. AGAIN....my page will remain. [[User:Batman2005|Batman2005]] 18:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
*:thats a guideline, as you've pointed out, they have no bearing here. --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 18:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
*: But if you'd like to use that as some basis, things you can't have "''Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia''", which means you need to remove your reference to kevin federline being a douche, the reference to the frats, this comment "''I'm not afraid to say that I want to marry Ashley Leggat and provide her with lots of children.''" this statement ''I'd do the same to Amanda Bynes, Kellie Pickler, Nikki Reed, Autumn Reeser, Sabrina Bryan, Ashley Leggat, Cote de Pablo, Scarlett Johansson, Katherine Heigl, Emilie de Ravin, Jane Krakowski, Kristin Cavalleri, Amber Tamblyn, Lacey Chabert, and Brooke Hogan (but for gods sake don't tell her dad)'' This list "'''People who are alright...if not spectacular'''" as it has nothing to do with wikipedia, this list as well "'''People who are not alright'''"--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 18:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::You are wrong again, as the "what can i have on my user page" clearly states that I may have things that I like and dislike. The stuff about linking Kevin Federline has been discussed previously and was allowed, thus i'm inclined to leave it there. You continue to try to find stuff to get me on and you'll continue to be proven wrong, I've been through this pointless excercise a few times now and EVERY time it has been decided that my page violates no policy. Proto had a complaint, I removed it, end of story. [[User:Batman2005|Batman2005]] 18:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:::You can list likes and dislikes, it doesn't say you can call someone a douche on your talk page. And as I pointed out above, those guidelines you now wish to hold onto state that all community policies apply to your user page, which includes WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. "There are quite a few users who I think are losers that edit here. One is the administrator who blocked me awhile ago for basically nothing." This is a personal attack and must be removed per those policies, and the rest of your page has to be made civil as per those same policies. --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 18:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Very well, i will delete the bit about people I think are losers, you're right about that, it is a personal attack. You have, however, not proven me wrong my friend. If you've proven anything its that you are vainly searching for any policy which I have violated. And that you are incapable of forumalating an argument centered around solid policy rather than you own interpretation of guidelines and policy. My page, minus what I just said I would delete will remain. If you want to keep debating that's fine, but I suggest you find some solid policies as I'll continue to shoot you down like I have been doing. [[User:Batman2005|Batman2005]] 19:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::You said you wish to follow what is on [[Wikipedia:User_page]] This page clearly states "''Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere''. This means all policies apply to your userpage, which means [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:CIVIL]] applies to your userpage. WP:CIVIL clearly states: "''Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but...''" Which clearly covers your "Dead to me" section which also attacks all administrators by calling them dictators. You choose the guideline you wanted to follow, I've shown you the policy which it covers. You can choose to follow it or not. I'm going to assume good faith here and assume that now that you've been shown the proper policy and shown the offending segments of your userpage you will make a good effort to be a positive part of the commmunity. --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 19:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll remove the bit about dictators, NPA has been shown through the last time i had this conversation that it does not cover those who are not wikipedia editors, thus the stuff about Kevin Federline can stay, as was decided by consensus previously. And i think if you bothered to look past my userpage you'd see that I have been a positive member of this community for quite sometime, but alas, you only seem to focus on the bad. Dead to me is not a personal attack, it is my way of staying out of arguments with those users who insist on being disrespectful. It too will stay. [[User:Batman2005|Batman2005]] 19:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:You can create that list without it being a personal attack. NPA doesn't apply to non-wikipedians, however [[WP:USER#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F]] covers that statement with "''Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia''". Kevin Federline being a douche seems pretty unrelated to wikipedia. My Frat is cooler than your gay Frat is also covered by this. Reworded you could probably keep a lot of this content, but the attitude on it has to be tuned down. Instead of Dead to me, perhaps "editors I do not communicate with". You also don't need to repeat that admins are dead to you several times. Its obvious you don't like or agree with the admins in general, so simply stating that you don't see eye to eye with them would make your stance clear without resorting incivility. And while your other edits might be stellar and worthy of publication, its not a free pass to be uncivil elsewhere. --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 19:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::I think something you need to address here is that we are a community - and arguing over technicalities of policies does not aid the Wikipedia, and is rather disruptive. Your tone is not in my opinion following [[WP:AGF]]. If you want a freewebhost, go to geocities or something. Your "Dead to me" section, no matter what you say, seems to violate [[WP:NPA]] (a policy!) in that you are commenting on users and not content. Remember no-one owns any page (even a userpage), so your commenting of "it will stay" is invalid. [[User:Ian13|<span style="color:#067"><u>Ian</u>¹³</span>]][[User talk:Ian13|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">/t</span>]] 19:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
"Dead to me" would be a personal attack if it said "i wish all these users would die" it does not say that. It simply says that they are dead to me, which is completely acceptable according to consensus the last time it was brought up. I name no admins by name, thus no personal attacks there either. If arguing over policies does not aid wikipedia, why did you guys start it? A bit of the pot calling the kettle black it would seem. I am aware of what wikipedia is, if you have such a problem with my page, then like i said, you're free to create a policy specifically adressing it. [[User:Batman2005|Batman2005]] 19:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
== Please undelete the X One Page ==
The X One Page was deleted for the reason that it is promotional material. This is not the case. The X One is an innovation in the trasportation industry (see similar page [[tweel]], [[segway]], [[radial tire]]. The only thing that makes this promotional is that only one company is making this today ([[Michelin]]). There are, however, tens of thousands of [[Tractor Trailers]] using this innovation [[worldwide]]. It is a fundamental change in the way things are being done in the tire industry. It would be a shame if you guys weren't onboard. Search the [[internet]] if you have doubts. Sometimes the X One is also called the X-One. Everything on the page was 100% factual. Thanks for your consideration.{{unsigned|Jolney27}}
:The material that was deleted was heavily biased and had the tone of an advertisement. The topic may well be notable, but it would be better to start over from scratch rather than undelete that content. Did you know you could re-create a page that's been deleted? —[[User:Keenan Pepper|Keenan Pepper]] 13:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
== Consensus on redirect and delete ==
Several admins have been deleting and/or changing the [[original research]] redirect so it no longer redirects to [[Wikipedia:No original research]] and instead redirects to an article such as [[research]]. The reason [[User:Cyde]] wishes to change the article is b/c Wikipedia should "NEVER allow a cross-namespace redirect to squat on what could be a legitimate encyclopedic page." I personally disagree with this b/c the redirect has been around for more than two years and is linked to by well over 1000 talk pages. In addition, there is no obvious article that the redirect is squatting on. That said, I am willing to go with whatever the consensus decides to do.
I tried to start a discussion about this at [[Talk:Original research]] but another admin has also deleted the article. I've reverted it yet again but have no wish to start a wheel-war over this. Since a bunch of admins are involved in this, can we get other admin opinions. Personally, I don't see any reason why this redirect should be deleted without a AfD since there is no speedy delete reason to justify this action.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 13:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Please read [[WP:ASR]]. We are writing an encyclopedia, not perpetuating Wikipedia. --[[User:Cyde|Cyde]] 13:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Kill it with a stick. "Original research" is hardly a Wikipedia-specific term. [[user:freakofnurture|freakofnurture]] 13:56 30 June, 2006 (UTC)
Changing it to an appropriate redirect doesn't require an AFD or speedy deletion. I personally agree that cross namespace redirects should be kept to a n absolute minimum and certainly not exist for a term which has a strong context outside of wikipedia like [[Original research]] does. Length of time of existance I can't see as relevant, we wouldn't allow OR itself to remain in an article just because it's been there a long time etc. etc. --[[User:Pgk|Pgk]] 13:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::No, changing to an appropriate redirect doesn't require an AfD. But admins keep deleting the redirect (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Original_research]) am I wrong in believing this is no justified reason for deleting the redirect without an AfD? As for changing the redirect to another redirect or an article, consensus should be gained before doing that.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 14:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:::You are wrong in believing that there is no justified reason for deleting the redirect ... please read [[WP:ASR]]. And you sure as ''hell'' don't need AFDs for redirects! --[[User:Cyde|Cyde]] 14:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::::I restored the deleted revisions. It's a redirect now, there's no harm in having cross-namespace-redirects in the history of an article. And someone should run a bot that changes [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Original research|all these links]] to the appropriate page now. --[[User:ContiE|Conti]]|[[User talk:ContiE|✉]] 14:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::I'm quite familiar with [[WP:ASR]]. The problem is that there will now be over 1000 talk pages linking to a wrong place. If you go to [[Neutral point of view]] or [[NPOV]], the page is a disamibiguation page which includes a link to [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]]. Perhaps we could do that. That's why I proposed seeking consensus on this issue so we can find a solution everyone could live with instead of having 1000 plus pages linking to the wrong place.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 14:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
If consensus develops to change the redirect, then that bot would definately be needed. Excellent idea.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 14:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::I'd still be interested in hearing from other admins on if it was right for three admins to delete this redirect (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Original_research]) without an AfD. Under [[Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Redirects]], this does not appear to have been a valid reason for deletion.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 14:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:::No, it wasn't. But why do people keep lumping my ''edit'' of the page in with them, as you did above? -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 14:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I don't see any reason at all for deletion here, simply changing the redirect would do the thing. --[[User:ContiE|Conti]]|[[User talk:ContiE|✉]] 14:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Apologies for doing that, [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]]. I was only trying to refer to the admins who deleted the article. Best,--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 14:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The approach taken by a small set of admins in dealing with cross-namespace redirects appears to be as follows:
#Delete them and hope no admin notices enough to restore it;
#If anyone notices, delete it again;
#Tell the restoring admin how stupid they are, with the additional use of profanity to help make things clear;
#If they still notice, change its target;
#If someone changes you back, change it again;
#Tell the editor how stupid they are, with the additional use of profanity to help make things clear;
#Regularly cite a policy which doesn't exist (ASR is only a style guideline) in support of your various actions;
#Iterate until RfC.
Now will one of the editors in question (Cyde would be a good candidate) tell me why this is the optimal way to approach this situation? -[[User:Splash|Splash]] - [[User talk:Splash|tk]] 14:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:This appears (partly) to be a problem looking for a solution: What shall my bot do now? There also appear to have some difficulty understanding the difference between policy and guideline. Some things which ''should'' be Wikipedia 101: A) Don't do controversial changes ''en mass''. B) Don't insult people who complain. C) Engage in productive dialog that supports your edits. Is that so hard? --[[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]] 14:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::I suggest to wait until things get calmer again, then use the bot to pipe the links to [[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages]]. And might I suggest: D) Don't do whatever the heck you want because you're convinced that you're right. --[[User:ContiE|Conti]]|[[User talk:ContiE|✉]] 14:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::LOL, nice attempt at slandering my motivations, but if you actually look at my actions you'll see that I've been trying to push the redirect fixes off on other people because I don't want to deal with the hassle. Ditto for everyone else, actually (I think Gurch eventually got roped into doing some). But let me just go on record saying that your accusation of the reason for this is totally false. --[[User:Cyde|Cyde]] 18:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't really see what the problem is here. If [[Wikipedia:No original research]] exists, there's no reason for [[No original research]]. Just fix all the internal redirects and delete the redundant main-namespace redirect. We have multiple namespaces so we don't ''need'' to clutter our encyclopedia with non-article material. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 18:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
== subst: ==
When going though 'Review and restore deleted pages', if I preview a page with an afd notice in (even if it has been subst'ed) it shows an error saying it needs to be subst:'ed (<nowiki><template error: this template must be substituted. Please replace {{AFD}} with {{subst:AFD}}.></nowiki>) and I can not see any of the following page content. Any ideas why? (To replicate please go [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=ADEX×tamp=20060624175314 here] and click preview.) [[User:Ian13|<span style="color:#067"><u>Ian</u>¹³</span>]][[User talk:Ian13|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">/t</span>]] 17:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
| 