Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive44

Zeq banned from Israeli apartheid (phrase).

See [1]. This ban may be lifted at any time by any administrator who disagrees with it, though I would request that they register their reasons for doing so here and/or on my talk page. Thank you.--Sean Black 02:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

FWIW I totally agree with your action. Metamagician3000 02:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've moved HOTR's original request from the arbitration page to WP:AE and asked him to use that page in future. --Tony Sidaway 03:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeq has just violated the ban[2]. Homey 04:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing said anything about the Talk page, only the actual article. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 04:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, you're correct - template says he can still edit the talk page.Homey 04:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for votespamming for the articles' AFD Will (^E_@) T 22:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This block was in clear violation of several wikipedia policies. Please see this: User_talk:Sceptre#Vote_stacking and replace the block with a warnning. I appologize from having to work from this and can not log in, but it seems despite the unblock template put on my talk page no one is paying attention. Singed: Zeq editing from: 85.65.186.191 10:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, did you post the above while you were blocked by Sceptre? It's a serious offence to cirumvent blocks in this way. Homey 22:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Religious Userboxes, specifically Template:User Christian

I invite all administrators to view my closing of the most recent DRV on this now notorious template. After three times through DRV, I have tried to settle this matter, although I am by no means authorative. It simply seems to me that earnestly religious userboxes are the last group of templates that need to be drawn into the userbox conflict. I hope, too, to see the template space clear and purely encyclopedic one day, but there is no consensus on that matter yet. Until there is, this species of template -- the type most likely to tug at the hearts, and invoke the fiercest loyalties, of the greatest number of users -- should be left in peace. As I suggested in closing the DRV, I suggest here: speedy deleters of these templates should be considered disruptive. The userbox conflict will only become more poisonous if religion long remains one of its foci. Xoloz 16:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's time to get all German on that userbox. --Cyde↔Weys 16:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Done! Should be no more problems with this one ever again. --Cyde↔Weys 17:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, I actually have no problem hosting that userbox in my userspace (hell, if it will stop the userbox conflict, I'll host them ALL), but I will point out it might have been nice to have asked me before putting something in my userspace. I can see why some people might think you're a bit intemperate and injudicious, Cyde. Do be careful to be polite. Xoloz 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Leaving no redirect at the old template pages with slightly over 70 red links in whatlinkshere is hardy "done." Once again, "problems" were created by an admin's actions. That "solution" wasn't all German by a long shot, just enough to serve a specific agenda. If admins would agree to a respectful migration process, it probably could go a bit smoother. If Cyde and Xoloz support it, I'll volunteer to put in a redirect, bypass it with AWB, and then replace the redirect with {{User GUS UBX to}}. If someone wants to protect the old page after that, live it up. Rfrisbie^talk 17:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As I say, I've soft redirected. Let me know however I can help to migrate. :) I believe in smooth and cooperative processes, and support them always. Xoloz 17:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Have you thrown in your two-cents worth at WP:TGS yet? I'm sure your contributions there would go a long way toward moving this thing down the road. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 18:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The one bit I added to Cyde's compromise was to soft redirect the template to my userspace. After consideration, I'm thrilled with the German Solution, so anyone may move any userbox he/she wishes to my userspace, conveniently created by Cyde, without having to ask. Yes -- any template: Star Trek haters, Republicans, even worse (only worse in the sense of being "less like Xoloz"), I don't care. If it will ease userbox tensions, go bananas with it. Xoloz 17:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would have preferred to see a hard redirect followed by some cleanup work to change all references. But I'm not going to quibble. Xoloz' close is acceptable though not ideal. --Tony Sidaway 17:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As you might imagine, I have no problem with a hard redirect either; however, there are those who vigorously oppose all new cross-namespace redirects. By soft redirecting, I have sought only to mollify that concern. If you believe hard is better, be my guest. Xoloz 17:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I hard redirected. It would probably be a good idea not to delete the redirect, as it would likely cause all sorts of complaints. (I added a note in the redirect, but apparently nothing else will show up in a redirect.) —Ashley Y 23:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If someone gives me a big list of old template names and their new userspace locations I can just have Cydebot do a batch run. Here's an example of the format I'm looking for (note that Template: shouldn't be included, but User: should):

• 'User Christian' 'User:Xoloz/UBX/User Christian'
• 'User Buddhist' 'User:Xoloz/UBX/User Buddhist'
• etc. ...

--Cyde↔Weys 17:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq circumvented block implemented by administrator Sceptre

Over the weekend, User:Zeq was blocked for 48 hours by User:Sceptre for vote stacking. He circumented the ban with this post[3]. Homey 22:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've warned Zeq that this is not permitted and asked him never to do it again, should he be blocked. --Tony Sidaway 22:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I signed my name very clearly, there was no attempt to mislead anyone. The blocking admin could at least notify me on the block and comunicate with me on my talk page. He did not. There were several other violations of the blocking policy that had to do with that block and comunication (on my talk page) was the first step required by the blocking admin did not bother so I had to go to his talk page. Zeq 03:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

PS Anyone who is bothering to get up in arms about this one (I only left a meesage on the blocking admin talk page, it is not that I have tried to edit any specific articvle to circumvent the block) seem to be putting by far more emphais on "rules" than on common sense. Just one more part in vandeta against me. I suggest this complaint will be removed. I have done nothing wrong and caused no harm. Zeq 03:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq you are not supposed to edit when you are blocked except on your own talk page it doesn't matter if you signed your name. Homey 05:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried using my talk page but the blocking admin did not respond.

Homey, Why don't you start by obeying the rules yourself ? No harm was done by my actions above and you know it. All I did was comunicating (attempting to communicate) with a blocking admin who violated the blocking policy. Your complain here is a form of harrasment) . Read the blocking policy it is VERY clear - the blocking admin should have used my talk page but he did not.

You yourselfalso broken the same rules before (at least twice). As an admin you are supposed to know the rules and apply them. this was comunicated to you clearly here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HOTR&diff=prev&oldid=57078266 . Also let's not ignore tha fact that you yourself have edited (blocked people) while under a block and that you frequently edit under anon IP address (violation). Other abuses by you are investigated. Zeq 05:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That is simply false and checkuser has proven that allegation false. Also, User:Sceptre did not violate blocking policy, the block against you for vote-stacking was entirely justified. You just can't accept that any disciplinary action against you is ever warranted, instead you try to blame everyone else for your misdeeds. It's tiresome. Homey 05:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What you say is false, here are quotes from WP:Block:

"Users should be notified of blocks on their talk pages."

• The blocking admin did not do that

"If you disagree with a block, begin by discussing it with the blocking admin."

• This is what I did and since he did not comunicate on my talk page i turned to his talk page.

The block itself was a violation of WP:Spam (and thus a violation of WP:Block since I was blocked for no good cause, for an untermined time (ended up being 56 hours, without anyone notifying me why or when it will end) Zeq 12:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Alex Kapranos impersonation

An IP, 65.37.181.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), appears to be attempting the impersonate (or possibly is) the lead singer of Franz Ferdinand, Alex Kapranos. He is signing all edits related to the band AK, and has deleted a section from Alex Kapranos with the edit summary "My relationship is private. Comments on the state of it can only be conjecture if posted here. - AK". Does this violate Username policy, since while he is probably trying to impersonate AK, it is using an IP address, not a username of a famous person. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 22:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirect assistance?

I created a redirect for disc one to Disc One: All Their Greatest Hits 1991-2001 and it worked; but then I realized that Disc One wouldn't redirect because of caps, so I set Disc One to redirect, and it worked properly. but now the disc one page won't redirect. It just sits there. I Don't think the page is needed anymore thought because disc one would bring up Disc One unless there's a non-cap article in existance, right? Thanks TheHYPO 01:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

WFM. Snottygobble 02:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're looking to make wikilinks work, then both capitalizations are necessary (wikilinks are case sensitive). If you're looking to make the go button work, the two redirects you've added are equivalent (either enables entry of any capitalization of "disc one" to "go" to the article). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User Using 34-Pixel High Image as Signature Despite Being Asked Not To

Not an active incident, but a heads-up that User:Kittyslasher has a huge image as their signature — see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doom Jenga, the one that says "this hoax really sucks poop!" (yeah, that's a cut-and-paste of his comment). He's been asked already. Reference is WP:SIG: "Images of any kind should not be used in signatures." Obliged! — Mike •  02:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The block log shows that this user has already been indefinitely blocked by SushiGeek as a sock of Nintendude. --bainer (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. For some reason, I didn't see that. — Mike •  03:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible sneaky vandalism at Fishguard and Capinota

I have been coming accross some strange looking edits on Fishguard today. After an attempt to cleanup the article I noticed that the text was the result of edits from newly created accounts and an anon, who also (and only) made similar edits to Capinota which is a totally unrelated subject. Accounts in question: Vany90 (talk · contribs) Haniii (talk · contribs) Ba-KaDüÜ (talk · contribs) Skung (talk · contribs) 80.145.197.126 (talk · contribs) Miri2202 (talk · contribs). Can someone take a look and let me know what they think. Agathoclea 20:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Explanation on [4]. Agathoclea 13:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Xed

Jimbo Wales has banned Anittas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Following this, Anittas and Xed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) abused User talk:Anittas for the purpose of trolling. When this was protected, Xed continued by using the user page as a talk page. Looking at Xed's recent contributions I see nothing but trolling. I have blocked him for one week. Presented here for review. --Tony Sidaway 15:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a sysop, but this looks like a legitimate block. Much trolling under the guise of being a freedom fighter for those maligned by "The Leader". Few contibs otherwise. Good block. -- Samir धर्म 15:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just realised that Xed is on personal attack parole. Some of his recent edits qualify as personal attacks so I will enter this block into the log on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed_2 (there is no log there at present, I'll have to create it). --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Xed asked Jimbo nicely and was unblocked. --Tony Sidaway 16:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Xed began his Wikipedia career with attacks on Jimbo. I see little has changed. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how Xed and Anittas's actions on the latter's talk page in any way constitute abuse and trolling. They simply discussed the fact that Wales's indefinite block of Anittas was unjust and discussed possible ways of rectifying this error in judgement on Jim's part. Are users not allowed to challange or at least discuss the decisions of administrators on their own talk pages? Anittas might have gone a bit too far at the end, but you can surely understand his anger and frustration and his impulsive block, but Xed truly did not engage in any form of abuse or trolling, he simply criticized some of Wales's actions and then criticized Sidaway's action of blocking the talk page which even to me appeared ridiculous in the extreme. Vox Populi (TSO) 17:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't consider this abuse? User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Had he written that statement in bad faith solely in an attempt to blacken Wales's name, it would have been one thing. However, I am certain that he truly believes that the ban was inappropriate (particuarly in the case of Anittas where he posted the same statement) and that those users were banned not as much for their participation in other sections of Wikipedia, but rather for criticizing Wales, and he wrote a brief and concise message to that effect where the topic was being discussed. Vox Populi (TSO) 17:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have very mixed feelings about this situation. I am quite unhappy that the page User talk:Anittas has been protected. I don't think that the remarks that Xed (with whom, to put it mildly, I have had my conflicts) and Anittas made there constitute trolling, but even if they did, trolling usually calls for "do not feed". Period. Anittas is a controversial contributor (and by "controversial" I mean much could be, and has been, said both for and against him). It seems to me to be odd to block precisely the page where those things might appropriately be said. Is there a different forum where discussion can take place, and where that discussion will not be perforce confined to administrators? - Jmabel | Talk 23:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Your points are well made as usual. - Xed 23:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "stupid timewasting" might be a more charitable fit to Xed's recent edits. Anittas I don't know so well but if his edits on User talk:Jimbo Wales are a guide his contributions to the encyclopedia are unlikely to be missed. Xed is especially blessed; he has been unblocked twice by Jimbo Wales. --Tony Sidaway 23:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, Tony, it is clear where you stand, but none of this even begins to explain why you protected User talk:Anittas. In particular, if I understand correctly the way that blocks work, that is the one page that Anittas as a blocked user may legitimately access, and where he could state his case against being blocked. It is also the page where I would expect to have discussion of the block. At least two other Admins besides myself have, on that page, expressed doubts — and I think "doubts", not "opposition" is the right word — about the whether the block was appropriate. And for my simply raising questions and concerns about process, FeloniousMonk has basically challenged me to go "lecture" Jimbo. I have no intention of "lecturing" Jimbo or anyone else. If it has come to the point where as an Admin and a major contributor (and, I believe, a good one; if someone thinks otherwise, I would welcome an RFC rather than cheap shots on talk pages) I am not welcome to ask questions, then it seems to me we've got a problem a lot bigger than whether this particular user should be banned. Again: I think the situation merits discussion. I don't think that discussion should be confined to Administrators. I would like to unprotect User talk:Anittas. (Note: to unprotect the talk page, not to unblock the user.) I would not like to find myself banned or blocked for doing so. Since I cannot get answers on that page to my questions, I am bringing the matter here. - Jmabel | Talk 06:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

University of Kent

A few admins might take a look at University of Kent. The edit war there concerns seriously potentially-libellous issues, and there seems to be at least one loose-cannon editor involved. AndyJones 13:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The new <ref> function improvements

A lot of editors complain about a few bugs they've spotted (along with the goodies) in the new ref function, and even engage in debating and edit-warring about applying or removing it in articles! There's been an extensive (endless) discussion in the relevant talk page (Wikipedia talk:Footnotes). Such discussions often confuse developers who find it harder to recognise what the users desire, than to actually do it. I took the liberty to try and bring these proposals together and formulate a comprehensive proposal for the developers, which has been put to vote. Since most admins here are experienced editors, and probably have a good understanding of these issues, I would like to encourage your participation in the poll, and/or your comments if you so wish. I would also appreciate help with poll procedural issues, since it is my first one.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work in taking this on, NikoSilver. Jkelly 16:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! Snoutwood (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wish I myself could write the darn code too... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation vandalism

A few users opposed to the article Israeli apartheid remove continuously the link to apartheid (disambiguation) from the apartheid proper article. I have used my daily rates of three edits in order to restore the link. Hope some administrator cares to take a look at it. Best regards Bertilvidet 18:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:3RR. "Daily rates of three edits"- three reverts a day are not an entitlement... --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 18:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems like Bertilvidet is admiting above that he haas turned wikipedia into a battleground and does not understand WP:Point#Gaming the system as weel as WP:Not. Clearly the above issue is not a vandalism but a contetent dispute when some user have put a link that would lead people to Israeli apartheid from witin the article History of South Africa in the apartheid era. I fail to see why people who read about history need to get a link to one of wikipedia most non-NPOV article (have never stabalized going through edit-wars and protection all the time) unlesss of course the editor (and the team) that has places this link want to spread their political idology throughout wikipedia. Zeq 18:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:3RR, which also explicitly excludes correction of simple vandalism (and I am not certain if my edits can be considered as such). The apartheid (disambiguation)article has been nominated for deletion, but failed. Attempts to undermine the disambiguation page should not continue at the article about South African Apartheid, where people do a good work. In this regad I believe Zeq's personal opinions on the concept of Israeli Apartheid are utterly irrelevant. Bertilvidet 18:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My personal views are indeed irelevent but policy violations of those who game the system are not:

• 09:34 June 8, 2006–06–08

• 09:53 June 8, 2006–06–08

• 10:00 June 8, 2006–06–08

• 17:43 June 8, 2006–06–08

reported by Zeq 19:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for documenting, what I stated above, that I three times have restored the disambiguation link, that user:Timothy Usher removed three times. May I suggest that we now let some admnistrator comment? Bertilvidet 19:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the various controversy going on about the apartheid articles, the disambiguation link to Apartheid (disambiguation) should be at the top of History of South Africa in the apartheid era (per Wikipedia:Disambiguation), since it redirects from Apartheid. I have left messages on User:Timothy Usher and User:Pecher explaining the details of disambiguation pages, and why the link is necessary, regardless of the disagreements going on. As for a 3RR violation, please list it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR. -- Natalya 20:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why Bertilvidet has decided to flood this noticeboard with their grievances; this is not the right place to discuss content disputes. If Bertilvidet believes that removals of an unnecessary link constitute vandalism, then there are other noticeboards where vandalism is reported. Pecher ^Talk 20:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The chance that a wikipedia reader searching for "Apartheid" is actually looking for "Sexual Apartheid" (for example) is infinitessimal. The link, therefore, is a waste of space from the readers' point of view. It exists only to steer them towards wilfully biased articles about unrelated subjects created in the service not of scholarship, but of political activism. Several of the articles on the disambiguation page appear to have been created only to justify the disambiguation page itself, and to provide cover for the central purpose of making the political statement, "Israel is a lot like Apartheid-era South Africa" - a cynical abuse of this encyclopedia. The removal of the link plainly improves this article, and Wikipedia.Timothy Usher 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The chance they are looking for "apartheid state" which has been used to refer to Israeli apartheid is reasonable as is the chance that someone is looking for apartheid applied to something to do with gays and lesbians without being clear on the term or some sort of apartheid dealing with the third world (global apartheid) without knowing the proper term. Homey 20:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The term "apartheid" refers solely to the practice of racial segregation in South Africa; even if the term was hijacked by left-wing activists for the purposes of vilifying Israel and the West. Disambiguation pages are not search aids; this disambiguation link is plain advertisement of articles started by Homey, articles that are nothing but political diatribes. Pecher ^Talk 21:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Amazing that you are still not aware about the concept Apartheid being used in several contexts. See for instance the entry in Britannica [5]. Bertilvidet 21:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Bertilvidet, your source is not Britannica, but Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary. The first definition is specific, the second only rhetorical and metaphorical, as a more serious dictionary would no doubt show.Timothy Usher 22:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I might suggest moving this discussion to any number of more related pages, so that it can be used to work on the ongoing conflict. -- Natalya 22:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

To User:Natalya

Your involvement in this matter was a result of a request[6] by the prime instigator of the current mess we are in.

I suggest you that you look at this from the perspective of rarely under stood wikipedia policy WP:Point:

• Homey's point, a political one (which is a violation of WP:not) is to use wikipedia to spread the notion that "Israel is an apartheid state".
• Homey's has pushed this idea by creating an elaborate set of articles about apartheid (5 of them to be exact), at which point it seemed only natural to require a DAB page. (no doubt, Homey, an experienced admin, knows how to game the system.)
• Once the DAB page created homey has placed a link to this page in the article about history of South Africa and now each person that comes to wikipedia to look for "apartheid" may click the DAB page leading him/her to an article about the so-called "Israeli apartheid" and... presto the propagation of political message have been suucessful: Distributing political propaganda via wikipedia works !

• Since this whole effort is a clear violation of WP:Point I suggest you do not join this blunt policy violation.

BTW, the diff I placed above clearly show that Homey (the one edited the 4th diff) participated in an edit war to push his agenda - After Bert "exhausted" what he think of as "3 reverts per day" Homey jumps in the continue the edit-war. (This is also a violation of WP:Point: See WP:Point#Gaming_the_system

I hope that in light of this being part of a bigger picture you would think of a better solution than to accept and support this policy violation. Zeq 21:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, has it still not come to your mind that the same behavior, reverting three times and then being replaced by another friend, was conducted by the other side? BTW, I really find the new nickname you gave me - Bert - cute, despite being a bit anglophonic ;-) Bertilvidet 21:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not true. At first there was a legitimate edit, you started the edit-war by reverting this edit. Next were only 2 reverts (not that I aprove of participating in the edit war) so he actually never reached 3. You on the other hand based on your own admission above violated WP:Point#Gaming_the_system - read it , understand it and live by it. Zeq 21:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Which edit you find legimate is your opinion, not an objective fact. Check the history page and you will realize that Tim reverted three times today, and Pech then jumped in. I was unsure of the removal of the link qualified as simple vandalism, and thats why I stopped after three edits. Bertilvidet 22:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, you then solicited HOTR to revert on your behalf[7], which he did thirty-six minutes later[8].

The proper use of the term "vandalism" is clearly explained in the relevant policy: good-faith edits are not vandalism. There was no reason, then, to be "uncertain" about it. However, accepting for the sake of discussion that you were uncertain, what changed between then and the time you titled this report, "Disambiguation vandalism?"[9]Timothy Usher 22:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I came here in order to dicuss it. Bertilvidet 22:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, I hope you do not misunderstand my involvment in this matter. It is not to support or disagree with either side of a conflict, but is simply to keep disambiguation pages running as they are supposed to. I do not hope to determine whether the existance of apartheid (disambiguation) is appropriate, but since it currently does exist (no concensus having been come to at it's AfD), it needs to be linked to from the primary topic. If the page were to be deleted, the link would be appropriate to be removed. Until that point comes about, it should still be there. -- Natalya 22:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly by looking an isolated issues and not the bigger pictrure is how the "system" is being manipulated. Zeq 03:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade

This arbitration case is closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

Sam Spade is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation and is cautioned to avoid unwarranted assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks and admonished to comment on content, not on the contributor. He is reminded that administrators are empowered to block for such policy violations if they disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Issabella16101610

User repeatedly made nonsense personal edits in Paducah Kentucky (which user made) even after I warned and redirected it to the existing page Paducah, Kentucky (with the comma). User proceeded to make personal POV edits in that page, and I can't revert again with violating 3RR. Can someone help revert and try to explain to user? thanks. --mtz206 (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Done, and I'll block the next time. Sasquatch t|c 23:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --mtz206 (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I didn't find the name even remotely inappropriate. Exploding Boy 00:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

HUH? Sasquatch t|c 00:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that was supposed to go here. RadioKirk talk to me 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Exploding Boy is removing warnings

Exploding Boy had may personal attacks upon myself during the course of editing. He decided to make up a new name for me here ("Chuckwagon") and said that my edits were useless here. I gave him a {{Npa-n}} warning here in regards to the edits. Here he removed the warning, and then I added it back with a removing warnings message. He removed that one and tried explaining on my talk page (in a not very civil tone) that I had no idea what I was talking about. I added the warning back with a {{Wr2}} message, which is the final warning for removing warnings. He has since removed all of the warnings. He has been notified that he can/will be blocked for this and has told me to "stop threatening [him] with] a block". I believe a block is the proper course of action after receiving a {{Wr2}} and blanking warnings after that. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 20:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of an npa warning is to make the user aware of the policy. I can assure you that he is now aware of it. Beyond that, the state of his talk page is really for him to worry about, not you or me. Henry^Flower 20:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain what your talking about. Npa is a warning, and he removed it. If he had talked about the problem, I wouldn't have cared, but he didn't. He removed it, removed it again, and removed it again. It may not be our place to say the state of his talk page, but he cannot remove warnings, that is a clear-cut policy. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 20:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, please note that using templates to communicate with an experienced user can be seen as offensive or inflammatory, especially when you have been involved in a dispute with that user. FreplySpang 21:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Removing warnings is a proposed policy. It is not policy. Henry^Flower 21:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to Wikipedia:Removing warnings, but to Wikipedia:Vandalism, where under types of vandalism it has "Removing warnings". WP:V isan official policy. And just because he is an experienced user who was committing personal attacks, doesn't mean he can't get a warning template. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 21:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a very important may in that wording. You seem to misunderstand the whole point of the npa warning: it's not a black mark to give out to naughty people; it's a device to make people aware of the policy as efficiently as possible. It's not an appropriate way to communicate with established editors who are likely to know the policy already. Henry^Flower 21:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Henry is, to be sure, correct; for new users, the templates do sometimes serve as more than edifying devices, as they allow other editors to see that a user has been apprised of our policies and guidelines, in order that, should he/she continue to flout those guidelines, further warning or blocking may occur. Here, the warning serves, at best, to inform EB that you took his comments to be personal attacks; once he has read the warning and apprehended your meaning, he may remove it. I think it's a bit untoward to remove warnings--or any commentary, really--from one's talk page, believing that one ought to reply to, rather than excise, comments with which he/she disagrees, but neither would I try to compel others to act similarly nor would I support a blanket proscription on removing warnings (which does not now exist). Finally, even as EB's comments were indecorous (although Chuckwagon seems a jocular, if unduly informal and perhaps patronizing, appellative, and certainly not a personal attack), I don't think they rise of the level of blockable personal attacks; in this instance, you would be better served to leave an actual note on his talk page, to the effect that his edits bothered you and that you perceived them as personal attacks, the cessation of which you would, as you continue to collaborate with him and others, appreciate. Joe 21:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Having been one of the targets of User:Chcknwnm's recent NPA tagging spree, I also think he's grossly misusing the template as a warning for those he thinks are being uncivil. Please try using your own works to discuss the concerns you have instead of lobbing templates. You might also want to review the personal attack policy for a bit of clarification on what a personal attack really looks like. Shell ^babelfish 10:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I know this is long over (relatively), but I wanted to clarify that my spree consisted of adding the template to two people's talk, Shell and EB. I realize I should have said the comments were uncivil rather than PA's. I had made a mistake. However, removing warnings should still be discouraged/disallowed until they are discussed. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 07:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Myrtone86's signature

Can we please force him to change his irritating sig (which misuses {{PAGENAME}})? His current sig, as it stands, is [[User:Myrtone86|Myr'''tone'''@{{PAGENAME}}.com.au]]... horribly irritating. At least two users have complained to him, but he has refused to change it. NSLE _(T+C) at 13:15 UTC (2006-06-08)

Please be a bit more tollerant, my signiture may be unusual but I could still say the same of those of many other wikipedians, such as ones with pictures, etc. It is like if you were white (as I am), you grew up never having seen a black, but saw one later in your life, what would you think of their skin colour, if you found it irretating, then you have got my analogy. User:Myrtone86:-(

Other Wikipedians with disruptive signatures are asked to change them. Your analogy is also confusing and not relevant at all. Please consider removing the irritating use of the PAGENAME magic word from your signature; I especially dislike the way you suffix it with .com.au which is completely beyond me, although somewhat dubious. Thank you. robchurch | talk 13:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't say I like it... I seriously thought I had a fan whenever you left a message on my talk page :) Thanks for your quick reply Myrtone86. -- Longhair 13:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This user's insolent attitude to reasonable requests convinces me that he needs encouragement. Blocked for three hours to help him to make up his mind [10]. --Tony Sidaway 13:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

He also seems to have been engaged in some vandalism. Warned. --Tony Sidaway 14:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

He also opposed Gurch's RFA with the utterly ridiculous reasoning of "no userboxes". Talk about trolling. --Cyde↔Weys 15:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

He also opposed Samir's RFA because he didn't speak a differant language? What exactly is he trying to prove? The King of Kings 18:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Still hasn't changed the sig and the race commentary is bizarre. FYI, fluent in three languages. -- Samir धर्म 00:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

His talkpage is just a complete circle jerk of complaints about his behaviour. I doubt his signature was made to do anything but annoy people. He seems to have made a habit out of it. --mboverload@ 23:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No userboxes? Isn't this the guy who made a WP:POINT out of TfDing a ton of userboxes? --Rory096 07:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Chooserr

• Chooserr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have removed two instances of solicitation of funds for political purposes, through linking to an external donation web page, from each of Chooserr's user page and talk page. Chooserr had been editing but his response to requests by other editors that he remove the links was negative and defiant. --Tony Sidaway 14:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Negative and defiant? As soon as he logged on he replied to the person who'd warned him, and as he demonstrated on Tony's talk page, nobody bothered to explain to him that there was actually a policy violation there. Then Tony gives him this reply, and Chooserr does this and then on second thought, this. Congratulations, Wikipedia. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're being unnecessarily charitable towards Chooserr. Everybody knows this isn't where you come for fundraising. --Tony Sidaway 19:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Everybody knows? Chooserr's had that link on his page for about six months, and nobody's ever said a word to him about it. How does he know that the "wide latitude" we allow in user space doesn't include what we've been allowing him for six months? It's not like an admin's never looked at his page. You think I'm being too charitable; I think you're being way too brash and disrespectful. Tony, you talk to people like they're misbehaving dogs and you're their master; it's disgusting. Would it kill you to treat people respectfully? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be nice if occasionally an administrator wasn't pilloried for removing blatantly unsuitable material from the site and warning the editor in question. Your own part in this was unfortunate; you restored the solicitation link after another editor had correctly removed it after the warning. Don't make it worse by blaming others. --Tony Sidaway 19:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with you removing blatantly unsuitable material. I have a serious problem with your apparent inability to maintain courtesy. You contribute a lot to the Wiki, and we all appreciate that, but you are not above WP:CIVIL. If it's not readily apparent to you that you could have handled this situation much better, then I question your good sense.

As for my action, I explained it sufficiently at the time. Removing a link that had been sitting there for six months is not so urgent that it overrides our basic need to treat each other well. An administrator had left a warning, asking Chooserr to remove the material himself, and then acted on it before Chooserr had even logged on again, as least as indicated by his Contributions page. Then another editor vandalized the page by inserting different linkspam. Having a choice of which version to revert to, I chose the version where Chooserr still had a chance to remove the offending link himself, because what's the point in giving someone a chance to fix something for himself, if you're going to just do it before he actually gets that chance? I err on the side of respect, because it pays to maintain an atmosphere in which people treat each other excellently.

Again, to be very clear, you have mischaracterized my statements. I am not criticizing you for removing the link. I am criticizing you for talking down to other human beings. It's unnecessary, rude, counterproductive, and against policy.

Oh, another thing: I'm not "blaming" you for anything. I'm just saying be more respectful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a minor correction, GTBacchus. Timothy Usher did leave a request (I wouldn't call it a warning), but you're incorrect in stating that an administrator did. Timothy is not an admin. Jumping in to remove it before Chooserr had logged on was, of course, unfortunate, as it made it more difficult for Chooserr to do so without losing face. AnnH ♫ 11:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

For those of you just joining us, Alienus (talk · contribs) has been embroiled in a long struggle with this user; see his talk page. Isopropyl 21:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If I've failed to maintain courtesy, GTBacchus, then you're right to reprove me. I agree that Alienus was very, very naughty and he's been given warnings by Nandesuka and (when he told me about that warning) me. There may be some minor details of timing here but I won't go into those, just observe that at the time I removed the links he'd been told about the problem and was being pretty stroppy about it. It really doesn't take an immense amount of thought to realise that what Chooserr was doing is absolutely prohibited, anywhere on Wikipedia, even on Chooserr's talk page and user page.

Chooserr has a pretty massive block log and does seem to have a history of biased editing [11]. Had he come here to produce unbiased edits but had only popped a fundraising link onto his user page by accident, then of course a lighter approach would have been appropriate. But Chooserr isn't about that at all. He uses his user page to advertise his pet causes, though he does so in a reasonably Wikipedian way:

• American Life League
• The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
• Pro-Life Alliance
• SPUC
• Student LifeNet

• British Weights and Measures Association
• Foundation for Endangered Languages

Now Chooserr has been up to this for six months. Hooray! Let's allow him to continue to engage in political fundraising for another three weeks or so. Or should we just remove the bloody horrible thing and tell him not to abuse Wikipedia again? --Tony Sidaway 00:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

First I was "pillorying" you for removing inappropriate material, and when that turned out not to be true, I'm suggesting that you put off removing the material for three weeks. Where will you go when that turns out to be false?

I'm actually quite familiar with Chooserr's history. I remember him new at Wikipedia, getting blocked left and right, and I watched him learn how to edit here, and how to use the talk page instead of revert warring, and how images have copyrights that we have to worry about, and I have seen him become a valuable member of the editing team on some articles that we both work on. He hasn't been blocked since the last time I blocked him in February, because he's improved, and he's helping build the encylcopedia. The linkspam on his page - you were right, it had to go - but I see a human being there, and I have no problem having a conversation explaining to him about why the links aren't cool. You know, changing the culture one person at a time? Apparently, you don't see a human worthy of respect, all you see is "abuse"; and who has time for a conversation or a civil interaction, when you could be bossy and contemptuous instead? It's efficient, that contempt stuff.

So apparently, I'm asking that we screw around for three weeks, and "allow abuse" or something; that's right, Tony. Christ. You really think the small effort of treating someone respectfully is a big waste? That's all I'm talking about. You're right about everything, of course, but you could treat people better, and you should, because it matters. Stop contributing to an atmostphere of combativeness. Play well with others. This is all I'm saying. If you want to blow a bunch of smoke about how I'm harassing you for removing unsuitable content, or what a "bad user" Chooserr is anyway, and how he was being "stroppy" (what a load of horseshit), I don't buy it, and I don't give a fuck either. None of that is an excuse for you to be a dick. Stop poisoning the well, because I care about this project a lot, and I don't like you marring it with your antisocial attitude. If I see you shitting on people, I will call you out on it.

Now, are you going to find another way to miss the point, and drag this out longer, or what? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the odd user page or two asking for donations via Paypal in return for their wiki contributions. Is this also frowned upon? -- Longhair 00:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly not. I don't know. --Tony Sidaway 18:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Depends who you ask. Me, if it helps build the encyclopedia, then so be it (but certainly don't spam asking for it). Hell, I wouldn't mind some pocket money myself for the hours I've put in here. Snoutwood (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Chooserr - Enforcing policy doesn't require trampling on other editors

Chooserr had those links for months. I haven't checked the history to see how long exactly. I had noticed them before, and had found them inappropriate for a Wikipedia user page. However, I have seen user pages and user talk pages with pictures of penises (and I don't mean just the one recently reported at WP:AN/I; I have seen user pages which attacked or belittled other users. I saw no reason to barge in and trample on another editor — especially when it involved an editor who might feel ganged up against. This has been discussed before at one of the admin noticeboards. Chooserr has been blocked (or had blocks increased) for doing things that were not against policy, but were disruptive (welcoming too many new users, saving his talk page every minute while blocked, in the hope that someone would see his unblock request on Recent Changes). I am quite sure that I could have stopped some of the problems without resorting to a block — just by asking nicely. Editors who have openly wiki-stalked him, reverting his good-faith edits with "rvv" or "mindless, incoherent troll" were never blocked. For those reasons, I prefer to be extra gentle and extra tactful when dealing with Chooserr. I have found, also, that he responds much better to people making polite requests than to people bullying or threatening him. (Don't we all?)

At 16:35 (UTC) on 1 June, Alienus removed the link from Chooserr's talk page with no prior warning or request. The edit summary said this is offensive enough on a user page; it doesn't belong on a talk page.[12] Note that Chooserr did not edit Wikipedia between 31 May and 3 June, so presumably did not see it at the time.

At 20:01 on 1 June, Elliskev reverted, with rvv.[13]

At 20:05 on 1 June, Elliskev sent Alienus a {{tpv2}} message.[14]

There was some discussion then at Alienus's talk page, and at Elliskev's talk page. It later spread to Timothy Usher's talk page. At one stage, Elliskev removed Alienus's message (asking him to AGF) from his talk page. Alienus promptly sent him a {{civil}} message and commented on the rudeness of deleting a message, although he routinely deletes any message he receives from Nandesuka using popups. Elliskev deleted the {{civil}} warning as well, though after discussion with Timothy, he restored these messages.

At 02:31 on 2 June, Timothy posted a message to Chooserr saying that the link was inappropriate, and politely requesting him to remove it.[15]

At 04:05 on 3 June, Timothy posted to Chooserr: As you've not responded, I've done it. [16] Note that Chooserr had not edited at all since the request was made, and so had presumably not been online.

At 04:06 on 3 June, Timothy removed the link, but kept the words "Make Abortion History".[17]

At 05:15 on 3 June, Alienus vandalized Chooserr's talk page by linking "Make Abortion History" to the donation page of Planned Parenthood — edit summary: a link is fine, so long as it's not to anything partisan.[18] The page now looked exactly as it had looked before Timothy removed the link, but the link was to the donation page of a pro-choice website, rather than of a pro-life one.

At 05:23 on 3 June, GTBacchus restored the page to Chooserr's version — certainly not out of approval of the link (Chooserr and GTB disagree on article content), but presumably because he felt annoyed by the vandalism and harassment, and felt that the removal of a link which had already been several months on a page which visitors browsing Wikipedia would be unlikely to see was a less urgent matter than treating another human being with respect.[19]

At 05:51 GTBacchus pointed out that Chooserr had not even logged on, and that "respectfully waiting for a reply" was "more important than making [the link] be gone now".[20]

At 05:53 on 3 June, Timothy posted, "Okay, let's wait until he's logged on."[21]

There was also discussion on Alienus's talk page showing that Alienus was defiant, unrepentant, and flippant.

Most editors who logged on to find all that in the page history would find it a bit galling to remove the link. Once again, I agree it shouldn't have been there, but for Alienus (who is in constant dispute with Chooserr, and who at the time had offensive comments about three editors on his own talk page) to barge in and remove it without request or warning, for Timothy to jump the gun by removing it before Chooserr had had a chance to respond, and for Alienus then to vandalize his page by linking to something that promoted the opposing POV must all have have contributed towards making Chooserr feel that he didn't want to remove the link. I saw the history of his talk page just before I went into work on Saturday morning, and decided I'd ask him myself to remove the link: I felt fairly sure he would agree, and it would all blow over. I have found that Chooserr responds well to being treated with ordinary human respect — something which unfortunately does not seem to have been tried by Alienus or Tony in this case.

In fact, at 06:50 on 3 June (his first edit in three days) Chooserr wrote to Timothy, thanking him for his comments, saying that they were obviously well meant, and that he might remove the tags.[22] I wouldn't call that "negative", "defiant", or "stroppy". Nine minutes later, he posted a fairly mild message to Alienus, asking him not to vandalize his page.[23] His next edit, at 07:25 was to his own user page, where he removed two links to external sites requesting donations for the pro-life cause, and kept the remaining one. I would call that a step in the right direction, not being "negative", "defiant", and "stroppy". I would also consider it to be evidence that reasoning with Chooserr would be better than bullying him.

When I got home from work, I discovered that Alienus had added "Well, he's logged on and entirely unrepentant" at 14:05[24] (No sign of any repentence from Alienus for his own trolling, vandalism, and insult.)

At 14:13, 14:19, 14:20, and 14:34, Tony Sidaway made four edits to Chooserr's talk page, removing the link, calling it "completely inappropriate", threatening "to block [Chooserr] for linkspamming if [he] insist[ed] on abusing Wikipedia in this way". That must have been especially galling for Chooserr since Alienus had not been threatened with a block. (He was subsequently threatened by Nandesuka.) Tony may have been unaware of the vandalism, but was able to make (false) statements here about Chooserr having been "negative and defiant".

At 18:28 on 3 June, Tony told Alienus that his edit (linking Chooserr's page to a Planned Parenthood donation page) was "out of order", and asked him "please" not to do stuff like that again.[25] (No "completely out of line", no threats to block.)

At 19:07 on 3 June, Tony, in response to Chooserr's protest that he would have taken down the link himself if someone had shown him it was against policy, said "You've been told now. Happy?"[26]

I have just two questions for Tony and Alienus:

1. Would it have been possible to get that link removed without threats and vandalism?
2. Assuming that it was possible, would it have been preferable to get it removed without threats and vandalism?

I'm quite, quite sure that I, or GTBacchus, or FreplySpang would have been able to get those links removed without trampling on Chooserr, without making him feel that someone who had vandalized his talk page was vindicated (note that Alienus claimed elsewhere that his action had been redone by another admin), and without resorting to threats of blocks. Tony, you've managed to get that link removed, which is good for the project, so you probably feel that this has been a success, but in my view, the only people who could be happy at the way this was done are people who don't think that real human beings with real feelings matter. GTBacchus has come out of this extremely well. Nobody else has.

AnnH ♫ 11:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware of Alienus' vandalism. In fact alienus later told me about Nandesuka's warning (which contained a block threat [27]). I told alienus not to do it again, feeling that a further block threat was superfluous as he'd stopped. Personally I would probably have blocked alienus without a warning had I been aware of the vandalism at the time. He is an experienced editor and should know better.

Alienus' vandalism to a certain extent explains and mitigates Chooserr's uncooperative and defiant attitude. I think it's possible, though it seems incredibly unlikely, that Chooserr didn't realise that what he was doing on his talk page and user page was quite beyond the pale. --Tony Sidaway 13:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought you probably were not aware of Alienus's vandalism at the time, and I agree that since he was unlikely to do it again, a further block threat was superfluous. My problem was with the block threat that you issued to Chooserr. If Jimbo came to your talk page to tell you that he'll block you if you vandalize his user page, there would be an implication that he suspected you of intending to, which would be unfair. Your non vandalism could then be seen by others as simply a result of that threat (that you knew you wouldn't get away with it), which would make you lose face, and would be undeserved. In my view, the threat of blocking Chooserr was also undeserved — much more so than a threat to Alienus would have been, as Alienus did something that was definitely malicious and definitely intended to taunt Chooserr, whereas Chooserr was simply linking to something unsuitable which he probably thought he could link to. As GTBacchus says, he had had it there for months, administrators had frequently visited his page, and nobody had said anything. Chooserr edits articles closely related to his own interests, and shows little interest in Project pages concerning policy. He may have heard that we allow a "wide latitude" concerning user pages. In any case, I don't agree that what he was doing was "quite beyond the pale". If it had been, someone would have protested earlier. I do agree it was inappropriate, but feel sure (and GTBacchus and I both have more experience of Chooserr than you do) that it was in good faith. I personally believe that putting images of penises and/or human excrement on one's talk page is "quite beyond the pale". And I think that what Alienus did was "quite beyond the pale".

What worries me, Tony, is that while you have acknowledged that Alienus's vandalism was a mitigating factor, you still use language like "Chooserr's uncooperative and defiant attitude", which ties in with your original language of "defiant", "negative", and "being pretty stroppy about it". You haven't offered any diffs to show that he was defiant, negative, or stroppy, and GTBacchus and I have both given diffs to show that his first post after being made aware of the objections was a polite one to Timothy saying "I thank you for your comments. They are obviously well meant, and I might remove the tag(s) . . . I'm not trying to cause trouble", and that he then removed two of the three links he had. He was probably still thinking about the remaining one. Nobody had shown him it was against policy. All he had been treated to was vandalism, taunts, and people taking the matter out of his hands while he was offline and before he was aware of any objections.

I recall as long ago as last summer I began to notice that you sometimes voted to support RfAs of people with whom you had been in dispute, and I thought, "that's decent of him; he's obviously fair." It wasn't just once or twice: I noticed it many times. And now I see you most unjustly (in my view) threatening someone with a block and reporting him as "defiant", "negative", "stroppy" and "uncooperative" without any justification whatsoever. Everything I've seen about you suggests that you care deeply about the project — but we're dealing here with a real human being who has feelings.

I used to have a Catholic user box on my user page, plus a pro-life one, plus a homemade one that said I was obedient to the Pope, plus another one that said I agreed with Humanae Vitae. At that time, many people had user boxes. I was completely unaware that Jimbo didn't want it. When Jimbo made his very courteous request, clarifying how he felt, appealing for our cooperation, etc., I thought about it for a few days, and then took away all my boxes except the homemade "obedient-to-Benedict" one. I felt he'd find that less objectionable because it wasn't in template space, and I had made it myself, so it didn't encourage a "clubbing together" of editors. He never (as far as I know) specified his views on boxes in user space, and I watched to see if he would. Eventually, when redesigning my user page, I removed even the Benedict one. I think it would have been quite inappropriate to describe me as "negative", "defiant", "stroppy", and "uncooperative", and to have threatened me with a block while I was thinking about it. But the end of the story is that the boxes were removed, and nobody bullied me or took away my dignity. Chooserr's story didn't have such a happy ending.

By the way, Alienus has continued to hassle Chooserr, by removing an extremely mild post from one of Chooserr's friends[28] and by sending him a {{welcome}} message in its place, because the page looked "empty".[29] He's gaming the system, because he feels he can't get blocked for sending someon a welcome message, but it's pure impertinence, coming from someone in dispute with Chooserr, whose messages Chooserr definitely doesn't welcome, and when Chooserr has been here for over six months. He was then what I would call defiant and uncooperative, when GTBacchus asked him would it not be better to leave Chooserr alone, feigning innocence, pretending not to know what GTB was talking about, saying that he didn't see how the welcome message could be seen as any kind of insult etc. See here.

Anyway, the main point of all this is that in my view Chooserr was not negative, defiant, uncooperative, or stroppy, and should not have been threatened with a block. When it was brought to his attention, he answered nicely, took away two of the links, and was presumably still thinking about the third, at a time when nobody had shown him any policy that forbade it. It would be nice of you, Tony, if you could leave a message on his talk page telling him that you see that nobody had shown him the policy, that he wasn't refusing to remove the link, and that you shouldn't have threatened him. AnnH ♫ 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I could have misread Chooserr's attitude. It did seem to me that continuing to have that link up and continuing to edit without doing anything about it spelled deliberate defiance in very unambiguous terms, and what appeared to me as a patronisingly-worded "I'll think about it"-type response was very negative.

I think I got it wrong here. I'll apologise on User talk:Chooserr for the tone of my warning message. --Tony Sidaway 23:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. That was very nice of you, and I'm sure that Chooserr appreciated it. AnnH ♫ 14:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. I wholeheartedly agree with your action, but also with Ann's description of your tone, and am really pleased to see this being resolved favorably on both fronts.

And Ann, as for no one looking good but GTBacchus - you've criticized me for removing it before Chooserr came back online, but the link violated policy - why should it have remained just because Chooserr was taking a wikibreak? I also condemned Alienus' gratuitous post-removal vandalism. Both were out of line. Though I don't, as you note, have the power to block for vandalism, I do have the ability to remove links that shouldn't be, and I used it.

I personally don't understand the level of hostility towards pro-life here - it seems to me an issue upon which good-faith disagreement is natural and hardly cause for demonization - but maintain that it shouldn't be exacerbated by irrelevant (to wikipedia) statements in userspace. Since then, Chooserr has taken issue with another editors' user-page discussion of his transsexuality (pardon me if I've abused the increasingly arcane rules of jargon), which I personally (key word) find kind of disturbing as well, though as Tony rightly asserts, it's well within current policy. I honestly don't know why we need any of it. Who cares if you're pro-life? Who cares if you're Muslim? Who cares if you're transgendered? It's all off-topic and pointlessly divisive.Timothy Usher 06:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I disagreed with your removal of the link while Chooserr was still offline, but if it was criticism, it was of the mildest kind. I didn't feel shocked or angry, just "I wish he'd left Chooserr to do it himself." People prefer to be asked to do something without the "and-if-you-don't-I-will" threat. I agreed with GTBacchus's remark that "respectfully waiting for a reply" was "more important than making [the link] be gone now", but I wouldn't push the point. There's room for disagreement there, based on how much we think the link violates policy and how urgent we think its removal is. Remember, it was there for six months, and several administrators (pro-choice ones as well) visited his talk page and didn't protest. You say it violated policy, so why should it remain while he's on wiki-break? Well, I'm convinced that such a solicitation is against what Jimbo Wales intends Wikipedia to be, and that's good enough for me; but I'm not convinced that it violates any explicit policy. Wikipedia is not a soapbox deals with what you shouldn't have in an article; it doesn't say what you may or may not have on your user page. POV edits violate policy, but you can't remove them a fourth time in 24 hours: you have to leave them there. I personally think it's more urgent to get rid of something that shouldn't be in an article, because visitors who look up something in Wikipedia are unlikely to navigate to Chooserr's talk page. I think that allowing Chooserr to do the right thing of his own accord would have been preferable to urgently removing the link. It wasn't as if the link was to a site that gave personal information about other editors. And it wasn't as if Chooserr had been gone for a month. Can we agree to disagree on this? My "disapproval" of what you did was so mild that I wouldn't have bothered mentioning it anywhere if the whole business of Chooserr's "negative and defiant" attitude hadn't been brought up here. AnnH ♫ 14:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. For those of you just joining us, my name is Al, and AnnH has been talking about me here. Whatever her motivation, the net effect has been to shift the focus away from Chooserr's inappropriate advertisement and towards my response. Of course, this is a logical fallacy to begin with, as nothing I do can excuse Chooserr's prior acts.

I'll try to be brief, because this is Chooserr's incident report, not mine. What I'd like to state for the record is that any editor reading this would be unwise to take AnnH's summaries of my actions at face value. With all due respect, her descriptions are misleading in a negative fashion.

Now, I realize that, due to her rather strong Christian POV (which is coincidentally shared by Chooserr), she and I have a history of conflict. Coincidentally, she's acted a few times to encourage others to block me and extend my blocks, and has generally sided against me whenever we've interacted. I guess we disagree on a bunch of stuff. However, I don't believe that this is sufficient basis to excuse her violation of WP:AGF, much less her apparent willingness to play fast and loose with the facts.

I'll give you one quick example and then walk away. As some of you know, there's a particular trio of editors who I've had much more conflict with than is healthy for anyone. The result has been a trio of blocks, after which I resolved not to repeat my error by continuing to interact with them. As a result, I put a short, polite message at the top of my page explaining why, to avoid confrontation, I would simply remove any comments from them rather than respond and further antagonize them.

If you read it for yourself, you can see that the message expressed some frustration, but was still quite civil [30]. Note that nobody, not even AnnH, ever complained that it was uncivil. More significantly, as that diff shows, the moment one of those three extended the olive branch, I immediately accepted it and removed the message.

That's the reality. In the world according to AnnH, I had "offensive comments about three editors on [my] own talk page". See what I mean? Similar distortions can be found in each and every case where she brings up my name.

With all due respect, I feel hurt by Ann's remarks and wish she hadn't made them. In the end, all I can ask is that you use your own eyes and judgement instead of depending on hers. I'm only peripherally involved in this Chooserr issue and don't wish to be drawn in any further, so I'm going to walk away now, as promised. Please don't be distracted by this silliness; the Chooserr issue still needs to be resolved, and no amount of focus on me will help. Thank you for understanding. Al 06:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anyone in this conversation but valuable editors, of undoubted good faith, and certainly none of us needs to be characterized as "the bad guy". -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should inform Ann of that fact, since she seems interested in characterizing me as the bad guy, so as to spare Chooserr. Al 03:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you think I just said, in my above post? I just called you a "valuable editor" and said there's not need to characterize you as the bad guy. Why did you think I posted that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm pointing out that this is something that Ann in specific ought to read. Al 16:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

When in a hole - stop digging. Agathoclea 17:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, it is perfectly appropriate to bring up your vandalism of Chooserr's talk page in this section, where Chooserr's attitude was being discussed. You say that it's irrelevant because nothing you do can excuse Chooserr's prior acts. I think it has generally been agreed now that Chooserr was unaware that he was in violation of any policy when he put the link there, and your vandalism is very relevant to the discussion of Chooserr's attitude after he was requested to remove the link (an attitude which was Tony has now agreed he may have misjudged). If you don't want your feelings hurt by reference to your vandalism, I suggest you don't vandalize. I don't think there are many Wikipedians who will argue that changing Chooserr's MAKEABORTIONHISTORY link so that it looked the same as before but now linked to the Planned Parenthood donation page instead of to a Catholic Pro-life charity was not vandalism. If an Ulster Protestant puts Ian Paisley on his user page in a list of admirable people, and I change it so that it links to Pope Benedict XVI while still saying Ian Paisley, that is vandalism, pure and simple. Nandesuka called it vandalism and threatened a block, Timothy called it vandalism, Tony called it vandalism and said he would probably have blocked you without warning if he had seen it at the time, and GTBacchus reverted it and told you that it was "not cool". I suggest that instead of edit warring at my talk page to put bogus {{civil1}} warnings there because of my post above, you explain why I'm mistaken in calling it vandalism.

By the way, I acknowledge that you did remove your reference to the three editors who were (according to you) responsible for your last three blocks when Nandesuka extended the olive branch. However, what I said was that at the time that you removed something from Chooserr's talk page on the grounds that it was offensive, you had something on your talk page that was offensive. You may not think it was offensive, but then Chooserr probably didn't think his link was offensive either. AnnH ♫ 14:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm on UK time so have just read all this (one of the userboxes I think is useful) and I think it's sad to see so much stereotyping of other editors. One very interesting interaction I had on Intelligent design brought it home to me how without realising it we do interpret other editors messages by guessing their intent. I have also seen persona non grata editors have their very valid suggestions ignored or challenged as other editors have chosen to disregard their edits no matter what. Tim was right that the link did not need to stand - this is a wiki so no one owns space. Ann is right that tact always works best and Al is right that this report is about Chooserr's inappropriate link. Unfortunately conflict does happen but we should be prepared to AGF and not always fall into the trap of viewing the edits of people we share a POV with favourably and those of editors we clash with as "attacks" or "vandalism". Sophia 09:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well said Sophia. May I add it does not go down very well in calling people sock/meat-puppets because they agree with opponents edits. Constant defence fighting does not help ones image. Agathoclea 10:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Also it is often said that "converts are the most dangerous". So after convincing C that POV links on ones userpage in a no-no it is not surprising to see him looking for the same mistake elsewhere. Agathoclea 10:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Some believe that others should suffer as they do. Others believe that their own suffering is bad enough and need not be repeated. I lean towards the latter, myself. Al 03:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to second Alienus' characterizations of AnnH's tendency to not simply report the facts relevant to the case, but to expand them against antoher editor with a bad faith spin that can be viewed as a distortion. This is not to say that AnnH is not reporting what she genuinely believes to be the case. I always assume good faith, but I note that this occurs only when she is commenting about editors with whom she finds herself on the opposite side of the ideological fence with (what she has called enemies). So, in her view, Alienu's message about his conflict with the three other editors could very well be, in her eyes, "offensive messages left by AI...," but she does not use NPOV language to state this belief of hers, but states it as if Alienus is guilty as a matter of fact of doing these bad things, being in essence uncivil by leaving offense remarks about other editors, etc. This is why Alienus feels attacked here, because he is being attacked. Its also true that this is supposed to be about a specific incident regarding Chooser, but AnnH felt the need to bring up other "evidence" to try to paint a negative picture of Alieus, which is not really related and which distracts from the issue. This is something that is also a common technique that AnnH uses. I've seen it many times. Therefore, I highly recommend that whenever AnnH comments about a user that she has direct POV conflicts with, take her views of the matter with great caution as you will need to shift through what is relevant and what is not, as well as to filter out the significant bias in the editorializing and spin that is sure to come from such a partisan editor.Giovanni33 17:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I expand them "with a bad faith spin", and you "always assume good faith"? Hmmm. How would you describe my "bad faith spin" if you weren't assuming good faith? And is your reference to my bringing up unrelated issues something to do with the fact that I sometimes bring up the way you pretended to have no conncetion to BelindaGong (who was reverting and voting for you) until a checkuser exposed that it was the same IP, and that while you were blocked for puppetry, you were asked if you had any connection to any of the other new users who were reverting to your version, and you denied it — forgetting that you were logged on as one of them![31]

Giovanni, I won't bring up these "unrelated issues" except where:

1. We're working on an article, you run out of reverts, and an account that shows that its purpose on Wikipedia is to revert and vote for you (and that has the same linguistic idiosyncrasies and spelling mistakes which I won't alert you to, but which I'll e-mail to any admin who requests it) shows up and supports you; or
2. I'm dealing with a separate administrative issue, unrelated to you, and you turn up to tell all the other administrators about my history of bringing up unrelated issues. They might just be puzzled and want to know what you're talking about.

It would be preferable to stick to what's relevant to the case of Chooserr, Giovanni. I don't know why you want to bring up past issues. You never come out of it well when you do. AnnH ♫ 14:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Large amounts of non English on user talk pages

Is there a policy about this? See, for instance User talk:Ukrained. It is difficult for a non Ukranian (presumably it's Ukranian but maybe it's Russian?) speaker to know whether there are matters of concern there or not. I went there because I was concerned about some things I saw on the DYK talk page and wanted to learn more about this editor and this editor's interactions with others. I thought there was a policy or guideline requesting English but if there is, I can't find it. Thanks! (note that even without being able to read everything I certainly have some concerns) ++Lar: t/c 20:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see all that much ... whatever language it is. It seems to be mainly confined to one largeish section. But really, I don't think there is, or needs to be, any particular rule about confining user talk page discussions to English. Lots of our users are able to communicate in more than one language, and plenty of us edit articles on more than one Wikipedia. Judging from some of the remarks left on the page in English, though, it seems the user may not be aware of some of our policies. Exploding Boy 23:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with other languages so long as they are limited to User Talk pages and do not dominate the page, but I object to their use in other communications. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If someone is using non-English on a talk page, you can ask him politely if he'll provide a translation. Some people will do so, but bear in mind that some may not be able to because their English skills don't match their native language skills. --Tony Sidaway 23:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have actually never come across a userpage that was anything but English =P --mboverload@ 07:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In that particular example, the user actually told the person talking to him on his talk not to use Ukrainian, since this is enwiki. Also, the paragraphs just below each Ukranian paragraph seem to be english translations. --Rory096 07:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Unintentional blanking

If while on RC patrol you notice a user making a beneficial edit and simultaneously removing most of the article, especially if it's from an otherwise semi-reputable editor, it may be due to an apparent bug in Google Toolbar for Firefox (see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 136#Problems with Firefox and previews and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Bug with Google Toolbar for Firefox. So go easy on them, OK? (I haven't seen any overly harsh warnings, just thought I'd comment.) — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank god! I was wondering why that was happening! --mboverload@ 07:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Dick DeVos

I think an admin (or someone who knows more about politics) needs to take a look at (and possibly protect) this page. There's a little revert war going on. --Bachrach44 18:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Steelbeard1 and User:Envix have been blocked for 24 hours. User:Bkonrad will also be blocked if he reverts the page one more time. Naconkantari 19:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

(is the below related?).. I have on the article talk page offered to help work through the issues with this article. I admit bias, my kids play sports against some of his kids... ++Lar: t/c 00:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry: User:209.69.163.69's only Wiki edit to date was to "Revert to Bkonrad's last revision". RadioKirk talk to me 00:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have confirmed that Envix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is associated with the Devos campaign. Mackensen (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep watch on the Dick DeVos article to make sure User:Envix or anyone else from the DeVos campaign does not try to control content of the article. Is Envix blocked for six months like the IP addresses associated with the DeVos campaign were? Steelbeard1 19:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Creamy goodness

Name may be inviolation of Wikipedia's username policy.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 21:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to defend that one: its a fairly well-known phrase that seems innocuous enough. What specifically do you think is wrong with it? I guess it could be seen to have a sexual connotation, but that doesn't seem to be the major meaning that Google finds. Gwernol 21:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see anything wrong with the name. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; the innuendo is obvious, but the desire for a plate of fettucine alfredo immediately overcame the thought... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the innuendo is obvious, but as was pointed out to me by a friend earlier today, even a binder clip can be lewd if you just think about it in the right context. Incidentally, I thought of hostess cakes :-). --Bachrach44 02:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It is true that in the proper context even the stiffest amongst us can find a word or phrase lascivious. But the real thrust of the matter is that we should be careful to avoid giving good users the shaft simply because their name may be somewhat bushy. Now, it is easy to rectify the situation if a heinous blockage occurs, but hopefully we can allow the flow of good edits to emerge from our editors without the repeated blocking and unblocking beforehand, even if it is somewhat fun; remember that it can also be dangerous.--Sean Black 02:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Teehee, you said "rectify". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh heh... heh heh heh... heh heh... he said "stiffest" RadioKirk talk to me 16:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"When correctly viewed, everything is lewd!" -- Tom Lehrer

Atlant 12:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was quite amusing. Exploding Boy 22:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeing the name first, my first thought was that someone was claiming that the user name was inappropriate because of the violent conotations from Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Willow compares a demon that is removing people's organs to a person who doesn't eat the outside of Oreos "but takes out the creamy goodness" (slight paraphase since too lazy to go over to Wikiquote at the moment). JoshuaZ 23:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Strange. I've never seen an episode of Buffy, but Oreo cream is exactly what came to my mind when I saw the phrase. Joyous! | Talk 23:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually cream cheese came to mind but this is what first got my attention [32].--Dakota ~ 00:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:GeorgeMoney's user page

He appears to have C&Pd the entire Main Page to his user page. It's very confusing, but he seems passionately attached to it. Some assistance convincing him otherwise might be good. Exploding Boy 00:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want me to fix it, then all you have to do is ask me to do it instead of reporting me here like a vandal. Thanks to Chuck I found out about this. It is not so hard to press the "+" button next to the "edit this page" tab on my talk page, and ask me, "George, will you please revert your userpage back to normal because it is confusing" and I will be happy to do it. Also, I didn't copy&paste it, I transcluded it.--GeorgeMoney ^T·C 00:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap, I never thought I'd ever agree with you, Exploding Boy (this isn't an insult if you read into it properly, please don't take it as one, just as a statement of...utter shock). I reverted him and was promptly called "a vandal" and told "it's my userpage, I'll do what I want with it" (see my talk) — Nathan ^(talk) 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I called you a vandal because you called me a vandal for inserting a stupid little HTML comment on your page. All you have to do is ask. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 00:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Enough. Please calm down. I've answered you on my talk page, there's absolutely no need to bring that up here, and I won't answer comments about that when it's brought up in such an inappropriate place. — Nathan ^(talk) 00:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

After multiple edit conflicts...

Yes, you're right. I should have left you a message on your talk page. Sorry. It's just that looking at your edit history you seemed unwilling to change it.

While we're on the topic though, why is it that your talk page header says that the page is for discussing the Main Page? Is that a holdover from your transcluded user page?

Anyway, I'm going to leave this here for a few more minutes and then remove it; it's obviously not needed here. Exploding Boy 00:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be my fault. I thought I reverted everything, sorry. I'll accept blame for it. — Nathan ^(talk) 01:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason I seemed unwilling to change it was because Nathan reverted it without asking me first. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 00:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Enough arguing. The reason why is posted on my talk page. Any admin can look there and read it for themselves. The question remains: Why did you senselessly transclude the main page onto your userpage. That's what Exploding Boy is asking, and that's what I'd like an answer to as well. Please stick to the question asked. I refer to two policies: Wikipedia is not a place to put your own personal homepage and we don't own our contributions to Wikipedia. Not our pages, our signatures (thus leading to refactoring which I still don't agree with), nothing. We don't own any of it. — Nathan ^(talk) 00:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Now is my userpage ok? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 01:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit, in this case I think the first step would have been to contact GeorgeMoney, rather than just editing it yourself (in particular if the "problem" is just one of annoyance, not of critical importance to the project). People feel a lot better about changes to their user page if they themselves make them, in my experience, and a polite request can go a long way. Just my two cents. Thank you for changing your page, GeorgeMoney. --Fastfission 02:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I should have left George a message. Nathan should probably have left him a message. However, the issue seems to have been satisfactorily resolved, and is now closed. Thanks to everyone. Exploding Boy 04:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm shocked to agree with you a second time (please, don't make a habit of this). Yes, I probably should have. — Nathan ^(talk) 14:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

When an RfC is ignored

I've taken this back to the RfC. It makes sense to keep it there. --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! FreplySpang 20:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion at Talk:Ejaculation#Use of picture

Moved this to the talk page of the article. --Tony Sidaway 04:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Given the uploader's history of contributing images without proper source information (I see several Orphanbot messages on his talk page) as well as the very suspect use of {{NoRightsReserved}} on Image:Pink36.jpg and Image:Pavel Novotny & Ales Hanak 3.jpg (that second image is not work safe!), I'm not inclined to trust that the image Image:Cum.JPG being discussed is actually the creation of Perkyville (talk · contribs). I note that an image of the same name was deleted as a copyvio back in March.

While discussion of the appropriateness of the image perhaps belongs on the article's talk page, addressing the copyright issue is in the purview of admins. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sysop's actions re photo on Ejaculation

Although the discussion has been moved my question is about the sysop so I will place it here: May I ask for some feedback as to how appropriate it was for an admin to revert an image that is obviously so controversial back into the article and then completely protect the article from editing by anyone other than sysops? Surely whilst there is no consensus an image that some find offensive should be removed until further discussion has taken place? And why the heck would full protection be placed after one' change has been made??? Anyone help me here? - Stollery 04:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify that one admin reverted the picture back in, and a different one protected it 2 minutes afterward. ChChcknwnm (Chuck) 05:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes correct Chuck, apologies, my bad. Still the question remains, why the hell protect it with the controversial image included whilst discussion is still taking place? - Stollery 05:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I follow the question. If there was controversy, surely protection was advised! See Wikipedia:protection policy. --Tony Sidaway 15:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Since when did small blue worms travel through the vas deferens? Ral315 (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As a doctor, I can say never. Never blue ones. -- Samir धर्म 10:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not the image that was disputed... Nonetheless, I do agree, and we're looking for a better diagram. It's a hellofalot better than the previous image though, IMO at least. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean they're not supposed to? Oh dear ... *goes to doctor* Proto 10:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

See m:The Wrong Version. Kotepho 06:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"An image that some find offensive should be removed"? See Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons Naconkantari 15:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As that article is about the image, the image is appropriate. As Ejaculation is not Highly controversial image of ejaculation, the criteria should be does the image improve the article in any way? IMHO it does not. It illustrates nothing which is not easily understood from the text. Illustrations are to illustrate, not for any other purpose. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Updated, apologies: I typed with brain half-engaged. Meant to say, If it does not, etc. Stand by "Illustrations are to illustrate". KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• On the image, I think it was an excellent illustration, especially useful as there will be many younger people who will not have a clue what ejaculation is (and may be worried if it happens to them). Providing a good illustration of ejaculation would be of great benefit to the encyclopedia. This was a pretty good one, very well illustrating the intensely joyfully explosive nature of the event. --Tony Sidaway 15:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Seconding Tony ... now I haven't even seen the picture, but it has to be better than the diagram we're currently using. That diagram shows a flaccid penis ejaculating. D'oh!!!! --Cyde↔Weys 15:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, per my discussion on the talk page, I would argue that while Wikipedia is not censored, neither is it an internet pornographer. A visitor should have the option via an inline link, or via page-bottom placement with a warning at the top, to see such an image or not. Page-top placement of hard-core pornography should never happen. RadioKirk talk to me 16:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel that you're prejudging the issue by equating sexually explicit pictures with "hard-core pornography." I agree with your suggestion of appropriate placement (sizing also helps) but we have a general disclaimer so warnings and the like would be superfluous (not to mention insulting). --Tony Sidaway 16:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, this almost seems evasive. First, hardcore pornography (apparently, "hardcore" is now the preferred spelling) is defined as the photographic depiction of explicit sex acts (and, neither a partner nor mutual activity is a requirement for a "sex act" IMO) so, in the context, I find the terminology identical. Second, The disclaimer is linked from the bottom of each page, long after this article would have shoved (porn/a "sexually explicit" image) into the viewer's face. RadioKirk talk to me 17:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

RadioKirk, it's a page about ejaculation. How could you not expect to see something sexually explicit there? ~MDD4696 16:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Easy: go try to find a similar image in the Encyclopedia Britannica; if any image exists at all, it will be a diagram. I reiterate my stand that Wikipedia is not a pornographer. RadioKirk talk to me 17:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm more concerned that it was decided in the middle of the dispute to delete the image (image deletion is permanent). The deletion log says that it was flagged up as db:pornography (which isn't a reason) and was deleted less than 10 minutes later for having no copyright info when it was tagged as pd-self (and hadn't at that point been tagged as needing copyright info). [33] Image deletion should not be used to settle content disputes like that. Secretlondon 16:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise that; I thought it was deleted because of licensing terms. If true, this is very disturbing. In context, the image was not pornographic as far as I was able to tell. It simply showed a masturbating man, frontal torso view, ejaculating. --Tony Sidaway 16:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The deleting admin tried to restore 8 mins later but doesn't seem to have realised that image deletions were permanent. It was apparently listed as a speedy and got deleted:( Considering the % of false speedy claims this is worrying.. Secretlondon 17:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

So .. did we lose the image permanently or did someone have a backup? At the very worst we could hide it in a linkimage or something. But just deleting it outright like that ... hrrmmm ... that seems like a clear abuse of speedy deletion. --Cyde↔Weys 17:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It ain't abuse when the speedy tag was false. In such a tense and high-pressure situation, not many people, including myself, would check the history and would rather just proceed with the deletion. I don't think xaosflux can be blamed, nor accused of misuse of speedy. NSLE _(T+C) at 17:16 UTC (2006-06-09)

You HAVE to check - people add false speedy tags to all pages all the time. It's especially important with images as image deletions are permanent. Secretlondon 17:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

WHAT?! It's not an admin's fault if he deletes something which has a bad speedy tag? Am I the only one around who still thoroughly checks up on something before deleting it? Deletion is a tool only given to administrators for a reason. If an admin acts as a rubber-stamp, deleting everything that any user happens to put a speedy tag on (whether or not the tag is deserved!), then the system is broken. --Cyde↔Weys 17:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not THAT high pressure - there are always other admins, you don't have to do it all. If you delete without checking you are a liability to be honest. Secretlondon 18:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This was just a one-off case. It would be nice if sysops deleting pictures could grab a copy (unless the photograph is clearly illegal, such as child pornography) and hang on to it for a bit, but I can understand why a lot of sysops don't go to such lengths.

No doubt other photographs of ejaculation will appear in time--probably better than the deleted one--so it isn't a huge deal.

We do need to make sure that the animation there at present is properly licensed and sourced, however. --Tony Sidaway 18:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a big deal, though, if we have admins regularly going around deleting stuff without stopping to verify whether it's actually a candidate for speedy deletion, or whether the page hasn't been manipulated so that it looks like a candidate when it isn't. Deletion rights are given only to admins because regular users can't be trusted ... but if admins are just running around deleting everything nominated for speedy deletion by regular users without verifying it, then that is a baaad thing. --Cyde↔Weys 18:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've not always agreed with Cyde and Tony apropos of how admins ought to exercise discretion in speedying things, but Cyde (with whom Tony seems to agree) is wholly correct here; thorough checking, important for articles, is crucial with respect to images, which, as many note, can't be undeleted. Joe 18:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth my views on speedy deletion are heavily influenced by what deletion candidate we are considering. If it's an unencyclopedic template? Mehh. If it's an article or an image used in an article? Hold up buddy! --Cyde↔Weys 18:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by regular users can't be trusted? Chuck^(contrib) 20:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Regular users can't be trusted with access to the "delete" button. It's very simple. If they could be trusted, then it would be available to all users, not just admins ... but it's not. --Cyde↔Weys 20:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User with previous warnings of copyvios upload an image containing a nude human being. Happens a fair bit. The percentage that turn out to be copyvios is rather high.Geni 20:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - however this seems to be a "delete as tagged" problem. If they checked the edit history of the uploader they would have checked the edit history of the image too. Speedy tags *are* used in edit wars - it's up to us to know what deletion policy is. All our images in sex related articles are contentious and we need to be extra careful with contentious topics when the potential for admin manipulation is higher. Everyone should be more careful with images because image deletion cannot be reverted. If in doubt always ask - IRC or any of our talk pages is a good idea. I wonder if we should start a voluntary mentoring project for new admins - people you can bounce ideas off if you want to. Lots of stuff is borderline but where the lines are drawn isn't always obvious as we basically work on something like case law. I'd happily handhold a new colleague - I'm sure others are the same. Secretlondon 20:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that Cyde's "trusted" formulation is altogether appropriate; nearly every consistent contributor could, IMHO, be trusted with the power to delete things, even speedily, but surely those users who partake of the project for less-than-encyclopedic purposes (either to disrupt or simply to impose certain views) mustn't be permitted to exercise deletion deleteriously. Admins are not necessarily preternaturally infallible, and neither does some special brilliance entail from one's being approved as an admin. Adminship is, on the whole, not a discretionary task; admins act only to implement consensus, either as expressed in a specific situation or as codified in policy, et cetera. To say that "regular users can't be trusted with access to the 'delete' button", is, I think, fundamentally to misunderstand what adminship is and unintentionally to underestimate "regular users". Joe 22:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleting personal information from history

Is there a central page where you can find a description on how to fast delete personal information from a history when that history is HUGE? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well if it is really HUGE, you may want to just ask a dev to do it for you. Well, really anyone with Oversight powers. They have selective deletions. Perhaps Essjay or Brion? I don't know if they are around though. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 05:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the page in question? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I solved it, there is a quick way to do it actually, so, if there is not such a page, I will create one tomorrow to describe it. It is actually quite simple. I just did homosexuality, which has 6900+ revisions. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete all, restore recent twenty or so, move to your userspace, delete, restore non-inflammatory items, move back, and restore all? Still a lot easier if you got someone with oversight to do it in one click. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If a page has a few thousand versions, having the ability to check all boxes in one fell swoop is a great help. However, when it's several thousand versions, it's best to go to someone with oversight powers. As far as I know, those people are Brion VIBBER, Dmcdevit, Essjay, Jayjg, Mindspillage, and Theresa Knott. There may be others. If the information is very confidential, I wouldn't leave a message on the user's talk page: I'd rollback the edit, and then check contributions so as to make a judgment as to which oversight users were most likely to be online, and would then send a private e-mail. Apparently it also helps the oversight user if after reverting the vandalism, you make another edit — even a small one like putting in a comma. Also, I think that an advantage of the oversight method is that the bad edit can't be accidentally restored by an admin who removes personal information from the same page six months later. For example, if someone puts User A's phone number into the article on Vitamin C on 14 March, and an admin deletes the page and restores all the versions except the bad one, and then someone comes along on 27 August and posts User B's real name, an admin who doesn't check the history of the page to see what edits have already been deleted before deleting the page will delete the page and restore it with everything except User B's name, so User A's phone number will once again be retrievable from the history. As far as I know, there's no way of knowing which versions were once deleted once they've been restored, or once the page has been deleted again, but I could be wrong. AnnH ♫ 08:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Full list can be found at Special:Listusers by looking at the group oversight. Basicaly arbcom puss a few devs.Geni 16:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, much easier. If you see personal information, not even bother to rollback or revert. Do the following:

1. Delete page (Foo) on sight.
2. Restore bad version (yes, the bad version)
3. Move bad version to Foo/Bad
4. Delete Foo/Bad
5. Restore remaining versions of Foo

Advantages:

• If there is a second time in which personal information needs to be removed, there is no change of accidentially restoring the removed personal information of previous times. All Bad stuff wil accumulate in Foo/Bad.
• It is fast, regardless of the number of revisions, and it is effectively a ons checkbox operation.

I think it might be actually a good idea to scan the database for partial restores and move the personal info (or other needs to stay deleted stuff) out of the way so that it stays deleted. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it is not fast irrespective of the no. of revisions in Foo. Not so long ago (Dec?) someone deleted George W. Bush and locked the whole database for about an hour. So don't delete on sigt, delete on judgement and, if there are many revisions, get someone with the unfortunately-named Oversight to do it. -Splash - tk 12:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. But would it be a good idea to describe this methiod anyway somewhere, in a page dealing with Wikipedia:How to deal with personal information? I searched yesterday, and could not find it, maybe I just did not find it, but I suspect it is not there. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a good chance that no one with oversight will be around. Jimbo and Brion are devs, not just wiki admins, they are not usually patrolling. Filiocht ‎left Wikipedia. That leaves 14 people.Voice-of-All^Talk 20:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can't find someone with oversight hassle your admin of choice. We can do it but it takes us a little longer, that's all. Secretlondon 20:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll just use javascript to speed it up, unless the article is very long, its faster than spamming the oversights.Voice-of-All^Talk 00:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm around, able to be pinged via talk page message (even if it's only "check your email, please") between twelve and fifteen hours a day, sometimes longer, basically between 22:00 UTC and 14:00 UTC. That covers much of the day, and does not constitute a "good chance" that nobody will be around. To be honest, Mindspillage and I cover most of the day; she is usually getting up and beginning work (online all day, everyday, working for Wikia, and just an email away) as I'm going to bed, and I'm already online as she's going to bed.

I've seen quite a few people say "nobody's ever around", but I'd like to see some evidence, as I *know* how much I'm around, and I know how much I see the others around. I've yet to see anyone able to produce a case where private information was discovered, and no oversight was online; I find it very hard to believe that there are many periods where an oversight is unavailable. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

some art of revenge vandalism

See please User talk:Cerveny kohout and the contributions of this user. I presume it is one of blocked users on cs.wiki where there are great problems with such vandals in last time. I vote to block him, but if he is that one whom i mean, it will not help - he uses dynamic adresses, on cs.wiki he has now about 100 accounts... Thx anyway, -jkb- 17:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

My block of User:Konob13

I've sort of gone out of process and instituted an indefinite block against this user - as I noted on his talk page, he claims in one of his vandalistic edits that he has been ""banned... 12 times now", so I assumed good faith, took him at his word, and banned him again. Was this improper, in anyone's view? bd2412 T 18:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You actually only blocked for an hour, your blocks are conflicting with each other. Prodego ^talk 22:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Why you little *%&#$! Ok, now that the block is fixed... bd2412 T 22:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

An indef block seems fine, not necessarily because he's previously been blocked/banned but because the account appears a disruption-only account. Joe 22:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

sock of previously banned user. dissruptive sock. Yeah I think there is a fairly strong case for blocking.Geni 02:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the block as well. (If I didn't I would have conveniently forgotten to mention the block conflict ;-). Prodego ^talk 22:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.....

1. User:Konob
2. User:Konob2
3. User:Konob3
4. User:Konob4
5. User:Konob5
6. User:Konob6
7. User:Konob7
8. User:Konob8
9. User:Konob9
10. User:Konob10
11. User:Konob11
12. User:Konob12

Prodego ^talk 22:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

6, 9, 11, and 12 are not indef blocked, the rest are. Prodego ^talk 22:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I think this was the guy going around accusing a bunch of people of being anti-semites (like, people who deal with all the anti-semitic garbage that comes up). Mak (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Attack of the autoblocker

Chud Manzier (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • logs)

Hi folks, I originally indef blocked the above user and then unblocked a while back. This user still can't seem to edit because it seems that the autoblocker is blocking him. I tried unblocking any IPs that get hit with the autblocker, and I even tried to unblock him again, but to no avail. Could an experienced admin please take a look and let me know what the heck is going on? Chud Manzier can't seem to edit because he keeps getting hit with the autoblock. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 00:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to unblock this Auto-block. It seems the automated tool is down. Prodego ^talk 01:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've done that one. Seems that every time Chud Manzier logs on, he gets hit with the autoblocker. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I wish we could remove the autoblocker. The idea is sound but it just creates way way too many issues. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

So what do I tell Chud Manzier? That the autoblocker will just hit him forever despite the fact that I unblocked him? I thought the autoblocker was just supposed to last 24 hours, not indefinitely. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee accepting applications for new clerks

Due to recent inactivity of several of our current clerks, the Arbitration Committee is now accepting applications for new clerks. The role has evolved into mostly a janitorial one, more fully described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks. Good candidates will be trusted administrators, uncontroversial and with enough time to make the commitment. We'll appoint about three new clerks after privately reviewing the candidates ampngst ourselves. In preparation for new applications, I have blanked Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Candidates#Clerk_Candidates, where anyone interested should list themselves. Thanks. :-) Dmcdevit·t 01:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert war at Template:Infobox City

I'm vaguely involved so have not protected it, but I suggest somebody watch Template:Infobox City and protect it if reverts keep happening. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Añoranza not being allowed to request unblocking

Could some uninvolved admins take a look at this:[34]. I really don't think Anoranza is being treated fairly here. Even Rex/Merecat was allowed to request unblocking. This all started because of this incident: [35] There's also an RfC related to this: [36] -- Mr. Tibbs 05:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, third opinions (or fourth) are always nice. I'm open to suggestions. Sasquatch t|c 06:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not just let him request unblocking? Instead of removing it repeatedly like you did and then demanding that if Anoranza dares to reinsert an unblock request that you'll protect his talk page? [37][38][39][40] Even User:Merecat was allowed to request unblocking. Why the beat down of Anoranza and the domination of his talk page? If that one week block of Anoranza really is for him to "cool down" it doesn't look like you're helping. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Because he's done it [41], [42], [43], [44] times already and the first one included a continuing attack on other user's intelligence... Why let a user edit again when he's still angry and the first thing he's probably gonna do is seek vengence? Sasquatch t|c 06:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, Merekat's page was protected per policy if a user keeps repeating the same thing over and over. Sasquatch t|c 06:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You posted links to Anoranza requesting an unblock. The same requests you promptly took down and then threatened him over before any other admin could even pop in. I'm not getting your point here. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That's because I am the second admin already. Well, thrid really, 2 admins have blocked him (JDoorjam and NSLE) and I came in after. Usually that's more than enough. Three admins all agree. But again, I'm open to other opinions on here. Sasquatch t|c 06:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That does not explain why you removed Anoranza's unblock requests. You did not respond to Anoranza's request to unblock and say "No", you removed it and then threatened him. And JDoorjam blocked him falsely over a 3RR, not this one week block. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I said no the first time, agreed to one of them, reduced the block, then he continued to put them in. Your right that the first one is not for this block but it does show one of the reasons why he's blocked in the first place. Frankly, I'd gotten sick on the same rhetoric on the unblock over and over and the same accusations of admin abuse. I think I was well within my powers to warn him against it. Sasquatch t|c 06:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sasquatch. SushiGeek 06:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Gotten sick of the same accusations of admin abuse? I think thats pretty much whats happened here. JDoorJam falsely blocked Anoranza for 3RR. Anoranza contested it and it was lifted. Anoranza was then blocked for one week for not contesting it humbly enough. He made some insinuation about an admins counting ability and boom one week ban. Which amazes me because I've seen much more venomous things and I don't see many people getting one week bans. Frankly, I don't know what you wanted Anoranza to say in response to a faulty block; "Thank you sir, may I have another?" -- Mr. Tibbs 07:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

He could of said nothing, he could have said "Don't do that again", he could of said "be more careful next time" he could of said a lot of other stuff. But he chose to insinuate that other users are idiots right during the brief period he was blocked and after. He also showed no consideration that he had done anything wrong showing he obviously will not respect WP:NPA if we let him continue. Frankly, if he wasn't so combative I would have considered a block shortening but all he has done is insist that the other party is at fault and cry wolf over and over. You know what, until another admin says otherwise, I'm leaving this conversation. This is getting nowhere. Sasquatch t|c 07:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Upload error

Whenever I try to upload a file, when I scroll down to the form, the window suddenly crashes. I Love Minun ^(talk) 11:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What browser, what custom JavaScript, etc? robchurch | talk 03:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Dusted: FYI

There was an AfD debate on Dusted a while ago. It was closed on December 03 2005 by Mysekurity, who had requested that a note be issued in the event that the page has been re-created.

The page was recreated by Tildebeeplus on May 31 2006, and the current content satisfies notability requirements.

At any rate, I am about to move the content to a separate page, as there is another noteworthy entry which has been suggested by several links. --Folajimi 13:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Posting of Personal Information And Defamation

An anon user at 71.112.137.120 is posting my full name, place of employment, and defaming my reputation by claiming I am a member of an illegal organization. I am being retaliated against because 71.112.137.120 has been unsuccessful in crafting the Duke University lacrosse team scandal page to their liking. Please take action against this user.

See: 1, 2

Abe Froman 14:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've given the anon a week's block in recognition of the nature of the personal attacks and unauthorised posting of personal information about another user, both of which are strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. -- ChrisO 14:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've disappeared the edits.

James F. (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Picking up where 71.112.137.120 left off, Voretus is reposting my full name and repeating 71.112.137.120's defamation on his user page. See 1. I have asked him to remove it. It remains up. I am being retaliated against by frustrated editors of the Duke University lacrosse team scandal page. Please take action against this user. Abe Froman 18:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed your real name from that page (and from the history). Eugene van der Pijll 19:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC

This arbitration case is closed.

• DarrenRay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2006BC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AChan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The three editors named above are banned indefinitely from editing Dean McVeigh, Melbourne University student organisations, University of Melbourne Student Union, and any related article.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 14:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Deleteme42

I have just blocked Deleteme42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 1 hour for WP:POINT disruption and trollish wikilawyering. Deleteme42 is dissatisfied that bad articles about notable topics often don't get deleted, and his PRODs are often removed. He created lots of substubs on German second league players in response (containing just "John Doe is a German football player"), most of which I deleted while trying to clear CAT:CSD. He was told by several editors to stop, and then answered by recreating Andreas Aepken, a bad stub with an external link. Can somebody else help me tell him that he is wasting our time by this? Kusma (討論) 20:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Kusma said on my talk page about Andreas Aepken: The article was admittedly an A7, not an A1, the notability was only asserted in the external link, not the article. You can recreate it and state the notability better using your link if you want, and the stub will not be deleted. This is what I did. And this is what he blocked me for. If this is considered an appripriate usage of administrator privileges, I do hereby request that an administrator other than Kusma deletes my account at the English Wikipedia ([45] with an arbitrary new username). TIA Deleteme42 22:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• You're wikilawyering again, which is a pointless waste of time. What I meant was obviously "You can recreate it and state the notability better using the information provided in your link if you want, and the stub will not be deleted." Your recreated stub was the same as the one I deleted before (except for your addition of "second league"), and was deleted again by Naconkantari. Kusma (討論) 22:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• AB, just try to give a bit more info, don't make infering notability through a mere external link. As much as you can beyond that, but something: i.e. was a German 2nd league soccer player ... who [something]. See a very brief article I created two days ago, for ex. El_C 05:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• If you are an administrator and think that Kusmas blocking of my account was correct, please fulfill my request and delete my account. TIA Deleteme42 08:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• admins can't delete accounts.Geni 08:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for this note, I missed this. I've listed my account at Wikipedia:Changing username. Deleteme42 08:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Are you sure that is needed? It isn't as if a one hour block creates a perminat stain on your character or anything.Geni 09:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• If Kusmas blocking is considered an appropriate usage of administrator privileges, I do neither want to continue to participate in this Wikipedia nor see my name in any way associated with this Wikipedia. Deleteme42 10:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've declined the namechange for now. Please follow the name change debate on WP:CHU =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

check user needed?

check out [[singular they]]. there's a recent IP user who's got a long contrib list, looks pretty legit, but the NPOV tag feels outt place- and a relative nube (sans userpage) placed it there. my understanding is there has been a good deal of battle on this page, some civil. I'v been involved. I was considering removing it myself. maybe I still will. CrackityKzz 05:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Searching for info on User:David91

Per a request on Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians, I'm trying to find out if anyone knows what happened to User:David91. He stopped editing around April 12, 2006, when he was admitted to the hospital for some tests. He possibly lived in Singapore (likely in or near Ang Mo Kio, which he edited 3 times but with enough detail to suggest a strong familiarity with the place), and was probably the oldest Wikipedian at the age of 94 (based on a reference from 2003 when he said he was 91). Based on his numerous contributions in law it is possible he was a retired lawyer of some kind. He also contributed to linguistics, sociology, and science fiction articles. He was part of Wikipedia:WikiProject International law and he made nearly 5000 edits. He evidently also involved in other Internet communities during his retirement. Any information on David91 would be appreciated. Thanks,--Alabamaboy 14:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Check user might also be needed if trouble.

I put in a checkuser request but evidently David91's edits were too long ago to find a record of his IP address.--Alabamaboy 00:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

One's curiosity on the vital statistics of an editor with whom one was familliar is not an appropriate reason to request checkuser (IMO). And even the best of intentions should not excuse an attempt at ferreting out the real identity, location, and medical status of a user. If he wanted you to know, he would have come out and said it. And if he's dead and you just don't know, then sorry to be cold, but his nmae needs to be moved to Missing Wikipedians, and people need to move on. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The editors who knew David91 and admired his contributions to Wikipedia would no doubt disagree with you. As anyone who edits Wikipedia can verify, how we spend our time is up to us. Personally, I know of no better way to spend my time than to try and honor a Wikipedian who had an amazing impact on the legal articles here. --Alabamaboy 01:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no argument with what you say about checkuser. But concern over whether a member of our community has died is more than just "curiosity". It's a basic human interest that people in any community share. We do have the right to vanish, but we also have a reasonable expectation that people will care, a lot, when we die. --Allen 01:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Allen about the concern and with Jeffrey O. Gustafson that checkuser should not be used in such situations. While Wikipedia is not a social club and I'm not going to start hugging people, ASCII or otherwise, we should have a little concern for the well-being of other editors. However, no more information than was freely handed out by a user should be used to track him or her down and if a user seems to want to be left alone, they should be. Unless something occurred suddenly or they wanted to keep it private, it is likely that frequent contributors would leave a note on their user or talk page or tell someone else what is going on. Of course, they are unable to tell us of their death, except for a time frame for those with terminal illnesses. That's a limitation that I think we'll have to accept. Try posting on their talk page and sending them an email. If they have given out their phone number, address or place of work, you could try that (it would probably be best to wait a while before checking whether they are sick or dead by these methods unless there are reasons other than their absence to think so). If they cannot be found, we'll have to settle with adding them to the list of missing Wikipedians. If an editor wants to be contactable in such situations, they should put the relevant information on their user page or give it to a friend or two. I suppose contact information for those who wish to supply it could be made confidential, only available to bureaucrats and/or stewards, but that might be excessive. -- Kjkolb 02:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

iloveminun

Changed my username

I recently changed my username, but someone put sockpuppet notices on my user page, but I have a reason, he's saying im not allowed to change my username Minun Rules the world 19:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're willing for me to block User:Iloveminun indef, to be sure there can be no impersonation, then I will remove the sock notice. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 19:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you were blocked for one week today at 1827 UTC as Iloveminun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for "Incivility towards HighwayCello (talk · contribs)". You made your first edit as Minun_Rules_the_world (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at 1851 UTC. This is a clear case of sock puppetry for the purpose of block evasion. I am blocking your new user indefinitely and advise you to stop trying to edit Wikipedia until your one week block expires. If you do not, the block period is very likely to be increased. --Tony Sidaway 20:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for community ban on iloveminun

I've finally caught up with this case. Our lad is a serious abuser and quite unrepentant.

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Iloveminun

I would suggest a community ban in this case. Comments? --Tony Sidaway 09:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agree. Will (^E_@) T 11:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree. ILM has been a bit obnoxious, but has also made productive edits and could be brought around. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. If you think several billion Pokemon articles are a useful part of Wikipedia, he has been reasonably constructive, but some of the other stuff is just blatant stalking, abuse and general idiocy. --ajn (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Okay, I'll take this to arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 12:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration case application here. --Tony Sidaway 12:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

User:BillyBong

this user is User:Hogeye and is banned and evading. he recently edited Template:Anarchism sidebar with an open proxy. the slash thing proves it. someone look into this. thanks.

Talk:Infantilism

Briefly: Users are brawling over revealing personal information both on and off-wiki. I'm not really available in the near future, so anyone wants to help out that would be grand. - brenneman ^{L} 03:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll protect the page and drop both users a note. El_C 07:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Monica de Bruyn

Can anyone close the deletion process at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica de Bruyn (2), before the trolling starts getting out of hand again? There is a complete consensus in favour deleting. gidonb 13:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Done. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 14:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot! Please consider deleting the last trolling comment because of civility issues. I am going to let is stay now, since the process is closed. gidonb 14:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • And like magic, it's gonnerfied. Happy to help. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 14:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Great, pleasure to do business with you! ;-) Thanks again, gidonb 15:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Haditha incident again...

User:ILike2BeAnonymous has been POV-pushing like mad on this article, removing any dissenting opinion, revert warring, and continuing to name the article Haditha massacre in violation of WP:NPOV, consensus reached on Talk, and ruling of an administrator. —Aiden 14:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not bring content disputes onto this page, this is not the place for them; please follow the dispute resolution process. Whatever this "ruling of administrator" you speak of is, be assured that it is meaningless, because admins have no special editorial control.-SB | T 17:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Continuing personal attacks and legal threats from User:24.147.37.116

I am posting this on behalf of Tearlach who brought it to the attention of WP:PAIN. The user User:24.147.37.116 was making personal attacks and legal threats to other users. I warned the user about them and the situation seemed resolved. However, Tearlach has brought it to my attention that the user has continued making personal attacks and legal threats. The following diffs show this: [46], [47], [48]. Paul Cyr 17:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked the user.--Alabamaboy 17:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've shortened it to a month (it's an IP, only open proxies should be indef blocked- see WP:BP). We can always extend the block if the user returns on that IP. Petros471 17:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ukiyotile

an article on the topic of ukiyotile by User talk:plutovman was deleted. Could someone restore it to my edit area so I can create a more encyclopedic document? plutovman 21:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• See WP:DRVU. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• There are only six Google hits for this neologism. Please see WP:SNOW, it's unlikely that an article about this term will stand. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. That article seems to confirm there's not enough information for an article encyclopedia article / that that is totally non-notable. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't see the article, but are we sure it's a non-notable neologism? It was speedied for the wrong reason (nonsense, which it wasn't), so you'll pardon if I don't accept it on faith that it was a neologism. Powers 22:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The entire content was Ukiyotile is a word coined by contemporary artist Vladimir Sierra to define a type of mosaic which, like pointilism, is characterized by non-overlapping brushstrokes of organically varying size that come together to form a larger image.. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that currently there aren't many google hits on this term. However, I'm giving a talk on the subject at SIGGRAPH later this month, and will have a paper published on the 2006 SIGGRAPH proceedings. Is there a more appropriate area within wikipedia to post articles on new methods in computer graphics? Thanks plutovman 23:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

A paper published at SIGGRAPH should have peer-reviewed references which are reliable sources. I would suggest adding (some of) those sources to the article to show this is more just a neologism and has gained a level of acceptability in the scientific community. It might still fail to meet the required standards but it should have a better chance. Good luck, Gwernol 23:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the SIGGRAPH page pointed to has the exact same content -- Mosaics and Ukiyotiles

An ukiyotile is a type of mosaic that, like pointillism, is characterized by non-overlapping brushstrokes of organically varying size that come together to form a larger image.

Vladimir Sierra

thinkforward.org

Vladimir (at) thinkforward.org

-- User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

When the full paper gets published along with references and so on, I will try posting again to wikipedia. I guess I just wanted to get an prematurely early jump start. Thanks for your help and suggestions

User:plutovman

Block an IP because it refuses to use Talk pages?

Hi. I'd like to survey opinion on the idea of blocking 200.138.194.254 (talk · contribs). The IP is being used to make a lot of formatting changes to music-related articles. This has been a source of some frustration for other editors, because the formatting changes are often idiosyncratic, contra-guidelines, or make the article more difficult to edit afterwords. I wouldn't normally regard this as a reason to block, but the IP's user absolutely refuses to respond to their Talk page, or discuss changes to articles on article Talk pages. I am considering blocking with a message that indicates that they need to start doing so, and that I will unblock when I get a commitment that they will enter into discussion going forward. Thoughts? Advice from similar situations? Jkelly 23:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The same sort of behavior gets User:MascotGuy blocked frequently. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If their editorial behaviour is making it hard for people to continue normal editing of the article, then a proportionate block seems reasonable. Something that will expire within their interest-frame but enough for them to get the message that they can't carry on like that. All this as long as you're not materially engaged in a dispute with them, of course, but needing them to communicate isn't a dispute: you just happen to be the admin on the scene. -Splash - tk 00:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I blocked, and left a message at User talk:200.138.194.254 that the IP should be unblocked when we get a commitment that it will engage in some kind of discussion about their editing. Jkelly 00:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)