Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive40

I have been attempting to mediate this user, and as a reward I got a picture of myself uploaded and personal information posted on my user talk page. This user has a history of such behavior, and so I have placed him on probation here. The terms are that the mediation ends if he (1) uploads any personal pictures which don't have connections to the purpose of Wikipedia, (2) "outs" anyone's personal information, or (3) engages in personal attacks on other users, especially if those attacks involve the personal information of another user.

As my mediation was a term of his being unblocked, I think that if this mediation fails we would be looking at a community-supported indefinite block, which was where he started. Failing that, I suppose we could consider Arbcom. In the short term, any admins who find Shultz in violation of those three terms should feel free to block as they feel necessary. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Almost Famous has uploaded a number of images that were subsequently tagged as copyright violations by User:Econrad and myself. Both of us tried to explain the copyright policy on his talk page.

He then stated that he received permission to publish some of the images and removed the copyvio tags from those that he says he got permission for. I understand that like AfD tags copyvio tags are to stay up while the image is under review and explained this to him.

Could someone explain what the procedure really is and if necessary put the tags back - I don't want to get into an edit war over half a dozen copyvio notices. Dr Zak 19:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless the user provides verifiable proof that they have the right to publish the images and release them under

GFDL, the tags have to stay, and the user should be blocked if they continue the behavior. User:Zoe|^(talk)

20:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I request my Right to vanish be fulfilled and ask the first admin to see this message, to delete my user and user talk pages. (you may also want to delete all my redirected sub-pages too). Thanks, and goodbye friends! Moe ε 22:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on the user pages, but I won't delete the the talk page. Someone else might, but it isn't covered under

WP:CSD, so I don't feel comfortable doing it. Prodego ^talk

23:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I did it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all deleting my pages. I hope to return one day, but for now goodbye! Moe ε 23:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You still have quite a few pages under your old username. Delete those too? NoSeptember ^talk 23:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I undeleted the talk page just under the assumption that it had been deleted by an administrator who didn't know that many disapprove of deleting user talk pages. I tried to cancel my deletion but it was too late. I came here to report it, but see there's already a section. I do believe that user talk pages should not be deleted, but will leave it to others to decide—it is not my intention to wheel war. Was I incorrect to do this? — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It states in Right to vanish that I can have my talk page deleted, so It's a matter if you feel it's the right thing to do. There's nothing really important in the talk history, so I don't see a reason that it can't be deleted. To NoSeptember: Yes, everything. ;-) Moe ε 23:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes people want thier talk pages to be deleted to hide evidence of warnings etc. In that sort of case then clearly we should not delete thier talk page in case they return and cause more trouble. This doesn't appear to be the cae here (unless I missed something). If Moe Epsilon wishes to dissapear then we should grant that wish. I too will not will war, but urge other admins to delete the talk page unless there is good reason not to. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This would be a lot of pages to delete. Prodego ^talk 23:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but all of these should be deelted too. (SWD316 is my old username). Moe ε 23:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I am unclear as to what extent m:Right to vanish is Wikimedia policy and to what extent it binds our activities on here en. I don't believe it assert any right that one's talk will be deleted (and only mentions talk subpages), though I am unclear how carefully the procedure was discussed. A significant objection to the deletion of talk pages is that they are primarily the contributions of other editors that a user should not have the ability to have deleted. Those edits then disappear from the contributions of other editors as well (for instance, if someone undergoing a request for arbitration had made inappopriate comments to Moe, they would no longer be accessible). I re-deleted since I would rather come to a consensus first. I still feel that it should be undeleted; it can be blanked and protected if necessary. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually blanking and protecting seems reasonable enough. Moe is there any particular reason that you must have your talk page deleted? I think the idea of a right to vanish comes from meatball wiki. But you can't really vanish since contributions are spread all over the wiki. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, nothing to hide. I figured since I was leaving Wikipedia for good then I would get all my pages deleted. To clarify: I want to have my talk page deleted, but it's ultimatly up to those who have the power to delete/undelete my talk page. If it's restored, I won't hold anything against anyone, it was just my request for it's deletion. Moe ε 00:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, I will restore the deleted talk page, blank it, and protect it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A copy/paste of the article http://www.dansettes.co.uk/history.htm was created at Dansette. It was copyvio'd by User:Heycos and I placed a copy of the nothanks template on the user's page. The same article was then copied and pasted at Dansette/Temp. I copyvio'd it. Now, the identical article has been copied/pasted at Dansette/Temp/Temp. I'm not quite sure what the correct procedure is for addressing an issue that is obviously ongoing copyright violation, but is not eligible for a speedy because it's not from a commercial content provider. (See also user contributions) BigDT 23:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have speedy deleted all copies of the copyvio page on the grounds that they are replicated content and we don't need more than one copy. I will have a word with User:Babolatace510. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• FYI, it's back up at Dansettes BigDT 23:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Well darn, you guys do some fast work ;) BigDT 23:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• • It is back up at Dansette/Temp/Temp/Temp, though. BigDT 23:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a minor matter, but I'd like some wisdom from someone. I am slightly irritated by recent edits from sockpuppets of Aine63, as shown here. I've given a couple of warnings to the IP users concerned, but I'm disinclined to get "heavy" at this point, and besides I don't want to use admin powers over a content dispute that I'm involved in. OTOH, I feel that being an admin shouldn't mean having to put up with another user's sockpuppets continually deleting sources and sourced information, adding back deleted unsourced information, or simply acting uncivilly. Does anyone want to offer a suggestion or take an interest in this article? Feel free to drop a note on my talk page. Metamagician3000 00:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

For the moment I've semi-protected the page. The next sockpuppet revert would have been a 3RR by Aine63. I'll leave the page alone for now and let someone else unprotect it at their discretion. Let it stay for awhile, though, please. Metamagician3000 00:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Theresa Knott helped me out after Aine63 made a third reversion. I've just thanked her for that. For reasons that I hope are obvious, I don't want to be the person to block Aine63 but I do note that there is now soon to be a clear 3RR violation by this person and his/her sockpuppets. Not only are the reverts all in a period of a few hours, in each case they delete sources and sourced comment while adding back dubious unsourced material. The user concerned has apparently also filed some kind of request against me somewhere. Metamagician3000 02:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction - there have only been three reverts so far. The next one will be a clear breach of 3RR. We'll see what happens. Metamagician3000 02:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

And now a fourth revert. Metamagician3000 04:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

For the moment I'm satisfied. User:Kimchi.sg has slapped some tags on the unsourced material, so I'll accept it staying there for awhile on that basis, and I've done more work on my sourced material. No block necessary on this occasion, but note that Aine63 has gotten away with four reverts in a very short time thanks to my patience and concern not to abuse admin powers. I thank the others who stepped in and dealt with the immediate problem. I hope I didn't try your patience in asking for assistance from uninvolved admins for such a trifling problem, but it seemed like the right thing to do. Metamagician3000 11:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Kelly_Martin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are bullying me, attacking me and are both constantly incivil because I refused their demands to remove images in my signature.

I quote

Discouraged does not mean disallowed or prohibited.

I call for a block on Cyde for his constant personal attacks and incivility (which has migrated from my talk page to his) and a warning for Kelly Martin.

This has gone too far and I'm seething.

See:

What should have started out as a polite request for me to change my signature has degenerated into incivility and personal attacks. As an admin, Cyde should know better than to engage in such behaviour. Bullying is a violation of

I reproduce here what I wrote on Nathan's talk page:

Nathan, you should remove the images from your signature not because it's "required by policy" but because it's the polite thing to do. Being wilfully impolite, as you are doing, reflects poorly on you as a Wikipedian and will tend to bias people against you. It's your call (for now); I'd strongly suggest that you stop thinking about your "rights" and instead focus on how you can behave in a manner more conducive to maintaining a friendly, productive environment in which to write an encyclopedia.

I'm sorry if Nathan considers this a personal attack. It was intended as friendly advice. In any case, I wilfully submit myself and my conduct in this matter for judgment by my peers. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was attacking in tone. You could've done so much better. Nathan 05:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any "bullying", personal attacks, or incivility here at all. And no, Cyde should not be blocked. All I see is Nathan being stubborn after he was confronted about his rather—to put it lightly—elaborate signature. This is a supreme overreaction to an exceedingly minor issue.--

^(talk)

03:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy that Nathanrdotcom has finally removed the images from his sig. Guess I won't have to "bother" him about it anymore. --Cyde Weys 03:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, you don't come out of this smelling like a rose either. You attacked repeatedly, there is no excuse for this. Admins are the public face of Wikipedia. You should know better. Nathan 05:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Having reviewed the conversations to which Nathan linked, I must say that I am quite disappointed in Nathan's behavior, and I find neither personal attacks nor uncivil behavior from Kelly Martin nor Cyde Weys. Cyde's first comment to Nathan, as far as I can see, was "Please remove the images in your sig. One is already beyond the bounds of what is expected; three is entirely beyond the bounds of what is expected. See

WP:SIG." Nathan responded quite emotionally, implying that even were it policy he would only remove the images is MediaWiki disabled them, and protested perceived blocks and orders. I see no evidence that Cyde or Kelly ever threatened a block, issued an order, or made any other statements besides requests. To me, Nathan's reaction seems quite over the top. If I have missed the incivility or personal attacks, I'd appreciate them being pointed out. — Knowledge Seeker দ

03:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? You're disappointed in me, did you? Two admins ganging up on me, throwing around insults, personal attacks and I'm the guilty party? I don't think so. Nathan 05:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm allowed to edit here, since I am not an admin, so if you need to, revert me.
Reply to Knowledge Seeker:
Kelly Martin said, "Being wilfully impolite, as you are doing, reflects poorly on you as a Wikipedian and will tend to bias people against you.". That means that Kelly Martin is calling Nathan "willingfully impolite" or "rude". And Kelly Martin is saying he is not a good wikipedian. So, calling someone rude and a bad wikipedian can be considered a personal attack. Right?. Also, Kelly Martin said, "I'd strongly suggest that you stop thinking about your "rights" and instead focus on how you can behave in a manner more conducive to maintaining a friendly, productive environment in which to write an encyclopedia.". That means that Nathan doesn't have rights, because Kelly Martin quoted them, which is implying that "rights" are a joke. Also, Kelly Martin is saying that Nathan is not friendly or productive. Nathan is very friendy, because he has many friends. Nathan is very productive, because he has over 6100 edits.
Thanks, --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 03:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

George, you seem to be laboring under at least one misapprehension of the truth: the words you above attribute to Cyde were in fact said by me. I would advise that you retract your comments about Cyde's conduct, given that they are founded in falsehood. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Rights? What rights? You only have two rights on Wikipedia:

1. To fork.
2. To leave.

User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, 6100 edits may mean you are productive, but does not automatically mean you are constructive. Editcountitis (looking at the quantity of edits) may affect the judgment of the quality of the edits. Let's not forget. --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Phil Welch has blocked Aksi_great for 15 minutes with the reason "harassing an admin." People may please look at the discussion on Phil Welch's talkpage to see if it was indeed harassment. I don't feel it qualifies and believe it to be a roguish act. Even if it were harassment, I believe this is the better place to raise the issue and ask other admins to look at the issue and block the user, if required. Please comment. TIA, --Gurubrahma 10:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The block has been undone but the conversation on the talk page makes disturbing reading for how an admin should behave.

Sophia

10:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I am User:Aksi_great. I have recently been blocked by User:Philwelch first for 15 minuted and then the block was extnded for 3 hours. The reason given was harassing an admin.

If you visit Philwelch's talk page you will understand the whole sequence of events. User:Samir asks him "Phil, please don't call him names. Thanks." for whichhe replied "Who the fuck asked you to come to my talk page? I really like being lectured by clueless newbies. Go find yourself a better hobby". At this point I put a no personal attack warning on Philwelch's talk page and I was blocked and asked by him to "Leave me the hell alone! ". On posting a noblock template on my talk page I was further blocked for 3 hours. - 203.88.151.10 10:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

His block was extended because the first block failed to correct his behavior, as can be evidenced by his dialogue with me on his talk page. It had nothing to do with his request for being unblocked. This individual was the third person to come to my talk page and lecture me about policy, starting an entirely new section about it to boot. Yes, I made uncivil remarks and I appreciate those sensible users who came to my talk page to inform me of it. However, the sort of piling-on that Aksi and Samir were engaging in is nothing less than harassment, and is completely unnecessary. If Aksi promises not to engage in such harassment in the future I will unblock him and put this behind me. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 10:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sophia, While I could unblock, I wouldn't, as a matter of principle, since I have raised the issue above. Now Phil Welch has gone ahead and blocked an IP, saying block evasion, an IP from which Aksi_great had contested the block. This is sad because the block on the user itself has been undone by another admin. I request the other admins to view the situation on the talkpages of Aksi_great and Phil Welch and lift the block ASAP. From my limited interaction with Aksi_great, i've found him to be a good user who just completed 2k+ edits. It is very frustrating to be blocked for what is not an offence. Admins should be in a position to take criticism in their stead and maintain civility, not block non-admin users who leave civil messages on the admin's talkpage. --Gurubrahma 10:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict again) In my opinion a totally inappropriate block. I would have removed it myself if it hadn't already been by

Petros471

10:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sending an {{

npa}} warning to someone who wrote this is definitely not grounds for a block. Although wheel-warring is discouraged under normal circumstances, on this occasion I congratulate the admin who undid the block. AnnH ♫

10:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, Nathan is a blatant troll, and his posse came to harass me about the blunt manner in which I came to that conclusion and supported Tony's action above. Yes, I should have been more civil about it. But I'll be damned if someone from the troll posse is the one to tell me that. I've accepted Gurubrahma and Petros' recommendations since I actually trust and respect their judgment. People who come to my talk page to stick up for trolls don't get that trust and respect, and I'm sorry it has to be that way. Furthermore—I'm an administrator. I've been here since November 2004. If you're going to come to my talk page to tell me off, have the common decency to do so without a goddamn template. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 10:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

So you regard template warnings as an insult but "mere" users have to accept them as you are an admin - is that it? If you have power and you use it you will be questioned sometimes - deal with it politely and firmly but never rudely as this looks as if you've lost the logic of the argument and are just lashing out.

Sophia

11:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a difference in the amount of respect that should be afforded to people who have been here for almost 2 years vs. brand new account holders. I don't use template warnings myself, and would never use them to warn an established user, although for an anonymous IP or brand new account I might. I don't mind my actions being questioned. I do mind being harassed and condescended to by people with less experience than I have. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 11:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I love the new sig. Much cleaner, yet still personalized :) — Phil Welch (t) (c) 11:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You have to learn to live with it. Otherwise we end up in the interesting position where there are a few users who really have been around forever who would be a bit tricky to find someone to critise. Your are a long term admin. Like most you have probably been on the reciving end of every kind of wind up tactic known on the internet. Learn to ignore them. You will be on the reciveing end of plently more.Geni 11:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Philwelch has also blocked Garglebutt over these two edits. While I don't condone the two edits, they don't seem sufficiently abusive to justify a block without warning from the admin he made them to — especially from someone who had just called other editors "twat" or told them to fuck off. AnnH ♫ 12:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Since when has being intoxicated been an blockable offence?Geni 12:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith on that one. THe way he was going off on me, I certainly hoped he wasn't sober at the time. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 12:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the abuse was not enough to justify a block without warning. Phil please consider undoing the block. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It was a three hour block to give him a cooldown period. If it was 24 hours I would definitely unblock, but a three hour block *is* a warning. Incidentally, I never told anybody to fuck off, and I've taken back calling Nathan a twat. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 13:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that you may have been enforcing a cooldown period on him whilst being upset yourself. Who will enforce you to cooldown when tempers get hot? If he needed to cooldown some other admin could have done it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern. But I quite honestly do not believe I would have done differently had the target of his attack been someone else and had my mood been at its best. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 13:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The blocking of

WP:NPA

several times as shown below;

• Calling nathanrdotcom a troll & Samir & Aksi great troll posse.[4], [and above]
• Calling Nathan a "twat" several times [5], [6]
• Calling Samir a "clueless newbie" & asking him to "fuck off". [7]

Here we can see that

WP:NPA several times, not to mention abused his powers as admin by blocking Aksi great twice. Also the person you are calling a "clueless newbie", Samir, has infact got over 2300 edits & has been with Wikipedia since July 2005. I suggest that Phil Welch apologize to Nathan, Samir & Aksi great immediately. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉}

) 13:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer not to respond to every delayed reaction on this topic, but in my defense: I never told Samir to fuck off. Not once. Check the diff yourself. I unblocked Aski before you even made that comment. Samir and I have reconciled, as anyone can see by reading my talk page. Finally, I didn't call Nathan a twat, I simply said he was acting like one. There is a distinction, which I've clarified more than once. I do think Aski was acting in a harassing manner towards me for reasons I've already adequately explained. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 14:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

See my comments below. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Philwelch is an admin?

I just got in a huge fight with User_talk:Philwelch, he ignored a {{inuse}} tag and then started a revert war.[8] [9] His behavior above, and his behavior to me today shows that he obviously is not up to admin standards. How does someone go about getting an admin demoted? Isn't the first step a discussion RFC on User_talk:Philwelch behavior? I am shocked this guy is an admin.Travb 14:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Great, my very own lynch mob. I thought we'd settled this, but apparently you can't let go. Go ahead and file an RfC. In fact, print it out and mail me a copy—I'm running low on toilet paper. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 14:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Your contempt for RfC illustrates the underlying problem.Travb 15:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering that I've had to warn Travb about civility and personal attacks before to other users (his response was to blank the warnings), he should put his own fused silica domicile in order before tossing missles composed of crustal material. ;) --Syrthiss 14:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Your right. You warned me about messaging vandals to stop vandalizing and I called them idiots, and I did erase those messages. But aren't we talking about User:Philwelch here, his verbal attacks, his 3RR, his disregard for wikirules? My misbehavior should be punished, I agree. If there is a punishment for my behavior, please do it. All I am asking for is that the rules be applied fairly and equitably, and in this case, the obviously are not. There is one standard for admins, and another standard for everyone else. I have seen so many people get booted for 3RRs, and yet Phil gets off scot free with an weak apology. Travb 15:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

My point was everyone can have a bad day. I didn't keep after you for blanking the warning since I felt you had agreed and would make an effort to improve. The 3rr situation with Phil appears to the outside exactly the same: he agreed you were correct about the 3rr and blocked himself, but since blocks aren't meant to be punitive we can assume he's going to make an effort to avoid that. If he's going to avoid it, there's no reason that he needs to be blocked...and if he happens to go back to the reverted article, then we can deal with that situation at that time. This seems like a lot of energy being expended by editors who could be moving on. Syrthiss 15:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, file an RfC or get over it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Third Party Opinion

Well, I missed all the foofaraw about this when it was happening, and I've never had any interaction with Nathan before. Furthermore, I think that most people would agree that I'm not exactly the president of the Tony Sidaway Cheerleading Squad, so I hope my opinion on this carries some weight: this is a good block. Reading through the talk page it is clear that Nathan is simply spoiling for a fight. Several polite requests were made on his talk page, and he characterized them as acts of aggression and began, metaphorically, shouting "Murder! Theft! Arson! Dictatorship!" We have a word for that kind of behavior: disruption. Nathan wasn't simply blocked for having a stupidly large signature, he was blocked for being disruptive. The best way to avoid being blocked for disruption is to avoid engaging in disruptive behavior. Hopefully he has learned his lesson, and it won't have to happen again. Those of you who are defending Nathan's behavior in this matter should be asking yourself why you are wasting your time on this instead of editing an encyclopedia. Nandesuka 14:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, you did a much better job of stating that than I did. I'm not even REMOTELY a Tony Sidaway fan, but I agree with his judgment here. I stated this opinion in a slightly less civil way earlier, and that led to consequences—I think I can take back what I said earlier and just add a "me too" to Nandesuka's opinion. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 14:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I am back (before the 4 hour period, but even then...). Today has been a bad day for me. I seem to have got caught up in something which I never knew about (the sig. image issue). But still, I feel that I did what was right and am not going to apologise for what I have done. It was within the rights of User:Samir_(The Scope) to have aksed Phil to be civil. But instead he was abused and called a newbie. Everyone know what happened next. I never was the one who lost my cool. In fact, I eve wrote on Samir's talk page - "You probably caught him at the wrong moment. Don't lose your cool. I am sure he will regret saying that once he cools down.". That was just moments before I got blocked.

I understand that Phil is an admin, and that he has been here 1 year before I have been, but I too have been doing my part to build an encyclopedia. It feels bad to be called a troll, and to be blocked. When I used the unblock template on my talk page, I was further blocked by Phil (to correct your behavior - accroding to him). What behavior is he talking about? I agree that the talk page is a personal page, but he has no right to abuse others on that page. I also agree that it may have been unwise to use a template for an experience user, but why waste time on writing what is already written. If a warning template cannot be used on an admin then it cannot be used on anyone else. I am not going to take this anywhere else and this is probably the last time I am writing here. How can I be acting in a harassing manner when I made a single remark on his talk page. This is the first time I ever heard about Phil. I feel that I should atleast be given an apology, considering the fact that my block log is an open notebook. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the above before Phil apologised to me on my talk page. I accept the apology and request other users not to carry on this discussion forward. It serves no purpose as it wastes my time and Phil's time too. Let us do what we have come here to do. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel this is a great example of how a potentially explosive situation was settled very peacefully by a few mutual apologies & reconcilations. I must commend all the parties involved for settling this issue with

civility. I feel that I too owe an apology to Phil Welch for posting my comments behind the pace of the ongoing discussions. I had written that section when it was relevant & forgot to hit "save" then later mistakenly posted it. Now let bygones be bygones & as Phil has quoted on the Incidents page "Lets write an encyclopedia". Thanks Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉}

) 14:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This user received a warning for vandalising my userpage, which he afterwards removed. I thought that there was a rule about removing warnings from talk pages, so I restored the warning to his talk page and commented on him removing it. He afterwards responded angrily on my talk page, saying that he could do whatever he wanted to his talk page and telling me to leave it alone. Could an administrator please talk with him about the issue of talk page warning removal?--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 10:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If someone removes a warning, they have taken an action to deal with it. You can safely assume that they have seen the warning, and continue on that basis.Kim Bruning 12:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

He has continually vandalised Gamer.tv and other articles, and he has been warned more then enough times for doing so. ILovePlankton ^{(T—C—U—L)} 16:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. In the future, please take this to

WP:AIV. :) RadioKirk talk to me

16:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, and I will. ILovePlankton ^{(T—C—U—L)} 16:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

how come i cannot make a Matthew Mazankowski Page? please help me out. thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewmazankowski (talk • contribs)

WP:N with 0 Google hits. RadioKirk talk to me

03:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You can as a user pager! --Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 04:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

How would i do that?, im trying to make my biography :S:S but it keeps getting deleted... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewmazankowski (talk • contribs)

I have done it for you on your user page already! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 05:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It keeps getting deleted because, under

WP:N as linked above, the biography does not assert the notability of the subject. One needs either wait until one is notable—and, naturally, best of fortunes—or tell us who you (?) are on your user page, as the user above has done. RadioKirk talk to me

05:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And please sign your edits with ~~~~ --Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 09:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I am Matthew Mazankowski, in the band Behind Sapphire...and i'd like to put my bio on wikipedia. Can you please undelete the Matthew Mazankowski page please. thank you.

Also what do you mean by sign your edits with the --Matthewmazankowski 02:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC) thinger?

I have blocked Guanaco for three hours [10] for repeatedly making an edit describing other editors as bullies [11] [12] , despite being politely asked (by editors other than myself) not to do so. --Tony Sidaway 20:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with this block. I was one of the people who saw the potential edit war brewing; Guanaco first placed a comment saying "And practice should reflect consensus, not the demands of bullies." in the

Doc glasgow noticed this comment and left a message on Guanaco's talk page, explaining that the comment could be "interpreted as a personal attack" and urged Guanaco to withdraw it. Guanaco replied on his user talk page, refusing to withdraw it. Following this, Doc glasgow rolled back the edit by Guanaco and left a message, saying that he had reverted (removed) Guanaco's comment "for him". Guanaco then reverted Doc glasgow's rollback and replied on his user talk page, asking Doc glasgow not to delete the comment. At this point, I sensed that I could try and prevent an ugly revert war and calm things down; I left a message for him politely requesting that everyone tone things down. There was no more reverting from this point onward; Guanaco replied to me, saying that "out of respect for your request, I will try being politically correct one more time," a postive response. Doc glasgow also left a message after that. That was at 18:21 UTC; Guanaco had no contributions between then and 19:58, over an hour and a half later, when Tony Sidaway blocked Guanaco for 3 hours and then removed

Guanaco's comments from the CSD talk page 10 minutes later. Guanaco only reverted once and had stopped doing so over an hour and a half later; in addition, he had promised, in his reply to me, to tone things down. While I'm not condoning Guanaco's or anyone else's actions, I don't think this block is necessary or proper, given that Guanaco had only reverted once, was actively engaged in discussion, had promised to tone things down, and had not edited for over an hour and a half before his block.

I hope I've outlined the whole situation correctly above; Tony Sidaway, I urge you to reconsider this block. Comments from other people would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

(IANAA) I think Flcelloguy's summary accurately and fairly represents the situation, and I concur in his conclusion that Tony would do well to reconsider the block. Joe 21:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It may be worth adding that in his response to Flcelloguy, "out of respect for your request..." which Flcellogu describes as a 'a postive response', Guanaco actually unrepentently repeats the very agressive words to which I had initially objected. Rather than debate the issues he snidely and unhelpfully refers again to 'some people' as 'bullies' - and their ideas as 'bullshit'[13]. Repeating the incivility is hardly 'trying to be politically correct' - he is are still attacking people without havin the courage to name them. --

^ask?

22:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

True; I'm not condoning Guanaco's actions here. I personally feel that he was incivil as well. But I'm disagreeing with the block because Guanaco had only reverted once when his comment containing a borderline (i.e. not clear-cut) personal attack was removed, and had not edited in over an hour and a half prior to his block. Blocks aren't supposed to be punitive, and I don't see a justification when the editor had stopped reverting after he had reverted only once and wasn't even editing. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to register an extremely strong disagreement with Flcelloguy. Calling a fellow editor a bully is not borderline. I felt, and still feel, that Guanaco's deliberate and premeditated rebuff to some polite requests, and his repetition of the original attack, merited some kind of preventive. I blocked Guanaco at 1958 UTC, putting a note on his talk page at 1959 and on this page at 2003 and 2007. I chose to remove the personal attack some time afterwards--over an hour afterwards, at 2109 UTC. --Tony Sidaway 22:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I am definitely not condoning Guanaco's actions here; I urged him to not use such terms as well. There is no excuse for personal attacks of any kind. However, a block when he had neither reverted nor edited for over an hour and a half, had only reverted what he perceived as the removal of his valid comment once, and had not reverted since being asked not to, was inappropriate in my view, especially since the comment was not a clear-cut personal attack (i.e. "so and so is a bully or idiot!" versus "And practice should reflect consensus, not the demands of bullies," which while is still incivil, is not as egregious as an outright insult or personal attack). Blocks are not supposed to be punitive. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The "personal insult" was at best/worst indirect and to me at least came across as a criticism of behavior - it is not a personal attack, after all to characterize behavior as bullying, if such a charge can be substantiated. Sidaway, on the other hand, blocked without getting familiar with the specifics, including efforts to mediate and reciprocal efforts to calm down. Unless he actually intended it as a punitive measure, the block was unfounded. --Leifern 02:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot accept that "And practice should reflect consensus, not the demands of bullies" is not a most egregious and unacceptable personal attack. The block was intended to prevent further escalation of this repeated personal attack, which was defended in the most disingenuous and back-handed manner [14]. --Tony Sidaway 00:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree with this statement. While - I repeat - I'm certainly not condoning Guanaco's actions or statement here, his comment was not a direct personal attack; it was simply a statement, that while possibly uncivil, did not warrant a block at the time. A direct and egregious attack would consist of saying "so and so is a bully"; his statement neither named a specific person or group of people nor called anyone any insults directly. Nevertheless, regardless of whether you felt that the comment was a personal attack, I don't understand the justification of the block when the user had not edited in over an hour and a half prior to being blocked (and had not edited the page for an even longer period of time), had only reverted once in what he perceived was an unjust removal of his comment, and had promised to tone things down. A block isn't supposed to be punitive. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello WP:AN, I'd like to report

It just so happens this very IP is one of the range being discussed right now at

Wikipedia:Abuse reports#Internet for Learning--woggly

11:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I just saw the strangest log for a user today, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Profilevoter -- is this a new software feature for MediaWiki now? --HappyCamper 19:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like maybe a vulnerablility in the MediaWiki software? --Syrthiss 19:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[15]. It appears to be when an account is created when you're logged in. Will (^E_@) T 19:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see. Wacky. --Syrthiss 20:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

See? It's something really really weird. I've never seen it before. I'm logged in, but I don't get that. Any other ideas? --HappyCamper 20:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It worked for me: [16]. And I got promptly blocked! Curps, you are awesome. My first block! Oh, I should also note here that I unblocked myself. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Errm, why did Curps block you and not your sock? Anyway, is there some way of harnessing this feature for serious sockpuppet detection?

Petros471

20:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That would only work if they were logged in when they created the sock. ILovePlankton ^{(T—C—U—L)} 20:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now I understand...I had to read this at least 15 times before I understood this. Basically, if you create a new account while you're logged in, you'll get those entries in the log. Ah! That makes sense now...I had no idea the software kept track of this. --HappyCamper 21:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I had seen it for a little bit, but was a little confused. But there I went and made Lord Voldebot [17]. :-) --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[18] I have also created many accounts while logged on. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 00:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a good way to make sure that doppleganger accounts are easily intentifable as such and not imposter accounts. Could someone who understands this add instructions and give a brief explanation at

…and remind people about {{doppelganger}} also, which is in the instructions but seems to slip past most people's attention. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I posted to Cyde's talk that his actions thus far have been incivil, attacking, bullying and he broke Wikipedia policy.

Apparently, I'm a troll and a stalker for telling him he's wrong.

When are some admins around here going to realise that

I urge someone to strongly warn Cyde that his behaviour is beyond the boundaries of what is acceptable. - Nathan (now redirecting en.wikipedia.org to 127.0.0.1 so I don't post anything) 02:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Despite your protests to the contrary, Cyde's request was hardly uncivil. Indeed, I'd considered asking the same thing of you, but he beat me to it. Your response to his and other users' reasonable requests has been nothing short of astonishing. I cannot fathom why you've reacted so badly. Mackensen (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you felt it was necessary to post these attack messages on my user talk page today (and attack messages they were, you were accusing me of all manner of things). There was no need for it. You had already said that you felt I was bullying you, and guess what? I was leaving you alone. But for whatever reason you felt like you had to start it up again by posting more of the same personal attacks thinly veiled under allusions to

And yes, I do think saying "Are you going to block me now for disagreeing with you?" is trolling for a block. --Cyde Weys 02:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The backlog is now over 200 pages, somebody might want to clear it out. --Rory096 05:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been pretty much taken care of.

(talk)

06:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Back up to over 100 now. --Rory096 07:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Crossposting is bad, so I'm moving this thread to join it's other half at wp:ani. Please don't comment any more here. -
  brenneman^{L}
  08:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Earlier tonight, I blocked User:LeFIyman indefinitely for being too similar to (and probably an intended impersonator of) User:Leflyman. It just occurred to me that I probably ought to note it somewhere, but I wasn't sure where was the best place. Anyway, here it is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

User

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby

In his arbitration case, KDRGibby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was found to have shown extreme discourtesy, failed to assume good faith, indulged in personal attacks and tendentious editing, edit warred, blanked large sections of articles on controversial articles without discussion, acted immaturely and made specious complaints.

Since his arbitration case, KDRGibby has been blocked for personal attacks, general incivility, tendentious editing, attacking administrators when warned, and edit warring. He has been banned from two articles under his probation. He has repeatedly violated the ban on one of these articles. He has been blocked eight times in the past ten weeks, the last two times for one month each. His behavior shows no improvement and his talk page is currently protected after his continued incivility and personal attacks on the talk page while blocked.

The above two paragraphs comprise a summary of his case, full details of which are at the case page of his arbitration, linked above.

I have contacted all of the administrators involved in enforcement of this case, suggesting that, in view of the failure of the enforcement measures so far to improve his behavior, and the lack of any sign that he is both capable of and willing to reform, we should invoke the General Probation remedy of his arbitration case, and ban him from Wikipedia.

KDRGibby is placed on general probation. Any three administrators, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban him from Wikipedia if his general pattern of activity is unacceptably disruptive. Such a ban and the basis for it shall logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby#Log of blocks and bans.

Two of those administrators have responded so far, each indicating that he has no objections.

Accordingly, I open the proposal to further discussion. KDRGibby is currently blocked for one month, and the block terminates in mid-June. --Tony Sidaway 14:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• I haven't yet reviewed his recent "contributions" in detail (hadn't realized he was back until informed by Tony), but if this sample is anything to go by, he's back to exactly the same stuff that had him on probation, and then blocked for a month, last time. If we're serious about enforcement of such rulings, he must merit at least a longer block this time, and I'd find it hard to argue against a permanent ban. Alai 14:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Here's what I said in February: It's pretty much a waste of time to put him on any sort of parole -- he knows full well he's under close scrutiny, and continues the same nasty ways. If the max period is one year after five blocks, ok, but it's a foregone conclusion the more drastic remedy will be applied; he's been given plenty of chances. I don't see any change for the better and don't expect any. If there was some chance a one year ban would have some useful effect, I'd recommend that; maybe that would give him time to mature a bit. But I'd back a full ban as well. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support year long ban, failing that permban. -
  FrancisTyers
  15:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Scanning his list of contributions reveals that he is loath to add proper edit summaries; those he does bother to add are often insulting and bad-tempered. A quick sampling of edits reveals that the content of his comments to other editors are often off the same calibre. If this is the behaviour of someone currently on parole, then he needs to be taught a stronger lesson. Endorse ban. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. —
  Ruud
  18:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support - He will make for an excellent indefinitely banned user. --Cyde Weys 23:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse indef block, as I was the one who talked about it in IRC. KDRGibby had quite a few chances to redeem himself including a prior one month log ban, but as soon as that ban ended, KDRGibby started edit warning and severe personal attacks in his talk page again. Gibby doesn't look willing to learn and already lost most of the communitty paintence. Thanks
  ^{wat's sup}
  23:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've enacted the ban. --Cyde Weys 23:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've recorded this as an indefinite ban, and told KDRGibby on his user talk page that he can appeal it to the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo. Please note that this is a General Probation ban, not a community ban; it cannot be summarily rescinded by a dissenting administrator. --Tony Sidaway 00:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please fix an error on the frontpage? See

Has been fixed by another administrator already. For future reference you may report errors on the main page to

WP:ERRORS. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?

) 21:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone more patient than I help out Iloveminun (talk · contribs) with copyright, template, and category issues? Said user is making many redundant templates and categories, as well as repeatedly asserting {{GFDL-self}} on an image that is derivative of a copyrighted images. I'm at the end of my rope. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh most of the stuff I could find by him in template space seemed to be either redundant or unwikipedian, so I just deleted it. --Tony Sidaway 23:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for posting this here, but I really get upset when something like this happens, and I can't find a notice board for Esperanza's currently. It seems that Max (as his signature reads) came, was quickly suspected of being a sock puppet and was driven away. Could others help in a last ditch effort to get him to say? User talk:Stillstudying Thanks --Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 16:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Max will stay. Thanks to everyone for helping! --Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 14:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Big back up starting guys - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 08:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again as above - list growing - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 09:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or are

WP:AIV getting backlogged more and more recently? --Rory096

07:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Check this version of Macedonia (Greece) vs the next one. The image (flag) dissappears if it has 195px width, and reappears with 194px. I hope the problem is less significant than a narrower flag by 1 pixel!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried purging the image (the trick which usually fixes these thumbnail problems), but it didn't solve the issue. You should ask on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), where there's a greater chance someone who knows how to fix it will read about the issue. --cesarb 18:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it's already been reported at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Bad thumbnail. I will copy your message to there. --cesarb 19:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Btw I think the purge procedure ruined the good version of 194px too! Check the article now... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

but is there an easy way of undoing an autoblock other than blocking and unblocking the IP? I had an email from a university user who was caught up because a vandal had been using the university's proxy. Times like this you find out how little you know... Just zis Guy you know? 21:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You can find it on the Ipblocklist (off Special pages, along the left rail of monobook) and click on unblock. I'm not sure that this method is any easier, though... · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 21:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This tool is linked at the top on Special:ipblocklist. As long as the autoblock is long enough ago to have made it past the toolserver replication lag, it makes finding the autoblock easy given the IP or the admin that made the block. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't actually rely on the toolserver replication at the moment but periodically "scrapes" the logs, so provided its more than say 10 minutes old it'll probably be there, similary if they get unblocked quickly they never show up there. --pgk^(talk) 22:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have also heard that just unblocking the IP (no need to block it before) is enough to clear the autoblock. I never tried to do it that way; I usually go to the Ipblocklist and unblock from there. --cesarb 22:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It works. I always do it that way. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Could someone kindly explain to

Message left. Prodego ^talk 01:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

X

01:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RuneScape/Archive06

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RuneScape_weaponry

http://kbase.runescape.com/lang/en/aff/runescape/viewarticle.ws?article_id=2420

http://kbase.runescape.com/lang/en/aff/runescape/viewarticle.ws?article_id=2422

http://www.runescape.com/lang/en/aff/runescape/terms/terms.ws

The first two links are from the issues that have emerged that caused the gallery and the good faith in its creation, and the next three are information straight from the company that owns the game RuneScape, Jagex, who mentions the "permission in advance" and the ability to use it as long as it does not go against their rules.

I have read what the free-use policies and the what not to include in user pages and according to one of the Jagex articles, the permission was given in advance. As for the free-use, all those images have a purpose as a reference for usage in the RuneScape articles, for those that have a history in editing in those articles.

Tarikochi^Gallery_Criticize 01:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

See [19] Prodego ^talk 01:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That link is talking about the site. This issue involves in-game images. Tarikochi^Gallery_Criticize 02:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Tarikochi, you are decorating your userpage with unfree images. Please remove them. I'm sorry that other editors were overly aggressive in doing it for you, or have failed to explain the issue clearly. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not offering you personal webspace to display content that is under an unfree license. I'm afraid that this isn't negotiable. Jkelly 02:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have not removed the images from the userpage without discussion, in fact so far I haven't removed them at all. Prodego ^talk 02:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I admit, I was overly hasty and apoligize for removing the images speedily from his user page even though I warned him 3 times about it. But to clarify, I still don't agree that there is any room for compromise concerning the usage of it on his user page.

X

02:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there any precedent for reverting AfD nominations by anon IP editors? I've completed one AfD recently by an IP that has about 10 others not completed because they can't create the AfD subpage.(see Special:Contributions/69.143.30.51). I suspect they are not good faith nominations, so can they just be reverted, or should I just complete them all? Kevin 04:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Since all this person seems to want to do is nominate articles on Canadian Olympians for deletion, it's not at all clear that you should be helping them. From a quick inspection of the contributions list you supply above (if you check, they start out by blanking Christine Robinson and nominate for AFD when reverted by Tawkerbot), I would be inclined to revert the nominations as some other people have done, and go check whether this clown is doing the same under a different guise. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Posting a full copy of a manifesto to a discussion page isn't appropriate, particularly when it includes a number of attacks on other editors. I note that your post was allowed to remain after you trimmed it and toned it down. I think Travb's statement on User:Travb/Misguided and heavy handed tactics of some admins regarding copyright says it all:

PLEASE NOTE: This is not a forum for Wikipedians to cite the reasons why what the admins are doing is correct, these opinions can be expressed elsewhere. This is a forum for like-minded wikipedians to organize effective resistance against untrained wikipedians who have no understanding of the law, but impose draconian and counterproductive measures on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in organizing resistance movements. While you're more than welcome to discuss policy changes in your userspace, please remember that

WP:POINT all still apply there. Persistent deliberate violation of the copyright policies on Wikipedia will be met with sanctions. TenOfAllTrades(talk

) 15:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

We should paste the above somewhere prominent. Jkelly 16:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I second that.--Alabamaboy 16:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Would an admin please revert to the the state the article was when it was protected and protect it again. We have not reached a consensus. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, someone posted an unprotect request on this article and I unprotected it earlier today. It appears, judging from the talk page, that pretty much everyone but Ems agrees on compromise language. I don't think the article needs to be protected over one person's disagreement. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 16:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Kate seems properly to adjudge the situation, IMHO; protection seems unnecessary. Joe 17:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have sourced Judaism beliefs to be different to what the article claims even in the apparently "consensused" form. Currently most Jews are busy because of Lag B'omer. The unprotection request was a very sneaky one because they should know that we are away it was even published on the Main Page. Please revert and protect it. I don't not want to break

Please protect the article already. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 17:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If enough other people disagree with you that you are in danger of violating the 3RR, perhaps you should accept that your viewpoint may be in the minority. If you are still dissatisfied, use

dispute resolution. An article cannot be protected because one out of many editors working on an article disagrees. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll

17:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who originally protected the article. I have to agree with ems that the timing of the unprotection request is "curious", although I'd be remiss to not also note that ems has been curiously quiet on the article's talk page until today. Having read the discussion on the talk page, my impression is that ems makes some good points but doesn't express them very clearly, nor in a tone generally conducive to dialog, which is unfortunate. The unprotection is, IMHO, "in order", and somewhat overdue. It's too bad the editors involved didn't work harder to inform themselves about the valid issues ems was trying to raise. This is edging on "more appropriate for the article talk page", so I'll leave it at that. Tomer^talk 01:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As I have commented elsewhere, the idea that Lag B'omer somehow would prevent "most Jews" from commenting is ridiculous. The holiday is a very minor holiday with no form of work prohibition whatsoever. Most people who celebrate the holiday do so by going on a hike for a few hours. Furthermore, the claim that somehow the unprotection was timed for a minor holiday (which frankly most non-Jews and probably many non-Orthodox Jews have never heard of) seems to be an awful example of

assuming bad faith. JoshuaZ

17:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked the above user for one week for threatening legal action against Wikipedia and Jpgordon (talk · contribs). Please review - as always rescind if appropriate to do so. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this block. I warned the user shortly before ESKog blocked, so I agree with the block totally. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 18:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Since she immediately rescinded the threat once informed of the policy, I think she should be unblocked, along with a warning that her repeated posting of the same text on Talk:Abraham Lincoln is disruptive behavior that will be cause for blocking. Obviously, I'm involved in the dispute, so I'd rather someone else do whatever. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

LordDeskana has unblocked, but has promised to keep an eye on him. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

All users in Category:UK Wikipedians need to be moved to Category:Wikipedians in the United Kingdom. Arniep 16:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you link to the CFD discussion for the renaming please? Syrthiss 16:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm User:Talrias redirected it on April 2nd, but looking at the discussion on Category talk:UK Wikipedians it appears there isn't consensus to merge so I'll remove the redirect. Arniep 19:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)