User talk:Robert Steele here deletes a link to a commercial competitor and here offers money to subvert wikipedia. WAS 4.250 04:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This is unacceptable behavior. Would anyone object if I indef blocked him and let the foundation take care of this? JoshuaZ 04:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, he's offering money -- not a lot of money, at that -- to people to write articles about areas that interest him. Emphases mine:

I got explicit approval for hiring a professional Wiki editor to get this page out of its slump, and to lead a team that can over time discourage trolls, morons, self-promoters, and bureaucrats intent on concealing the truthful history of ineptness in OSINT. While I was told to post to the WikiList first, I believe that those of your who have volunteered here already deserve a first shot. I am thinking in terms of $250 increments, and over time this could become a weekly amount as we move beyond this page to create or contribute to ten Wiki pages on the ten High-Level threats to humanity (Poverty, Infectuous Disease, Environmental Degradation, Inter-State Conflict, Civil War, Genocide, Other Atrocities, Proliferation, Terrorism, and Transnational Crime. It is clearly understood that I have to identify or post secondary works, and then work with the professional editor to get them properly integrated.

And the "subversion" in that 'graf is what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 06:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well "got explicit approval for hiring a professional Wiki editor to get this page out of its slump, and to lead a team that can over time discourage trolls, morons, self-promoters, and bureaucrats intent on concealing the truthful history of ineptness in OSINT" and "Wiki policy will accept vendors creating a single paragraph and URL link to their home page, and abusive vendors like LEXIS-NEXIS will be cut back to that." This sounds like someone who thinks he knows The Truth and is willing to pay people to promote it. Taken together with the removal of his competitor's link (and the accompanying edit summary) I have trouble seeing how this could possibly be a good thing. JoshuaZ 06:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Repeating the words of the quote and saying, in effect, "it's obvious!" is, shall we say, less than convincing -- as does ignoring the highlighted portions explicitly acknowledging Wikipedia standards that must be met, which last time I looked were nothing about The Truth, but verifiability. So, mind pointing the actual "subversion", the phrases that don't require projection? --Calton | Talk 07:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Judge him by his behavior: [1], [2], [3]. WAS 4.250 07:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That second link is a month old, and the post above allegedly under discussion, well, isn't.

Judge him by his behavior No, you asked us to judge him by his words -- words somewhat more recent than a month old. Were you going to actually say why, or are you going to change the subject again? Maybe we can judge him by his spelling? His haircut? Or you could, you know, actually articulate an answer to the question asked. --Calton | Talk 10:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, please don't insert newer comments above older ones (ie mine). If you wish to refer to a comment by another user that someone has already replied to, please do so below the original reply. Viridae^Talk 10:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what indenting is for, and I WAS directly replying to a comment, which why I, you know, put it directly under the comment I was replying to. Not difficult. --Calton | Talk 23:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That second link is VERY disturbing. Viridae^Talk 07:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, they all are. Viridae^Talk 07:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Considerng the point of the not-month-old posting above is, in effect, a mea culpa for earlier stuff -- and given that the timeflow in this universe is in one direction only and stuff that happens after other stuff is generally considered to supercede the earlier stuff -- why is that a priori a problem or applicable? --Calton | Talk 10:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain yourself using english not missused latin. (Mea culpa translates to my own fault). Viridae^Talk 10:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, ":Considering the point of the not-month-old posting above is, in effect, a it's my fault, I was wrong for earlier stuff..."

There you go. Or are going to pretend you don't understand that, too? --Calton | Talk 23:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no point in continuing this conversation. I do not want to be involved in arguing, I was only commenting on three links that were posted. Viridae^Talk 05:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't that complicated, the user has a massive POV calling Lexis-Nexis an abusive vendor and he would rather have their article reduced together with 'the comment bureaucrats intent on concealing the truthful history of ineptness in OSINT makes it sound to me like he is essentially paying people to POV push. Between that and his earlier comments, we should ask Jimbo what is going on here. JoshuaZ 12:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

His continuing edits are: [4] [5]. If Wikipedia is for sale, I think we can get a better price. WAS 4.250 22:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Makes me remember Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. WAS 4.250 22:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't that complicated True. The word for that is "projection". Once again, what is it in the words that he actually used makes it "subversion"? -- and try to do it without the mindreading this time.

Oh, and I've reposted the Steele posting that WAS 4.250 deleted until such time that WAS 4.250 can actually explain why it's a Bad Thing. --Calton | Talk 23:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason seems to me to be clear. It may be due to poor phrasing, but it looks very much like Steele wants to pay people to push his POV. JoshuaZ 03:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Autobiography says "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." Steele has a very clear conflict of interest. Enough so that he himself needs not to edit the articles he is proposing to pay others to edit. Paying others to do what he himself is not allowed to do is not acceptable behavior. WAS 4.250 04:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, any time you two want to actually address the actual words used by Steele using their actual meanings -- instead of making up stuff and yelling BOOGEDY BOOGEDY BOOGEDY -- is fine by me.

This may or may not be a spectacularly bad idea and maybe it would set a bad precedent. But "AIEEE! MONSTERS UNDER THE BED! BOOGEDY BOOGEDY BOOGEDY!" is not really a convincing argument. --Calton | Talk 05:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the phrase that is most concerning (in addition to his history of problematic edits) is "discourage trolls, morons, self-promoters, and bureaucrats intent on concealing the truthful history of ineptness in OSINT." Now, that sounds strongly like the sort of thing users say when they think that their POV is the Truth. Do we need to spell this out anymore? JoshuaZ 05:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

He says "I now understand my mistakes earlier, especially the need for a third party to post any link or reference to me, however central I may be to OSINT. Not to worry. I talked about this page, the experience, and the broader future in depth with several Wiki leaders, and I believe we are all on the same page. I got explicit approval for hiring a professional Wiki editor to get this page out of its slump, and to lead a team that can over time discourage trolls, morons, self-promoters, and bureaucrats intent on concealing the truthful history of ineptness in OSINT." [6] saying he will "lead" in changing the OSINT page; something he believes himself "central" to and he sees his past mistake as editing himself rather than hiring others to make the edits he wishes to make (which includes links or references to him he says). The point of third parties is unbiased editing by people who lack a conflict of interest. People being lead and paid by someone with a conflict of intrest also have a conflict of interest. Further he has already edited the page in a way that was widely believed to be very self serving and he shows no indication that his leadership of paid editors would serve any purpose other than self interest. WAS 4.250 09:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, Jimbo just blocked another editor for similar problems until he could talk to them personally [7]. JoshuaZ 19:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo just made a deal with that other editor who was paid to write an article. Jimbo says:"He agreed not to edit Wikipedia articles when he is being paid to write by the subject of the article, and to help the companies he works with understand that it is probably not a great idea for them to edit their own articles as well. He will write articles and post them on his own site, under the GNU FDL, and to ask trusted prominent and independent Wikipedians to add the articles, on their own independent judgments of the merits of the articles." [8] because "Getting paid to add entries to Wikipedia by the subject of the entries is a serious serious no-no because of the obvious conflict-of-interest issues." [9] Steele has made another edit to the OSINT talk page moving in this direction but he's not quite there yet. Maybe an admin could talk to him to get him to agree to the same deal Jimbo agreed to with the other editor. Then we could assume good faith and wait for actual edits before making further judgements. Does that sound like a good idea? WAS 4.250 21:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see

Hello. I found someone with an inappropriate username User:CFIF. He makes all sorts of broadcast media related edits and may be confused with radio station CFIF-FM. I hope I did the right thing by reporting this. Syolent Mauve 15:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone mind moving Catfish (freshwater) back to Catfish and deleting Catfish (saltwater)? Sysrpl (talk • contribs) seems to have been trying to foist a hoax page (read the content of the saltwater page). Some disambig pages need correction as well. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 19:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

King of hearts seems to have taken care of it. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 21:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed there's a user with a name

I'd agree. If I received a warning from supermod, I would definitely assume he was an admin. alphaChimp ^laudare 07:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

perhaps usersnames could be restricted so they could not end in "mod"

St.isaac

07:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Then things like modern, modarna, mode etc wouldn't be allowed.--Andeh 12:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I said usernames could not end in "mod"

St.isaac

20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't find anything particularly bannable about the name. I wouldn't make any assumptions about warnings I had received from such a name - nor would I have done as a newbie - perhaps this is a cultural or generational bias.--A Y Arktos\^talk 00:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Every online forum I have ever been in disallowed the use of mod or admin in the name. As a newbie it would be a correct assumption to assume that we wouldn't allow usernames that smell likes they have power they don't have. It's standard practice, and I don't see why we should allow someone that name or anything similiar. (comment by Mboverload)

"Super mod" is an administrative position on many Internet bulletin boards (including many modified phpBB boards), halfway between "moderator" and "administrator". Supermod doesn't appear to be making any attempts to act the part of a moderator, and no one seems to be getting confused, so I see no problem in letting this username stand. Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So it's rather like adopting a user name of "administrator" or, more accurately, "semiadministrator", which would obviously not be allowed. It's a recognised title and is potentially misleading. Although, as with AYArktos, it wouldn't have meant much to me, I see that it would to other people, so I think it needs to be changed. Tyrenius 06:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Although for at least some of us the name has no significant connotations, I appreciate the arguments put forward that it has some meaning in some online forums and thus and on the basis the name has connotations for some (ie it suggests a definition or association), I support restrictions on this and similar usernames as per User:St.isaac --A Y Arktos\^talk 23:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A discussion is underway concerning the redesign of the sidebar which is displayed on every page of Wikipedia at

Looks like a bug. Unfortunately he didn't create the new user in the normal way so the Wikimedia software isn't behaving properly. I'm pretty sure that all he did was use the Move Page link to move his original user pages to his new user name. You can still track his User Contributions but you have to go the

User:Schmendrick page presumably because the software thinks that this is a User page without a User. -- Derek Ross | Talk

06:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is it possible for ordinary users to move user pages? Ben Aveling 07:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

He needs to be told to do it the right way.

Thatcher131 (talk)

11:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to close this out, I contacted him and he has applied at

Thatcher131 (talk)

16:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Does this happen often enough to justify raising a suggested code change to the wiki? Regards, Ben Aveling 02:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot's logged three cases where a user has moved their talkpage without renaming their account, out of 13,000 userpages checked. --Carnildo 02:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it'll happen, but if we were to do such a thing, I'd like to see an inability for users to create userpages for non-existant users- more than a few times, I've seen people create pages at User:ExampleUser subpage instead of User:ExampleUser/subpage. Ral315 (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I mistakenly restored 3 deleted edits from Paul Stamatiou (dating from back in June). How can these be again deleted? (the page re-appeared, and is up for a prod, btw). Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom members, two Wikipedia developers, and a couple of other users have leet revision-deleting powers. Ask 'em and they shall fulfill. Hbdragon88 02:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, administrators can remove revisions (deleting them fully, as you mention above, is only for privacy violations). You just have to delete the entire page, and restore only the versions you wish to keep. I've deleted the first three revisions. Ral315 (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow that's news to me...I thought they could just generally be used, but now that I have read Wikipedia:Oversight, its use is very narrow and explicit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbdragon88 (talk • contribs)

An avid linkspammer.[10] Needs a ban.Yeago 02:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I warned him with {{

spam5}} and a block? Hbdragon88

02:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

{{

spam3}} gives warning of an impending block if they continue, so it is rather up to you. Viridae^Talk

04:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an admin, so I'd have to request for it here. Hbdragon88 04:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

On, or about, July 31, 2006, i created an article entitled

It was deleted on

31 July 2006 by Stifle for being an article about a person that did not explain the notability of its subject. See Wikipedia:Notability. —Bkell (talk

) 22:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bkell. Several people spent a lot of time and effort on that article and while it was no polished jewel i was working on it - and i am rather offended that it would be deleted without my being informed. I see that it was nixxed by one calling him or her self "Stifle" and it is easy to see where that name comes from. I would like to see the article returned to wikipedia, i believe that it begins with a rather long list of Barrett's accomplishments, sculptor, musician, painter, graphic artist, poet, but if that's not enough, please let me know and i'll try and find some more. Carptrash 22:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Carptrash 22:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Biographies which do not demonstrate their relevance or significance will be speedily deleted, as yours was. I do not know what your article's exact contents were, but if the article was speedily deleted, I would assume it met the deletion criteria. --Emufarmers^(T/C) 22:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The article was about a sculptor, only one of whose works, for a block of flats, is listed. Apparently he's also a poet, I assume, since a poem was included, though there was nothing to indicate that it was his poem. If you can make the argument that the article meets our guideline at

Deletions for review. User:Zoe|(talk)

22:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

since this is obviously a good faith complaint, and since the article was speedied unceremoniously (no doubt also in good faith), I have restored it: If you want to delete it, put it through Afd. If you want it to be kept, provide references supporting the subject's notability.

dab (ᛏ)

22:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I see

User:Dbachmann has unilaterally undeleted it without going through DRV, claiming it isn't speedyable, even though there is nothing in the article which claims notability. User:Zoe|(talk)

22:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was speedied unilaterlly, wasn't it? Seeing that lots of refereces are given, I can really see no justification for the speedying. Passes the Pokemon test with flying colours, I'd say. It can still be go on Afd, what's the harm in that?

dab (ᛏ)

22:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Your undeletion said that it wasn't a candidate for speedying, which is obviously untrue, if you read the article. You also failed to discuss it with the deleting admin before unilaterally undeleting. You should have taken it to DRV. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason not to undelete a contested speedy- what's easily done can be easily undone. Friday (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course you don't. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this, but Stifle should have alerted Carptrash, using {{

I am going to take a deep breath now. The real problem, from my perspective, is the lack of collegiality from admins who revert other admins without prior discussion. This is happening much too frequently. How does it hurt to talk to the deleting admin before undeleting? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

From

Wikipedia:Wheel war, in big bold letters at the top of the page: Contact the administrator if you disagree with one of his/her actions. Gain consensus before reverting the administrative actions of others.. User:Zoe|(talk)

23:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

To avoid undoing another admin when it's reasonable to do so would bog us down in needless bureaucracy. Perhaps centralized discussion of this issue would be handy, since it has been coming up a lot lately. Friday (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to follow the guideline, perhaps you should discuss changing it to "go ahead and revert any other admin's work that you want, after all, you know what's best for Wikipedia". User:Zoe|(talk) 23:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

My userpage makes my stance pretty clear. A revert, of an edit or an admin action, should not be done lightly. But to say it should never be done is insanity. Friday (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I really think you should take a deep breath, Zoe. I do not consider my action wheel-warring: I restored the article, once, and documented my action here for everyone to see. Stifler deleted a new article in passing (out of process, I might add, by not alerting its creator). I did not assume Stifler had an emotional involvement with his decision, and neither do I. This is just housekeeping stuff. I wouldn't ring up a janitor telling him he misplaced a broom, I'd just move it to the proper cupboard. "Go ahead" is indeed our first guideline, as long as you do it informedly, in good faith, politely and in the open. If Zoe thinks that this means she has to re-delete the article, I invite her to do that.

dab (ᛏ)

23:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

A revert, of an edit or an admin action, should not be done lightly. But to say it should never be done is insanity. True. However, would you mind pointing to someone who has actually argued such a thing, oh, in the last two years or so? You appear to have left out a key phrase. --Calton | Talk 00:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but in this case and others, Zoe appears to think that any reversal of an admin action is automatically wrong. We should no more try to own our admin actions than we own our edits. Friday (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth... And you went ahead and did it anyways. So your leaving out the clause "...without notifying the blocking admin" -- which makes your original statement nonsense -- was done deliberately? Since no one actually has asserted or hinted at what you say is an opinion that should be opposed, I have to wonder who ou're arguing with other than yourself. --Calton | Talk 22:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What the hell? Is there a reason you're not assuming good faith? I was referring to an incident in which I did notify Zoe that I'd undone one of her blocks. She got all bent out of shape because she insists that simply telling her is not enough- I'd need her permission to reverse one of her actions. Friday (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason you're not assuming good faith? Hmm, "Mr. Kettle? Mr. Pot on line 3. He say's you're black." So your characterization of other people's objections as meaning ...to say it should never be done is good faith? Your claim that Zoe appears to think that any reversal of an admin action is automatically wrong is good faith? And you have the chutzpah to blather about other people not exercising good faith? Please, pull the other one. --Calton | Talk 04:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sensing a definite All wikipedians are created equal, but . . .... some are more equal than others thing here. If the article had not been deleted without notifying it's author then the same thing would not needed to have been done to an administrator. Yet the crime here seems to be that an administrator was overturned without due process and not Ms/Mr Average Wikipedian. Interesting. Carptrash 00:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Anybody can recreate a deleted article if they want to. There's no need to take it to

this perfectly summarizes my take on things and my approach here. thanks,

dab (ᛏ)

08:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't take it as an attack. I do, however, take it as a lack of civility if my action is overturned without discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 15:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Zoe states that she take(s) it as a lack of civility if my action is overturned without discussion but another's work was deleted without discussion, even though

Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles which expands on CSD7, it states that this this criterion is mainly intended to deal with vanity articles created by their subjects or by people personally known to them. I don't think the article when nominated obviously fell within that scope - even more reason to use the tag and/or discuss with the editor rather than nominating quickly for speedy deletion.--A Y Arktos\^talk

00:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If we conceive of the whole process as team work, rather than individual actions, then it falls into place more easily, with the aim — which must always be kept in mind — of creating an encyclopedia. A process, starting with the original stub, takes place and is worked out in several stages, regardless of which individual has enacted each particular stage. The different individual actions counterbalance and correct each other. Finally a result is obtained. Let's see the overall process as the important thing, either to excise material which is not suitable, or to include and improve material which is. Nobody is doubting any of the participants' good intentions, and this is the most important thing. Everybody is on the same side, so I recommend

good will and tolerance all round. I have devised a user box in its beta stage, which I have on my user page and which anyone is welcome to use or suggest improvements to. I think it's important that admin actions are always open to review. Tyrenius

06:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

wheel war .

Since when is it "a lack of civility" to revert someone? It's a wiki... that happens all the time and is supposed to. Yes, explanations of why a reversion was made are good things... which is why we have edit summaries, block/unblock summaries, delete/undelete summaries, et cetera. That's usually all the notification required. Since regular users can't see delete summaries, putting an explanation for a delete on their user talk page is a reasonable alternative. Not doing so is effectively the equivalent of not including an edit/delete summary... not very helpful, but also not a heinous crime. If the summary indicates the reverter didn't understand or overlooked something then go ahead and reverse again with a summary explanation of what they missed. Only if it there is clearly strong disagreement about how to handle the situation should we stop taking edit/admin actions and hold a discussion to develop a consensus. This is all fairly standard 'dispute resolution' stuff. If anything, admins should be better than most at calmly dealing with people reverting them. Only making edits/admin actions after strong disagreement has been established is 'uncivil'. It becomes edit/wheel warring when you take an action which there is no established consensus for and which you know one or more other people are going to strongly disagree with and wish to revert, whether that is the eigth action or the first. --CBD 12:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by United States of America. As per the existing merge tags, I merged the article with American terrorism, so the AfD is irrelevant now. Travb (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You can close it yourself if you like. Super Powers^TM are not required. Just zis Guy you know? 15:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

For the copyright clueful: Image:Arclight.gif is tagged as fair use screenshot, used in Arclight (comics). Two issues: first, this is from the film not the comic, so the fair use is probably not valid in that article, yes? Second, it's not a screenshot, it'sa series of screenshots assembled into an animated gif by a YTMNDer, the image source is cited as the YTMND. Which I think makes it not actually a fair use screenshot at all. It's important because there are a number of these looping animated gifs on the project, including at More Cowbell. Just zis Guy you know? 08:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of this unnecessary animated gifs, (i.e. those that do not better illustrate something in the article) are a pain anyway - and make it harder to read the article. If it is used to illustrate the comic (being from the film), and it is noted that it is from the film, it could pass as fair use (I think) as long as it is needed to properly show the comic itself (which I fear may not be the case). The fact that it shows such a significant part of the original work (i.e. reasonable quality and multiple shots) which isn't really necessary anyway, I think it would be pushing the fair use boundaries, and could be considered a copyright infringement. Mind you I don't know much about the subject... Ian¹³/t 15:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Merged with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jtkiefer --pgk^(talk) 17:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

MaindrianPace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to upload images without copyright information, despite two blocks for doing so before. In addition, he continues to remove tags added to his articles. PBP 20:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been working with

• User:Reallytinyprint
• User:I will marry gollum one day
• User:Hair_e._pot_err- This one was blocked as a suspected sock, then unblocked. I hope this is the right place to report this. Thanks. -Royalguard11^Talk 22:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This user lifted a large amount of material from

This is in the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Could someone take care of it. I've made several edits to remove copyvio and don't want to delete or remove the speedy. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the speedy tag since while the article isn't great, it seems like a viable starting point on a notable enough performer. Gwernol 00:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It looked that way to me which is why I didn't get rid of it some time ago. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it wasn't a speedy, as notability (of a degree) is asserted. After failing to find any supporting evidence for his notability, however, I've nominated the article for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy J. Rose). His IMDb bio is hysterical: "If there had to be one image for cool it would be him.". :) Middenface 01:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Skull and crossbones in white inside of a black square, similar to the old "Jolly Roger" or the label on a can of "Black Flag" bug spray. Message:This is your FINAL WARNING. Continue to vandalize/disrupt Wikipedia and you will be blocked, even banned.

Is this a good template idea ? Martial Law 03:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this redundant with the

{{test4}} template? – ClockworkSoul

03:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't want the template to be too harsh; after all, the recipient is likely getting a 24-hour block, not a death sentence. Regarding the redundacy, I concur. It seems like adding an additional template would be like saying No seriously, we're not kidding; we're going to block you. No joke. Honestly. Hmm... perhaps that would be a good idea for a {{test4.5}}... -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thought that would fine tune the warning process. Martial Law 04:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your intention; perhaps others will agree with you. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't see any additional utility over the current templates --pgk^(talk) 07:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Pgk. Test4 already claims to be the final warning, so this would have to replace it. Giving another warning after the "final" warning would just weaken the warning. You should discuss any proposed changes to test4 on Template talk:test4. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-11 08:24Z

There's nothing that annoys me more than a {{

WP:AIV if they're not listening. Titoxd^(?!?

) 08:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I often write custom warnings because I think they are more effective, and you are welcome to word your own warnings as you wish, even with a template under your user space, as long as it's not used as a "second final warning". (You should only give "you will be blocked" warnings if you can enforce them, though...) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-11 08:35Z

I agree with Titoxd, if someone continues to vandalise after a test4, block them. No need for a little "Oh, I'm not sure" test2, unless the test4 was quite some time ago. This proposed warning is unnecessary. test4 says the same thing, with the same results. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Frequently anons will get test2's under old test4's, but they are also likely to be a diferant person behind the ip. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to post this question, so it goes here ;) The image at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:I_ate_the_Jews.jpg&redirect=no doesn't seem to have a purpose? Am I missing something? CMacMillan 01:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It serves the purpose of illustrating National Socialist Movement (United States) quite well, even if the image's name is entirely stupid. I've restored the pd-self tag added by its creator, although whether Murple really took the photo is anyone's guess. Middenface 01:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks, I couldn't find its connection to an article. And yes, stupid title. CMacMillan

The name is an obvious gross insult to overweight people everywhere and requires people to be banned, arbcoms to be summoned, and all manner of effort to be expended in dealing with it. WAS 4.250 01:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

So you agree? Good. We can put it on the recommended deletion list with your name attached then. I'll get right on that. CMacMillan

User:NOFX99 has made only one edit, but it's of a most nefarious nature. It was linkspam (on the Penis enlargement article, which sees a lot of linkspam), with the edit summary "spelling." It's pretty much impossible for me to assume good faith here. I don't know if it's bad enough for a ban, but. . . it just sickened me, and I felt that it shouldn't go unnoticed. ^L_Wizard @ 04:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

bv}}, so the next time he does something like this he'll be blocked. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-12

22:50Z

Perm link.

NOTE: I posted this to the talk page initially by mistake (navigated to the page via my watchlist and didnt check to see if it was the talk or prject page. Viridae^Talk 04:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've also warned the same user today for a blatant

Bully. He has a long history of issues with multiple editors and a current RfC. I concur that his behavior needs to be watched. Gwernol

04:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've removed the most egregious editorialising form the article and left a note. Just zis Guy you know? 12:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If anybody has got time plz look at the case of vandalism through closely related IPs [11].

Could someone please check the edits of this user. I think they may be pro BNP. --84.9.194.151 15:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

people keep reverting the criticism section (censorship) --152.163.100.200 02:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I know this is more of a Villiage Pump issue, but I just saw this [12]. It appears to be an autoblock written an another language. Is this a bug, or a new feature? 216.78.95.172 21:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Funky; bug I assume. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-12 22:46Z

Samir just showed me that. I was away almost all day yesterday and I did not block anybody yesterday nor today. I'm very confused right now; I hope my account hasn't been hacked. RadioKirk also noted that it doesn't show up in my log either. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 02:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hacking is unlikely; the block is absent from the user's logs (which he just noted [blush]). RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The block is in your log [13], but it was made on August first. The autoblock was yesterday, not the real block . Prodego ^talk 03:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

So, pardon the confusion, why does an autoblock show up 11 days later in a different language? :D RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

...especially in a language that I can't speak and can't identify? ;) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 03:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well the eleven days part isn't that odd, as long as the initial block is active, autoblocks can occur, and it was a month long block. I have no idea why it would be in another language, I suppose it must be some sort of weird bug. Prodego ^talk 03:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I just tested this and found that the autoblock text's language is dependent on the language setting of the blocked user. For example, I created

Naconkantari

04:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. Thanks. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 04:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have decided to retire from editing Wikipedia. There are several reasons for this, one of which is that I am still angry with myself for having been involved in a fairly recent sockpuppetry incident. I am particularily ashamed of the fact that some of the accounts that I created had usernames that attacked specific users. I would like to address all of those users now and apologise for what I did. Please do not think that I have anything personal against any of you. Why, if that’s the case, I choose names that deliberately attacked you, I am not even completely sure myself. The best answer that I can give is that I had seen vandals create similar names before and wanted the accounts I created to seem like “authentic” vandal accounts. Please also take into consideration the fact that I suffer from certain mental problems and at times have a difficulty acting with reason, but everything else aside, I was aware that what I was doing was wrong, and chose to do it anyway, and therefore I accept responsibility for my actions. This incident is not the only reason that I have decided to resign, though. Right now I am involved in a lot of academic-related activities and I feel that editing Wikipedia has been eating up too much of my time that I should have spent studying. I ask that an administrator please delete the user and talk pages for Edmonde Dantes and Conrad Devonshire. I have enjoyed contributing to Wikipedia, but unfortunately it is time for me to move on now. Thank you and farewell.--The Count of Monte Cristo ^Parley 04:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted your two user pages. Have fun in the outside world :)

Cowman109^Talk

04:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel575 has been making incivil comments at Talk:Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin. Such as set up by a bunch of heretical idiots and doesn't deserve any attention whatsoever. 203.217.54.74 05:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

He was blocked again, thanks, but note that he is currently wreaking havoc yet again with an edit warring anon,

ውይይት

) 01:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Loath I am to do it, I have blocked the entire 151.44. range for an hour -- which affects not only the editor formerly known as Panairjdde (TEFKAP) but some 65,000-odd other people. However, he has been stalking or edit-warring not only with Codex Sinaiticus, but at leat 2 other editors. I'm gambling on the fact that the users of an Italian ISP aren't interested in editting an English Wikipedia, & as long as no one complains, we can repeat this until TEFKAP gives up. (He has also used the 151.47. range -- but let's wait until we see what kind of trouble I've caused before blocking that one also.) I won't protest if another Admin reverts the block. -- llywrch 23:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Very funny ok, you've had your laughs--AOL account 14:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, it's not a joke, it just seems like one, my mistake--AOL account 14:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That's ok, we all make them. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Jim Shapiro All debate now consolidated at

User:68.99.19.167

He's been blocked for a week (second block), but I think an indefinite block may be required; he's vandalized hundreds of articles relating to religion, often in fairly subtle ways (PoV inserts and content deletions and modifications, removing images, etc.), and I've only managed to revert a quarter of his edits so far. (Going down the list, I managed to revert everything [sometimes with difficulty, due to later edits] down to 03:21, 29 July 2006, although that still leaves scores and scores of edits which someone will need to revert. --Emufarmers^(T/C) 03:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

we don't indef block IPs unless they're open proxies. Sasquatch t|c 17:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have recently created a bot-based summary to follow up on the RFA summary and AFD summary. This new function, which I have dubbed the Category Tracker, monitors a selection of administrative and editing related categories and identifies when they have an unusually high number of items in them compared to their long-term means, and hence are in need of some attention. The full tracking page covers a couple dozen different categories and gives statistics on their fluctuations. In addition, I also created a summary table (transcluded here) to give easy access to the most important or most backlogged categories.

There is also a configuration page which can be used to adjust which categories are monitored, where they are displayed, and how often they are updated.

I hope this proves useful. Dragons flight 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Keen! Good work. -- Infrogmation 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This is lovely! Thanks. -- Natalya 20:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, now admins can now prioritize their tasks better.--Andeh 21:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Awesome work! --mboverload@ 00:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be counting many of the very large image speedy cats.--

Peta

00:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a very nice summary, but the number of articles needing wikification is incorrect. There are 6,776 (sorted) articles in the category currently, but they are split up into subcategories by the month they were tagged, so only the ones that have not been sorted (123 at the moment) show up on the summary. Once the bot comes around, the 123 articles will be put in the August category. -- Kjkolb 09:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously this is wonderful work... and therefor please do alot more. :]

People have noted various issues above, but it would also be nice if this could incorporate AIV, RFI, RFAr, RFCU, all of the 'cleanup' categories, et cetera. What would really be nice would be some method of putting the data onto individual transcludable pages... so a person who wanted to keep an eye on just TfD, PER, and RFAr could transclude those three stats onto their user page... a possibly beneficial form of 'userbox' showing the topic, current backlog number, and color (red/yellow/green). Likewise a page could then be set up showing the status of all 'admin only' tasks. And if it could make toast too that'd be really grand. :]

Seriously, excellent work and very useful as it is. --CBD 11:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I really like it, and have it on my talk page. Maybe it should be at the top of AN like RfA summary is at BN? Yanksox 11:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic work, sincere thanks to Dragons flight for this great tool. I also think CBD's idea above about individual transcludable pages is excellent (not to mention the toast). If that could be done without too much effort well, brilliant. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Very nice. -- Миборовский 17:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant!!! I've been using it for the past 4 days. Well done Dragons flight! -- Samir धर्म 10:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I know it's been said before, but AfD really does seem to be a remarkably bad way of dealing with controversial articles. I think it generally works fairly well in most cases but when we get a subject that attracts major controversy it seems to go off the rails. A case in point is the current AfD at

I really do wonder if we should seek to restrict voting on controversial AfDs to administrators, who should be more likely to act on the basis of Wikipedia policies and criteria rather than voting as a proxy for blatant POV-pushing. If there's an unusually large number of votes on an article, as indicated by Dragons flight's useful AFD summary - perhaps a threshold of 40 or so - it's a good indicator that the subject is particularly controversial, particularly likely to attract partisan voters and particularly susceptible to being decided on POV rather than encyclopedic grounds. Perhaps when this threshold is reached it might be a good idea to impose cloture and initiate a vote among admins rather than prolong the agony on AfD? What do you guys think? -- ChrisO 17:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Giving admins more editorial authority is probably not the way to go; not only would it be immensely unpopular, but it also wouldn't necessarily be helpful -- admins can have idiosyncratic ideas about policy, too. We need to encourage closing admins to discount these "votes" that do not take our policies into account. Jkelly 17:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. What the analysis reveals is not a flaw in the AfD process, but a flaw in the application of policies, particularly it would seem

WP:NOR to be equally ill attended. More rigorous standards need to be expected and imposed on what is permissable as argument. As often, it is the discarding of policies — which have been stated as non-negotiable — that results in brokenness. Tyrenius

17:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, on this particular occasion, the initial nomination appears to have been a clear violation of

WP:AN/I#Abuse of AfD?. Getting back to the topic, though, I'm sure you're right that it would be controversial to give admins more editorial authority. Jkelly is certainly right that even admins can have idiosyncratic views on policy (I note that at least one admin has given a blatantly POV reason for voting in the AfD I mentioned). However, wouldn't it be even more controversial for a closing admin to decide - by himself - which votes were valid and which weren't? Perhaps a middle way would be for a group or panel of admins to determine which votes were for valid policy reasons and which weren't. I agree that we need to enforce permissible arguments but we would need to ensure that a single admin's interpretation of policy wouldn't dictate the outcome. -- ChrisO

17:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be controversial to discount "votes" that do not take into account policy, but that doesn't mean it cannot be in particular instances. It may well be a good idea to encourage AfD closing admins to engage in some extra discussion about controversial cases. Jkelly 18:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sad to hear you go. Anyway, details at
  lo
  13:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Conrad Devonshire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My former username was "Conrad Devonshire", but I have since changed it to Edmonde Dantes. This user may have created this account to imposter me, though as I officially retired last night, I'm not sure whether or not this name is acceptable. Even if it technically is, I recommend that this user create a new account because its block log shows the blocks I received as "Conrad Devonshire".--The Count of Monte Cristo ^Parley 13:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, could an administrator please protect User:Edmonde Dantes?--The Count of Monte Cristo ^Parley 13:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm that Conrad changed his name to Edmonde Dantes via

Thatcher131 (talk)

13:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like the imposter's blocked already. -
  lo
  13:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

{{

I was cleaning out the {{

When I come across the images in the Random Image search, i'll help clean some out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• As well as those under {{
  lo
  17:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a very problematic set of images. Many images so tagged have been done on the assumption that something published somewhere is automatically free for any use. It is difficult to "mass work on"; the mechanism for deleting sourced ones if there is uncertainty is either

nld}}. If one does that, however, many of the images will wind up with a spurious fair use template on them. Jkelly

17:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I also encountered a bunch of images with the norightsreserved tag. (and were definitely not free images) A fair use template at least is more realistic concerning those images. Garion96 (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The template, if I understand correctly, was to avoid the possible legal issue that it may be impossible for someone to release something to public domain, even if they wanted to. Thus, its to signify that it is not in the public domain, but close. With that said, copyright tag(any copyright tag) abuse is massive. {{

Kevin_b_er

04:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A user, User:B&W Anime Fan appears to be an intractable vandal, having vandalized userpages [33] (I have since reverted his perverted edits) and other pages before. Recently, however, he seems to have favored (or is) the style of the longtime vandal Willy on Wheels, adding this image(a trademark of Willy on Wheels) to his own talk page, and leaving messages such as Eeeeeeeeeeeeverybody shake your body do the Wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilly. He hasn't yet begun leaving these messages on pages other than my userpage yet, and does currently have a 24-hour block currently applied to him, but I think this case merits some investigation. I'd really appreciate it if some administrators could help me out. –- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)} 19:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably yet another copycat. I'd just keep an eye on him. Deco 19:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It's getting worse. As of this edit, he stated: POW! I just punched kungming in the face. (My username, of course is Kungming2) - this is getting really serious and I'm afraid B&W Anime Fan will continue to relentlessly vandalize my userpages after his 24-hour block expires. –- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)} 19:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)