An administrator should delete List of nontheists. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nontheists (2nd nomination). Selective mergers to Lists of atheists are completed. Delete:

• List of nontheists
• List of nontheists: A-B
• List of nontheists: C-G
• List of nontheists: H-O
• List of nontheists: P-R
• List of nontheists: S
• List of nontheists: T-V
• List of nontheists: W-Z

Thank you, RS1900 11:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, did you merge the above pages to sub-articles of Lists of atheists? (if yes please specify them) --PeaceNT (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To be clearer, deletion might depend on the amount of merged materials, for copyright reasons. --PeaceNT (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I did merge the above pages to sub-articles of Lists of atheists. You can recheck. Please delete them. Thank you. --RS1900 11:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. I think you should note on the sub-articles' talk pages that you created the new pages after slitting content from Lists of atheists, though. (When I first examined them, I thought they were merged solely from the lists of nontheists, not the lists of atheists) --PeaceNT (talk) 12:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

He attacks the other by racist comments and personal attacks.ClaudiuLine (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Might you be able to post some diffs? Bstone (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Claudiuline is most likely a sock of User:Bonaparte and he is really harassing me (just check his latest contributions).Xasha (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You are racist and you prove it againClaudiuLine (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This user, recently warned and then blocked for making offensive remarks against me, has resumed his attacks. Here, here, here, here, here and here he goads and prods me, insinuating dark motives on my part. Let me elaborate: I noted at Template:Romanian historical regions that certain regions were part of Romania in 1941-44, which in fact they were. Now, how exactly the template should be constructed is open to interpretation. What is, however, completely unacceptable is that Xasha, despite his recent block and warning, and despite my pointing out to him repeatedly that he is violating AGF, CIV and NPA, accuses me of "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa" - the Nazi German invasion of the USSR, in which Romania's fascist wartime regime also took part. Obviously these are very serious, but also entirely baseless charges. I have asked Xasha to withdraw the charge, to comment on content rather than on the editor, to stop attempting to smear my good name, but all to no avail. It is not up to him to air his "impression" and "supposition" that I am "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa", but if I can't convince him of that through discussion, then it only remains to me to seek a more formal means of clearing my name. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The name of the section Racist comments is right, but there was a misprint. It is in fact, User:Biruitorul, under cover of extensive plain rhetorics who denies the existence of the Moldavian state, Moldavian language, Moldavian nation. Please, visit any of the talk pages related to Moldova edited by Biruitorul. For example[1] where open ethno-racist remarks are made by User:Biruitorul.--Moldopodo^talk 20:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, just note that your implications that I accused you of fascism or rehabilitation (?) are just the result of your gross failure to assume good faith. As for historical revisionism, your comment about Moldova's statality leaves no other interpretations.Xasha (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't obscure the issue, don't "interpret" my edits in sinister ways, and things will be fine. Again: unacceptable to say that I am "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa", a charge that very clearly implies I am trying to put fascism and Ion Antonescu in a favourable light. Or, if it doesn't imply that (which I'm sure it does), then the best solution is always silence - not coming up with your own "impressions" and "suppositions" regarding my motives. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was mistaken. It's not you who is trying to do it, it's the version of that template you created who does it. When a version edited by you is seriously flawed and biased, is my right to bring it to the community's attention.Xasha (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You show you're racist. That's all that counts here. ClaudiuLine (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

When will be Xasha blocked? ClaudiuLine (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A few minutes before you are... Please see WP:ANI#Arbitration enforcement on User:Xasha; both editors now blocked regarding this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also found Xasha to be... less than the ideal contributor. He's constantly revert warring (see here and here in just the past couple of days); when I asked him to copyedit instead of reverting, he decided to go this way (notice what the source actually says). And I've only been back to en.wiki for a couple of days. --Gutza ^T 20:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have also found Gutza less than the ideal contributor and a neutral adminsitrator. For example just one of the obvious edits where a total absence of objectvity is shown by User:Gutza[2] The proper formulation is that the Moldavian and Romanian have the same literaru form (meaning for example that on Wikipedia it's the same grammar rules, vocabularyn etc, but still two different officially and internationally recognied names). I would suggest to make sure topics on Eastern Europe be mediated/administered only by truly neutral administrators, those who do not support a strongly contested POV.--Moldopodo^talk 19:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Was it just the echo, or did I just hear "ad homineeem, ad homineeem"? Echo, definitely. --Gutza ^T 20:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, avoid editing articles related on Moldova being administrator with an editing agenda you have in mind (pushing through POV Romanian related propaganda)... No, it's not an echo, it's a totally thought message or warning if you will of some kind for you to be more attentive to your neutrality regarding your controversial edits on Moldova related articles. I have not seen the proof of your neutrality on this issue so far.--Moldopodo^talk 20:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Mate, you seem to be treading on thin rope as it is, do you really need to aggravate everyone you encounter? This section is not about myself, and it's not even about yourself -- it's about Xasha. And it's a closed topic at that. And what you're doing is committing a fallacy (ad hominem, to be precise -- my argument is supported by diffs, not by my persona; I haven't even disclosed my status as an administrator above). And you're the last person entitled to warn anybody on neutrality, given that you're spewing derogatory, inflammatory and aggressive comments at almost everyone you happen to interact with. And I have the same right to edit as anyone else; and my edits were properly sourced, and I didn't threaten anyone with a block if they reverted my changes. And so on, but why bother. --Gutza ^T 20:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just drop it, your Romanian mate Biruitorul's technique to fill in the project talk pages with unsourced plain rhetorics does not convince me. Please provide a diff where you made a positive contribution on a Moldova-related article which was approved by the community, or at least provide one which was not reverted.--Moldopodo^talk 22:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That pesky "ad homineeem" echo again -- what shall I do, what shall I do? --Gutza ^T 23:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That pesky "ad homineeem" echo again - would that be an uncivility strictly punished by Wikipedia attentive administrators?--Moldopodo^talk 10:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how could be construed as being uncivil -- but hey, feel free to ask for a second opinion. --Gutza ^T 11:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

How about we all calm down. If you are feeling stressed, take a pillow and pound it. Everyone here has shown themselves to be rational human beings. Why can't we all just get along? Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If any OTRS volunteers are monitoring this page, could they please look up the ticket # (2007121910001893) for Image:Paul Draper by Alan Bree at Gang of Pour.JPG and see what, if any, license is specified for that image? Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 16:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

OTRS was unsuccessful, no specific license was specified. I deleted the image. Garion96 (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 16:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Liekwtf? I'm having a hard time understanding this. See the contribs of these two: [3] [4] In the span of a minute, you-know-who manages to move an extreme amount of pages. Moreover, given that my bot is now almost as fast as it can technically get (wpEditToken is prefetched every few minutes so it can POST the block form immediately) and blocks within seconds of detecting suspicious behavior, it means that he moves 20+ pages in, what, 5 seconds (or less)? How's that even possible? Isn't there some global throttle, even for autoconfirmed accounts? Makes me wonder why he now hits only talk pages mostly (like sets of archives) - is the throttle somewhat more lenient in that namespace? Again, liekwtf? Миша13 19:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I can think of one way but beans and all. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[ec] I can very, very easily perform several actions apparently at the same time by using tabbed browsing and access keys. It looks automated for a short burst, but is problematic for more than a few dozen edits at a time. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't wonder how to do it technically - I could easily write a script that moves 10s of pages per second if only the software and bandwidth allowed for it - my question is, does our mediawiki allow such bursts? I surely remember a hard throttle for autoconfirmed being mentioned a while ago... Миша13 20:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And if you're expecting to get blocked anyway, it doesn't matter if you can't sustain the edit rate. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a move throttle? Back in the day, Curps ran a bot that enforced one, much to SPUI's irritation IIRC. But I don't think we had one in the software itself. Are we now supposed to? Coz that would be A Good Thing. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Duh, IMO even one move per second would seriously compromise Grawp's efforts (without making it noticeable for legit users, even as fast as SPUI). Миша13 20:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

←And all pages are just as quickly moved back ;). Whether a stricter move throttle is enforced or not...the damage is always easily repaired. End of story.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and unless the throttle is set to three or four, the system generally won't catch them before the admins do. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

We are supposed to have a move throttle set at 8 moves in 60 seconds for autoconfirmed users, but if you check "move subpages if applicable", it moves all the subpages in a users userspace and counts them as one move. Now - let's get a consensus together so I can file a bug. I'd suggest a limit of 4 moves per minute for autoconfirmed users, giving admins and crats an exemption. Also, I'd suggest removing the "move subpages if applicable" check box. This could really limit these sort of attacks. Thoughts?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk • contribs)

Ryan's got it. A throttle exists (8 moves in 60s for autoconfirmed editors), but apparently the "move all subpages" checkbox allows you to move the subpages as a group regardless of the limit. Dragons flight (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is the lesser of the two evils - removing the checkbox or including the subpages in the throttle? ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy

I'd say removing the checkbox to be honest, it would be pointless including it in the throttle anyway if we reduced it, which I still think we need to do regardless. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Restricting it to sysops would be better than removing it. I am curious how often it gets used legitimately to move archives and the like. Dragons flight (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

When a bureaucrat renames a user, all the pages of the user are automatically moved to the new name. See for example [5]. This is fast, and likely at the maximum possible rate. Cenarium (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Must've neglected reading Signpost ops section and missed this new feature. Too lazy to check, but from Poet's comment above, I presume it works just as well when reverting the move? Even so, it leaves quite a messes to clean up after. How about give admins a checkbox to delete source redirects after move, eh? Миша13 20:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The API can suppress redirects, but API editing is not yet enabled on en.wiki. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Then IMO it should be added to the human interface - this would really make cleanup as easy as one click. And even without subpage moves, it'd be a useful feature. Миша13 20:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we need Wikipedia:Page move reform, with two proposals (enable human use of the move-page-without-creating-redirect feature that admins nominally have but don't have a way to implement; and crank down the pagemove throttle a bit to some arbitrary level); and a bugzilla request to fix what is clearly a system bug (that moving all subpages counts as one move for the purposes of the pagemove throttle). Happy‑melon 20:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so long as admins don't leave that check box on all the time. Suppression of redirects when carrying out a move must only be done when cleaning up page move vandalism or sorting out problems with a page history. Might seem obvious, but given, ahem, recent misunderstandings over redirects, I thought it would be best to make this point. Carcharoth (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Definitely a non-checked-by-default checkbox. Happy‑melon 21:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

but shouldnt it then be checked by default? the need to move the talk page occurs most of the time when one makes a move--the others are exceptions? DGG (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an ancient bug, and a pretty controversial one, see bugzilla:1062. Brion's comments were that it will "never, ever be implemented." --MZMcBride (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! Happy‑melon 21:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Allowing it for all users and only for admins are two very different things. I think Brion could be convinced to the limited version. Миша13 22:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Could it not be implemented for users with rollback? It would seriously hamper vandal fighting if only admins could roll back large numbers of page moves at a time. Corvus cornix_talk 22:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the comments in the bugzilla thread; they do have a point: particulary when combined with the delete ability, it does have the potential to make things very difficult to find. anyone can still revert pagemove vandalism; it's just that admins can do it more efficiently, as usual. I expect the most Brion would be sold on would be a solution that still leaves a log entry. Having said that, surely it's possible to add an automatically-delete-the-redirect-straight-afterwards checkbox with javascript? Something in MediaWiki:Sysop.js?? Happy‑melon 07:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In the interim, could someone recreate the work of Curps' bot? Namely, create a bot that will automatically block any user that moves more than (say) 3 distinct pages in a minute, place a message on their talk page informing them why they were blocked, and add them to a list for admins to review. Perhaps even auto-whitelist users with some arbitrary but high edit limit (say 2000 edits), and manually whitelist others as required; once whitelisted, the bot would let them move as many pages as they liked. In that environment, the "Grawp" vandals (come on, it isn't one person) would have a lot more trouble move-vandalising multiple pages. If the system can't or won't enforce this, it's certainly possible to do so via a bot. Neıl 龱 09:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I've been operating such a bot (sans the whitelist) since Oct '06. What I'd like is this auto-move spree not happen in the first place. Миша13 19:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please allow people to write about Robert F. Kennedy. It is locked up. No reason to do that. Tack69 (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's only semi-protected. If you don't think it should be, the place to ask is WP:RFPP. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 17:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Gah. Indefinite semi-protection for two years. Unprotected – this a wiki after all. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought Special:ProtectedPages showed pages sorted by length of protection? Why didn't this page show up at the top of that list? I sometimes knock a few off the top there and I don't remember seeing RFK. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I find that looking at what links to templates like Template:Pp-semi-template is a good way to find long protected articles. I found an article full protected for like six months for maybe 3 bad edits. Some strange protection out there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This article looks borked. The code does not match what's being displayed. Reflist is on the bottom above the ELs, but it's showing up all weird. Can someone have a quick look? Bstone (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Erik Moeller says:

As of today, the "FlaggedRevs" extension is available to any wiki community that wishes to use it. FlaggedRevs is a tool for patrolling changes, identifying high quality article versions, and changing the default version shown to unregistered users. It's highly configurable. As such, we're making it available in two configurations:

1) A minimally intrusive "patrolling" configuration; 2) Custom configurations per your request.

Who needs this feature and where can I see it?

Larger wiki communities will probably benefit more from the use of this feature than smaller ones. If you have problems keeping vandalism in check, and/or want to experiment with new ways to identify high quality content, you should look into this functionality.

You can see an English language demo installation of the feature at: http://en.labs.wikimedia.org/

The feature is in production use on the German Wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/

The German Wikipedia uses a custom configuration where the most recent vandalism-patrolled version, if any, is shown to unregistered users. You can track the progress of their use of the patrolling feature here:

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~aka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi?lang=english

Patrolling Configuration

In the Patrolling Configuration, any user who has been registered for more than 21 days and has made at least 150 edits will be automatically given the permission to patrol changes for vandalism. Only changes made by users who are not permitted to patrol changes need to be patrolled.

In addition, sysops will be given the permission to flag versions of "featured articles" in accordance with existing nomination processes. (In other words, this gives you the ability to identify specific _versions_ of an article as "featured", rather than the article as a whole.) Finally, sysops will be permitted to define on a per-page basis that changes need to be patrolled before being visible to unregistered readers. This is an alternative to semi-protection; it doesn't make sense to use both on a given page.

The use of these features is subject to policies that your wiki community will need to develop. They should be used carefully until such a policy is in place.

To activate the patrolling configuration,

1) File a request on http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ of type "enhancement", component "site request". You may need to create a BugZilla account to do this.

2) Title your request "Enable FlaggedRevs Patrolling Configuration on (my project name)".

3) Post a link to your BugZilla request to your project's "Village pump" and mailing list, if available.

If there are no objections on the BugZilla page, the request will be considered valid after 7 days. (It may still take a while longer to process it.)

Custom Configurations

The FlaggedRevs extension is highly flexible in its configuration. We are willing to accommodate custom requests. Since some configurations of FlaggedRevs could be considered highly disruptive, the requirements are somewhat higher.

1) Read about the configuration options at: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs and experiment with the live demo at: http://en.labs.wikimedia.org/

2) Create a page in the "Project:" namespace (e.g. "Wikipedia:", "Wikibooks:") of your wiki community describing the configuration you want to use.

3) Create a BugZilla request as above, titled "Enable FlaggedRevs custom configuration on (my project name)" pointing to the proposal page you have created. Provide an English translation of all relevant information if possible - or we may not be able to help you.

4) Post a link to your proposal and to the BugZilla request to the various relevant channels of your wiki community, e.g. "village pump", mailing list.

If there are no objections within 14 days, your request will be considered valid. If there are objections, please try building consensus. If necessary, you can also resort to a poll (a very large majority, at least two thirds, is generally necessary).

Note that custom configurations will take longer to process, and might sit in the technical support queue for several weeks.

Our developers will _only_ look at the information attached to the BugZilla request, so please make sure that everything relevant is at least linked from there.

Translators needed

The user interface of the FlaggedRevs extension needs to be translated into as many languages as possible. The extension can be localized using translatewiki.net - please follow the instructions there to become a translator.

User interface developers needed

If you are a PHP developer with JavaScript/CSS experience, your help in improving the user interface experience (by improving the CSS or adding AJAX features) would be appreciated. Just check out a fresh copy of the MediaWiki code and the FlaggedRevs code and get started:

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Subversion http://mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs

If you need committer access to our version control system, please e-mail <commitaccess at wikimedia dot org>, attaching your SSH key and desired username as per the above link.

-- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

(copied here by WAS 4.250 (talk))

It's surprisingly quiet. Is this being discussed elsewhere? Or is it a dead issue of sorts? I feel like I missed something!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that quite a few admins aren't at all certain what this means; I myself have no such doubts - I don't understand what it is all about and am waiting for the illustrated version with BIG FRIENDLY (and short) WORDS before I think about considering the possibility of attempting to evaluate whether I should give it a try (under tuition). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Flagged revisions? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I wish there were some way to turn on FlaggedRevs in the English Wikipedia to allow experimentation. The existing debate at WT:FLR appears to be non-terminating. This is a debate largely among people who have never used the feature. The German Wikipedia has used the feature (since early May) but their take is confusing, and the non-sighters are quite distressed about the apparent demotion. (Non-sighters need approval from a sighter for their edits to be visible outside). I wish we could adopt it here in such a way that no-one felt demoted. EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You can experiment here. Set userrights to "reviewer" and practice. It's a test wiki designed to be vandalised. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's say there was a user that violated 3RR on an article. Additionally, the user appears to have a POV on the article in question, since he was a participant in the event in question on the article. I became involved in the situation by issuing a 3RR warning to the user, as well as another user in the revert war with him.

Per an arbitration case, "[the user] may be banned for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious or disruptive editing." This disruption was about a week ago, and as a result, the article in question is now fully-protected while a request for comment goes on on the article's talk page. If I had known about the remedy, I would have asked for a ban here for disruption of the article in question.

What should happen from here, now that I am aware of the remedy? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Since some time has elapsed, I'm not convinced it'd be good to go ahead and look for an article ban. However it's probably sensible to tell them "Hey, your behavior here was bad, and if it continues I will ask for a ban." If we're very lucky the editor in question will start behaving and the ban won't be necessary. Friday (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur. Since the behavior stopped (for whatever reason), a topic ban would be punitive. That said, if further disruption occurs, some action may be necessary, and the user should be aware of that. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Case of nothing to see here, move along... Orderinchaos 08:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• [Cross-posted from Jimbo's talk page]
• where is the policy on deliberately divulging others' personal information via email, in conversation with and about other Wikipedians? If there isn't a policy against it, there certainly should be. It... is disgusting. Potentially dangerous. Possibly illegal? I can't say. It is the lowest of the low...Imagine you have reason to want to hide your private info. Then imagine you and I become great and good friends, and you share that info with me privately. Then we have a falling out, and I email-spam everyone I know and say user:YourUsernameHere is really Phyllis Diller and lives at 123 Elm Street!! There should be on-wiki consequences, such as desysopping without need for process, and banning non-sysops from ever becoming a sysop anywhere on Wikipedia, Wikiquotes, Wikimedia, wiki-anything. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this by any chance related to this? If so, I don't think this is that great an idea due to wikidrama. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 04:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

ecwithbelow Yes it is, already established on Jimbo's UserTalk :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTING is the appropriate policy page. How it applies to your exact scenario I am unsure. MBisanz ^talk 04:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't apply to this scenario, since it only applies to posting personal information, not providing it to one other person as happened here. I don't believe that there is any policy that would apply to divulging personal information about other editors via e-mail, nor should there be, probably. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point, but it is the closest we have to a policy. MBisanz ^talk 05:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As Sarc... said, it doesn't apply to this situation because none of this happened on Wiki, per se. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

NOr should there be? Really.. what kind of thinking is this??? Explain why there should be no policy. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it is happening OFF-Wiki. As far as I know, things that happen off-wiki carry no real consequences (except for the fact that the RFA was seen in a new light) If I am wrong on this, let me know.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) First, I think it's well-established that trying to regulate contributors' off-wiki activities is as undesirable as it is futile. Second, it's going to be very situational - it's impossible to say something like "disclosing another editor's identity via e-mail without that editor's consent is a policy violation," because it's very easy to imagine circumstances in which doing so would be appropriate and desirable (consider, for example, a novice editor who discovers that an editor is editing an article in which they have a serious and undeclared conflict of interest - does anybody think that that novice editor would be remiss in bringing this to the attention of a trusted experienced user for advice on how to proceed?). If I may quote Will Smith, "You're making a mountain out of a mole, Hil." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, it just started pouring out of nowhere. Enigma ^message 05:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely." (Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment, see that policy page for context). Ling.Nut (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Marking as resolved. The user whose information was disclosed has no interest in pursuing the matter, and had it not happened under the glare of a particularly off-the-rails RfA I seriously doubt anyone would have cared. The complainant is advised nicely to move on and find productive work to be getting on with. Orderinchaos 08:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I posted this in response to the question and JW's talk. Cross-posting here as the discussion ensued at this page instead.

To answer the original question, I don't think this is that complicated. Violating someone's trust, such as disclosing the private information, is the matter primarily of ethics, not policies. It is not, and has not become, a matter of policy for the same reason as the rules of ethics do not make it into laws, such as criminal or administrative codes, at least not directly.

Someone guilty of unethical conduct usually faces the ostracizing in the society and loss of trust of his peers but usually not direct legal consequences.

In some cases, the trust violation can bring real life consequences and the victim can pursue the grievances in RL courts of law. I can imagine that this may be possible if the person suffers a demonstrable damage by having his/her info whose privacy s/he could reasonably expect under circumstances violated.

If this is done by a Wikipedia editor (or even an admin) the Wikipedia or the WMF do not fit into all this. By far more important is taking the precaution that such info is not disseminated by the person acting on the foundation's behalf, that is by arbitrators, checkusers and whoever has access to the info protected by the legally binding privacy policy.

The (possibly deliberate) opacity of who has the checkuser access and the rules of handling such info is a ticking bomb. To this day there is no (that I am aware) document that Checkusers have to sign where their responsibilities as well as consequences of violating them are outlined. To this day, the process of giving the checkuser access remains murky. To this day, there is no even clarity on whether the checkuser is the policy issue, ArbCom issue or a foundation issue. It is made look like it is a little bit of all three and there is no way that I am alone in recognizing the grave dangers of this situation.

As for the original question and the incident that prompted it, violation of trust by the RfAdm candidate was an ethical issue, not a policy one. --Irpen 01:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Odd case. This fellow has a long history of writing what appear to be articles on Somali clans...I think. They're so convoluted that I honestly don't know what he's writing about. They could be about individual sub-clans or individual members. Looking at the talk pages of some of his articles, other editors are a bit perplexed as well. It's clear he's editing in good faith, but he's inadvertently causing a cleanup problem. Would someone have a word with him? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Followed up on. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.newsweek.com/id/139161?GT1=43002

"What If RFK Had Become President?"

This is a well written, seemingly neutral commentary. Is this suitable? It is a good source. But it is opinion. Please comment if excerpts are allowed or if they are prohibited because it is just one journalist's opinion. I need official administrator opinions. Tack69 (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As it is opinion, a) don't treat it as fact, b) in the body of the article where used point out its an opinion (i.e., "so and so of Newsweek said"). But yes, as it comes from a reliable source it should be fine. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Admins aren't content judges any more than regular users, you want WP:RS/N. Mr.Z-man 16:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So opinions from reliable sources are ok?

Admins are content judges. They can block people that they disagree with. Just see the different noticeboards. That's why I am asking for adminstrators' opinions. Tack69 (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

a lot of us tend to work at both places, but just in our roles as admins, we are not content judges, not more than any other experienced editors. Anyhow, you'll get the same response, a responsible expression of opinion from a responsible source can be used, but stated as their opinion, not their news reporting. DGG (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to the above "Admins are content judges. They can block people that they disagree with", they could, but if I saw an administrator do that, I fill an ArbCom case because someone didn't read the blocking policy when they became an admin. — Moe ε 04:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Lately there have been a spate of unblock requests with the reason given "x user has been editing fine under this new account of his and thus he should be unbanned".

Everyone who's been endorsing these unblocks is missing the point: these people are using a sock to evade their block, with is a very blatant violation of policy. By allowing these unblocks to contine, you are making a mockery of both process and policy. If someone wants to be unblocked, generally they need either to appeal to the arbcom or use the unblock template. I don't know when or why it became acceptable for blocked users to create a 'good hand' sock for such a matter. Jtrainor (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made your note smaller so that the section title is accurate. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny, but for me a bit hard to read now. Kevin (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, are you referring to banned users, or indef blocked users? Kevin (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Jtrainor (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Strong Support Obvious policy violations, there are appropriate venues for reviewing unbans. AN isn't one of those. This board is for coordinating activities and discussing admin functions. Then again, there is no longer anything that actually says "WHAT THIS IS FOR" at the top anymore, only what it's not. Has anyone else noticed that? Keegan^talk 05:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope this is of sufficient general interest to warrant dropping a note here - and do feel free to mention this elsewhere in other suitable locations too if you'd like to!

As part of a 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly 'special', I've completed brief interviews with 8 of the 15 candidates for election to the board of trustees of the wikimedia foundation, and you can have a listen at this page; Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode_18.

Personally, I'd like to see as much careful thought as possible going into these elections, and I'd like the 'turnout' to be as high as possible - it's a great thing to vote! If you agree, then feel free to point any or all of your wiki-friends in the direction of both this interview page - and the election pages over on meta (all helpfully linked to from the 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly project pages, of course!

thanks folks! - Privatemusings (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This CU result has confirmed that Meaty Weenies (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is the indefinitely blocked (or banned?) user Bsrboy (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), as well as the fact that he has at least twice logged out to vandalize. That's the bad side. On the other hand he has done rather a lot of useful work on articles like Plymouth (history) and Ivybridge (history).

I'd appreciate some advice as to where the balance between these two sides of this teenager's presence here should lie. Do we just block him and lose any future useful contributions? Any comments appreciated. I'll let the user know of this discussion.  —SMALLJIM  12:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Indef means indef. Why should anyone get special treatment? Jtrainor (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's the consensus here, then I'd have no problem with that. It's just that it's clear that he's not completely evil and perhaps we shouldn't use a sledgehammer when a gavel might do the job better.  —SMALLJIM  13:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I had no experience with the old account, but I noticed the new one a week or two ago. He acts just like a kid. Such editors are not useful to the project and should be shown the door. I'd idly wondered where he'd gotten his "gaming the system" experience, and I guess now we know. Friday (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Operating good-hand/bad-hand accounts is one of the more destructive things that an editor can do here, and even this 'good' account has engaged in more than its fair share of borderline trolling. (Seriously, he was adding multiple copies of massively oversized images to the sandbox a couple days ago, as well as edit warring to keep a (low-res, large sized) goatse there. Had I been watching more closely at the time, this discussion would never have taken place.)

Given that he earned his last indef block for engaging in logged-out vandalism while maintaining a good-hand account, where is the evidence that this individual has learned anything? He took it upon himself to create a new account, and he used it for exactly the same childish behaviour that earned his first block. How many additional second chances are required for us to see a pattern? If he is a younger contributor, perhaps he can be invited to return in a couple of years — after he has a chance to mature. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• He was the cause of a recent /16 rangeblock, and I've seen rather too much of his goatse in various places recently, while this account has been active. I've only now connected the two. I support a block unless there is an immediate convincing undertaking about his future conduct. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I had no other choice. Please view this from my persceptive. My account as bsbroy has been blocked indefinately from editing and emailing. Its talk page has also been permenantly protected. I had two or three choices: Continue to contribute as an IP address (my IP range wasn't blocked); create a new account and continue to contribute; wait for a year or more and request unblock as an IP. At the moment I am deeply involved in improving the article on Plymouth to good article. If I was blocked I would not be able to continue my contributions. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is that you're back and editing. I think the issue is that you're back...and apparently doing the same thing that got your last account blocked. Some good work doesn't justify other repeated vandalism. Where does the need to vandalize fall into your list of choices? --Onorem♠Dil 15:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If I had such a list it would fall under my list of "fun things to do" choices, but because the list of choices would be insanely long I haven't made one. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this user being allowed to contribute here? They're a sock of an indef blocked user. Whatever activities they may or may not be involved in at this time are irrelevant, because the fact that they are editing in the first place is a violation of policy. Indefinite means just that: unless someone important agrees to let you off the hook, you are permabanned and may not evade your block in any way. Jtrainor (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you rather I didn't answer Onorem's question? Stupid question = stupid answer. 86.29.139.107 (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I blocked him indefinitely. He'd been acting like a 12-year-old with this account too, so it's no real loss. Friday (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec - you beat me to it!) I was going to say to MW that that was exactly the sort of immature response I had hoped I wouldn't hear from him. He can ask to come back when he can convince the WP community that he understands what he's done wrong and is able to behave maturely all the time.  —SMALLJIM  16:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand what I've done wrong and I always have. Why have you blocked me to prevent me from discussing the matter? Maybe if the administratos at Wikipedia discussed things with users to ensure that they won't do it again these problems wouldn't arrise. Instead you blocked me? What is this achieving? To stop me from vandalising? I doubt it. Please let me engage in a discussion. 86.29.139.107 (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the email I (Meaty Weenies) sent to Friday: "He'd been acting like a 12-year-old with this account too, so it's no real loss." It's no real loss? This makes me extremely angry. Since I've been on Wikipedia I have brought Ivybridge up to B class; created the assessment process of WikiProject Devon; assessed nearly 200 articles as part of WikiProject Devon; brought Ivybridge Communty College up to Start class; welcomed 30 new users to Wikipedia; reverted tonnes of vandalism; warned users who vandalise; reported persistent users who vandalise Wikipedia (all of my reports were successful); remained civil and helpful especially to AtheWeatherman; Starting to bring Plymouth up to GA class; semi protected the Inbetweeners to prevent persistant IP vandalism; Brought the Inbetweeners up to Start class; and received two barnstars. What do you think the chances are that I'd continue these contribution, if I wasn't blocked. Oh well it doesn't matter, because "it's no realy loss."

Yours sincerly, a very angry and upset bsrboy.

I also forget to mention my userboxes. I feel that Friday has targeted me, because of my age. By the way Friday your essay on ageism sickens me. 86.29.139.107 (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not how old you are that lead me to the block. It's how old you act. Friday (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion how old do I act? What is your age-acting minimum on Wikipedia? 25+? By the way do you still believe that "it's no real loss."? 86.29.139.107 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I will just say that I am very grateful to Meaty Weenies for his work on Plymouth, and related articles. I also find some of the age-related comments by some editors offensive, particularly considering just how spectacularly crap Wikipedia is at controlling disruptive behaviour from certain admins and others of all ages. We do tolerate disruption from some editors because they contribute well in certain other areas, as anyone familiar with this board will well know. I do not feel that this situation has been at all well managed. DuncanHill (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if anyone disagrees with the block and wants to undo it, go ahead. But, it'll be your job to watch him if you do. Before anyone considers this, take a look at his talk page. What led me to notice him was his "Tee hee hee, look at me, I said penis!" type contributions. This is an attention-seeker who spams shock site images around various places. I have no interest in enabling problem editors by subscribing to the notion that "We'll put up with trollish behavior because you mix in a few useful edits in there too." Friday (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't call me names, you are violating WP:SPADE. All I've ever wanted from the start of my block on bsrboy was to have a second chance. I have never been given one, so I have had to hop from one account to the other. As a result I have missbehaved, becuae no one was checking up on me. If you want I can remove all innapropriate stuff from my userpage (I didn't have any on bsrboy or the vandal warrior). And feel free to do a checkuser on me whenever you want. With this new system in place it will allow me to continue my good contributions, but because of the checkuers and trust and whereabouts that I am a vandal I will not be vandalising Wikipedia. Therefore 100% good work from me. Please, a second chance is all that I ask. And still, Friday, do you believe that "it's no real loss."? 86.29.138.45 (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already seen how you use second chances. This one little edit tells me everything I need to know about your intentions here. And this is not an isolated incident. Friday (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point entirely here. No one has ever seen how I use second chances, because I've never been given one. That wasn't a second chance. What I'm on about is the chance for administrators to allow me to edit again with my history known and with acceptance. The other question still remains: "it's no real loss."? And also why in my reason for being blocked does it say "sock of a banned editor. has also been acting juvenile with this account too." acting juvenile? Please stop being so ageist Friday. 86.29.130.202 (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) User:Meaty Weenies was your second chance. I've been watching your contributions on and off since Bsrboy was blocked - many of the articles you've edited are on my watchlist. When my suspicions as to who you are were confirmed I started this discussion instead of just blocking you as I could have done. I hoped you would be able to convince us that your "good" side could win against your desire to vandalize. But you've totally failed at that - no contrition at all. Your contributions to this page were your third chance. I don't fully agree with Friday that "it's no real loss", but as he also said: it's not how old you are, it's how old you act.  —SMALLJIM  17:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Meaty Weenies isn't my second chance. I think I know what you're trying to get at, but I had User:The Vandal Warrior as my second account, therefore Meaty Weenies is my third anyway. I want a second chance with people knowing who I am. No one gave me a second chance i.e an administator didn't say "here you go, I'm giving you a second chance with this account". Please can you explain how I've failed at showing you my good side would win over the bad side and what does contrition mean? (I hope Friday comes along to answer my question "it's no real loss", as he appears to be avoiding it). 86.29.130.202 (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when we say that your good side needs to win over your bad side, we don't mean that it is sufficient for you to have more constructive edits than destructive ones. We mean that you shouldn't make any deliberately damaging or disruptive edits. I note that you clearly understood that what you were doing was wrong – you went to the trouble of logging out for most of your vandalism – yet you went ahead and did it anyway. We expect all of our editors to show sufficient maturity that they don't ever deface any of the pages on this project, and that they will endeavour to make all of their edits helpful even in the absence of constant monitoring and supervision.

Given that your conduct as Meaty Weenies (and IP) would probably get you blocked or banned even without taking into account your previous behaviour, why do you believe that you should immediately receive a third chance, or that it would be helpful to your case for your new account to be an acknowledged sock?

Incidentally: contrition. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Since bsrboy has been blocked from Wikipedia I initially gave up on hope for Wikipedia and was angry. I had lost the trust of fellow wikipedians and because it was an indef blocked I realised that I will never gain it back. After some time I began editing again. Not massively, just bits here and there. Sometimes I would let my anger of the block boil over, which lead to vandalism. Still whilst being Meaty Weenies I had to rebuild trust again, but this time I was even more angry and upset. I tried to get back at my treatment by trying to get as close as inserting 2MB of goatse to templates for today's featured articles. At the moment I feel like I've had enough and I just want to start a complete fresh of building trust and then being demolished again. I would like to be open about who I am and build proper trust with Wikipedia. As a result I will not feel the need to seek revenge against Wikipedia. Although if you do checkusers on my, I will assume it as good faith and common sense. 86.29.130.202 (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

← I think the indef block is a good call. Seraphim♥Whipp 19:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why? 86.29.130.202 (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't have any respect for either the community or the encyclopedia. Seraphim♥Whipp 20:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And why hasn't the ip been blocked yet? Seraphim♥Whipp 20:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(twice edit conflicted)Way to comment on contributions not the contributor Seraphim Whip! I think his contributions at Plymouth and History of Plymouth do shew respect for the encyclopaedia, and his work for the Devon Wikiproject and his editor review shew respect for the community. There may well be problems with some of his edits, but to make such a sweepingly dismissive and derogatory statement about him as a person is just ignorant. DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Seems a bit hypocritical to poke someone about commenting on the contributor whilst simultaneously implying they are ignorant! My comments are well justified. He certainly has no respect for the community since he has many times edited despite the fact that he has been indefinitely blocked thus showing no respect for community norms or wishes. He has no respect for the encyclopedia because he vandalises it! You could have just asked me to elaborate without being rude. Seraphim♥Whipp 20:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be more civil here... I have helped a user as seen on his talk page: User talk:AtheWeatherman and I am commited to make sure he fits in well here, because I respect him. I respect Wikipedia and you can't argue with that based on my actions. 86.29.130.202 (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My comment was directed at DuncanHill, who I hope will now see the basis of why I formed my opinion. Seraphim♥Whipp 21:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but keep it civil. 86.29.130.202 (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Because, whether you were given a second (and third) chance or not, you took them. But, rather than (or possibly in addition to) using those chances to be a productive editor, you wasted them by vandalizing. It doesn't matter if you accept that you have had your second chance, the fact is you have and you blew it. I would suggest that you stay away for a year and then request an unblock. Maybe by then you will have matured enough to not take out you frustration with juvenile vandalism. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, this appears to be resolved, regardless of the subject continuing to try to argue his way out of the consequences of his actions. The IP should be blocked and the thread marked resolved. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)One problem, as I see it, is that he says he needs to have "another chance" because people didn't know who he was last time around. Reading between the lines, then, this is someone who will only behave when they feel that someone is looking over their shoulder. Another issue is that he says his vandalism is apparently an outlet for anger and resentment, partly due to being blocked in the past, but - whatever reason is cited - there is no sign of acceptance of responsibility for his own actions.

One possible solution would be for a mentor to oversee his edits, though given the history of IP vandalism, that would be very time-consuming. Another solution is, of course, a block. In this case (and at the risk of appearing to be ageist) a 6-12 month block (rather than indef) might be a good idea; this would give Bsrboy a chance to gain maturity and self-control. The usual caveats apply: non-admin, 2 pence, and so forth. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I most definately do, please don't make such assumptions about me. I respect all users who spend their free time to create encyclopedic articles without getting paid. Wikipedia is an amazing place and the fact that there is a website trying to improve human knowledge for free is what first interested me in getting involved in Wikipedia. I have respect for all the work that you have done to the community. I want to be unblocked, so that I can gain back the respect and trust of the Wikipedia community. (I've been edit conflicted 5 times for this!) 86.29.130.202 (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, I have done some horrible stuff and I accept responsibility for all of it. I respect Wikipedia and its contributers and I want to continue my good work here. I would much rather I wasn't blocked. I can prove to you all that I am mature. Please give me this chance to edit. I'll do anything you want: mentoring; regular checkuser blocks; adoption programme. Anything! Please, I am dedicated to learn and be a better person, just let me have this chance. 86.29.130.202 (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. (I'm not an administrator)Just because someone is 12 (or acts like it) does not mean they cannot contribute to the encyclopedia. This user has written quite a lot of work around here, in fact. However, if their "childish" behaviour begins to become disruptive, this is not good for the encyclopedia. If disruptive/abusive sockpuppet users become unblocked, then they must use their chance wisely and should not do any vandalism. For now, I've put a sockpuppet tag on the user's page, but if anyone does not agree with this, they can remove it. This user has expressed that they actually want to help improve Wikipedia, but they should only be given the chance to if they do not commit disruptive actions or any blatant vandalism. Although I personally disagree with a lot of blocks, I'm going to leave it to the community to decide. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Seraphim♥Whipp has advised me not to edit here as it is block evading, so I will allow the community to discuss this matter. If any major decissions are made or you need an answer then please notify me on my talk page. 86.29.130.202 (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we're done here. Thanks for all the comments. There's a clear consensus that he should remain blocked, and I think an indefinite block with the possibility of him making an application to be allowed back in about a year's time is appropriate.  —SMALLJIM  15:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Update for anyone that had been following along. Bsrboy has now been unblocked. User talk:Bsrboy indicates per IRC discussion. --Onorem♠Dil 15:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to unblock him, he gets to use one account and one account only. I say, one time he uses another account (or logs off) for vandalism, the whole lot of them are indefinitely blocked. I'd also suggest a one-second block informing everyone of this notice. This is much more serious than what the block log looks like. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems a little odd to me that despite reaching a consensus here on what to do with him, that can be overturned by "extensive and exhaustive discussion" on IRC, which I for one had no chance of contributing to, and may not even be able to read. I've asked the unblocking admin for an assurance that he took all factors into consideration.  —SMALLJIM  23:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't support this unblock. It was only a few days ago checkuser confirmed Bsrboy continued using IPs to vandalise. After being blocked on April 11, he promised to stop editing for a month. Well, he broke that pledge and continued vandalising. If past evidence shows he can't stick to his promises, I can't see why he should be unblocked. If user:AGK was the only one who discussed the unblock, I support reblocking until a greater consensus is reached here. I find it hard to trust long-term serial vandals who treat Wikipedia like a game and break promises—especially one under a /16 rangeblock and who continue vandalising after being known to abuse accounts. Spellcast (talk) 08:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not greatly enthused about this either, since the discussion of the block was taking place here. However, AGK had the best intentions at heart and if he has confidence that this is a good move and is willing to reinstate the block if the terms are broken, that's good enough for me. Seraphim♥Whipp 09:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For slightly more that a month ago I requested a CU on Amoruso; Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Amoruso, which resulted in that User:Thatcher found 3 confirmed socks, which were "likely also Amoruso". User:Moreschi then blocked the socks indef., and blocked Amoruso for two months. Well, everything was nice and quiet (relatively speaking) on the Israel/Palestine-WP-front...until a couple of days ago, when I received an email from A<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">moruso which I found extremely insulting. I went to his talk page, User talk:Amoruso, and find that he has written more in the same manner there. I did the stupid thing: answered him. (I do get upset when people call me I liar). And he accuses me of being behind the socks (FYI: I am in Scandinavia, Amoruso is, according to his User-page, in Jerusalem). Aaaaand he asks to get unblocked. Could some admin please take a look at his user-page, to review his unblock-request? Thank you. Regards, Huldra (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Notice that the relevant messages are at section User_talk:Amoruso#Sockpuppets.3F and not at the bottom of the page. The message that got Huldra fired up is this one --Enric Naval (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Huldra, he's still blocked for the rest of this month. Gave him one more warning because I'm in a very good mood. I posted a note on his page that if he wants to argue his block, he needs to use the unblock template and follow directions. Otherwise, anything else will result in an extension of the block. I'm watching his page now (add it to the list) and will keep track. If he continues, just a note a mention of his name on my talk page and I'll figure it out. I'll give User:Moreschi a head's up since he was the original blocker. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also received emails from Amoruso. He insists that he was not the puppetmaster in control of the other sock accounts, nor is this a case of meatpuppeting. In response to the "likely" checkuser result, he suggests that since there aren't many ISP providers in Israel, a mistake may have been made. All I can really suggest is for someone to contact Thatcher and ask how certain that "likely" was.

In my opinion Amoruso is lying through his teeth: the socks simply revert-warred on his behalf, picking up on his prior and current disputes. Coupled with the "likely" checkuser, IMO this makes sockpuppetry virtually certain, but I guess it can't hurt to ask Thatcher to clarify. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher has left some clarifications on Amorusos talk-page, and I have left some notes. Please take a look. Huldra (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

About two weeks ago the automatic reasons from the speedy deletion templates no longer appeared when a page was deleted, and the content of the article started to appear in the "other reasons" box. I don't know if that was agreed by consensus, but is there a script or something to stop it happening? It's not that much of a big deal, deletion just takes longer. :) Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Really? I thought that was covered by MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown, which looks fine...Someguy1221 (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant an automatic summary. It used to take the summary from the tag that was there (so if it was non-notable A7, that deletion reason will appear without having to click anything), so most of the time you wouldn't need to use the dropdown box (unless you change the reason). What's more irritating is having to delete the contents of the article from the "other reasons" box, which is difficult to do at fast pace on a laptop :). PeterSymonds (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Random832 is listed as the maintainer on MediaWiki:Sysop.js. I'll drop him a quick note - Alex Muller 20:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I take it no one's getting the same problem then... PeterSymonds (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Still works for me. What's your browser configuration? I can try to debug it (I tested it on all major browsers before installing it) but I need to know where to start from. --Random832 (contribs) 01:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox latest edition. Under "options" and "content" (I assume that's what you mean by configuration?) All the boxes are ticked. I've never changed any of the settings; it just happened. I assumed it was a MediaWiki change and didn't think anything of it, but it's getting irritating. :) Just in case I didn't make myself clear, the dropdown box is still there and is working fine. But it used to display the reason for deletion automatically (e.g. if the article was tagged A7, the dropdown reason would automatically show A7). Also the content of the article didn't appear in the "other/additional reason" box which it now does. Just in case anyone thought that the dropdown box had gone completely. Thanks for your help! PeterSymonds (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My request to join the BAG is here. Note for the AN: this is not an attempt to canvas, because of the obscure nature of where the discussion is held some feel that it is necessary to "advertise" on more widely read noticeboards. There is no consensus on if this should actually be done and if so where the messages should be left but I don't see any harm. BJ^Talk 07:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note a hidden IP address 124.124.0.1, has removed an indefinite block on the said user. Although i have reverted this, i thought I’d bring this to the administers attention.--Rockybiggs (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about a hidden IP address, it's registered to Mumbai, India. The revert was nice, and there's no more work that needs doing here. Cheers, Alex Muller 11:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The other day I was reading the logs on the MJ article, mainly out of bordem/interest. I noticed that a vandal had changed the title to that long stupid sentance. Anyway, i also read his edit summary which provides a link to some site. Naive as I am, I copy and pasted the link into the bar and pressed "go". To my horror (and I dont mean that lightly) I say something quite disgusting, worse yet I think it can give a virus because my computer didn't react well to it. Could you please get it removed, if a kid decides to view it they will be scared for life. The logs are here. I WOULD ADVISE ADMINS NOT TO VIEW THE SITE, BUT IF YOU DO TURN THE VOLUME RIGHT DOMN. Cheers. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never been dumb enough to go there (no offense), but have always wondered what exactly the result would be. From what I understand, and I understand very little of anything tech-related, it exploits your browser in some way, opening an enormous number of popups, full of unimaginably disgusting images. Anyway, admins can't remove the log entry as far as I know; a developer would have to do it. - auburnpilot talk 17:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In my defense I was expecting to see something funny, not sick, it really should be removed so if you could point me in the right direction ill take it their. Cheers. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFO is the page for this, but it's not something that would normally be oversighted. --Rodhullandemu 17:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oversight doesnt do logs. for log removal you need a dev. β^{_{command 2}} 17:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if another administrator or experienced editor would review my decision on the 3RR noticeboard: here as it is not a clear case. Please leave any comments on the 3RR noticeboard rather than here. Thanks. CIreland (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

After numerous warnings, continues to edit in userspace only. Should he be blocked, or warned again? iMatthew _T.C. 01:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It would have been courteous to notify User:Wikieditor222 of this discussion. Kevin (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the 'not a social network' and 'not contributing to the improvement of the encyclopedia/project' arguments is there anything actually wrong with any of the edits he does make? --Samuel Pepys (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, but he is treating this as a Myspace website. iMatthew _T.C. 01:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And how does blocking him specifically help improve the encyclopedia... I've seen 1 warning which was phrased more as a suggestion. He is adopted, have you raised the issue with his sponsor? --Samuel Pepys (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that's why I said "Should he be blocked"? I'm not sure what the correct way to handle this would be, so I brought it here. iMatthew _T.C. 01:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

While his mainspace edits are probably in good faith, I've found these items from just the past few days:

• Speedy tagging a bio which clearly asserts notability [6] (someone actually gave him a vandal warning for this)
• Speedy tagging a software article as patent nonsense when it is clearly not such and is in fact in proper English, albeit including technical terms [7]
• Delinking for no reason to subjects which appear to me as viable potential articles, which is discouraged by WP:RED [8]
• Suggesting that a well-sourced, mostly cruftfree article on a notable website be transwikied to a gaming wiki [9]

Note, I am an uninvolved observer who stumbled across his page after noticing the first CSD. Now, I wouldn't classify these edits as harmful necessarily and certainly not block worthy, but they aren't helpful or productive either. I'd say that he needs a mentor. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like testing of TW, improper but not really 'evil'. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's Twinkle as there are no edit summaries, he mistyped "nonsense" on the second diff showing it was a manual edit, and I don't believe TW can overwrite existing templates as in the last diff. As I already stated, I also don't think these edits are 'evil', but they aren't adding to the project either. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that we have a user who has made ~550 edits, only 36 of which are to main space; 345 have been to userspace. We've topic banned editors from userspace before, but a strong encouragement to focus on articles without official enforcement should be the first step. If that's been done, and it appears it has, we should make it abundantly clear to Wikieditor222 that we are not a free webhost, we are not MySpace, and we are not a playground (he's had 20 signatures thus far, for God's sake). If he's unwilling to stop playing around in userspace, I'd suggest a temporary ban from editing userspace for 3-4 months. - auburnpilot talk 03:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am in favour of a temporary ban from his userspace for a period of no more than four months. I mean, we have a page dedicated to grossly elongated signatures, awards for finding super secret pages (IMO, all of those should be wiped), and then there is this (see history).

This image upload was an obvious copyright violation of this.

And what's up with tagging a non-userpage as blocked? seicer | talk | contribs 04:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I also thought that userpage tag was strange, but it actually is a user who was blocked a few minutes before Wikieditor222 created the page. Why he decided to tag it is beyond me. Perhaps just patrolling the block log and trying to be helpful? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Corrected. I should have ... actually checked the block log instead of just the log. *sigh* seicer | talk | contribs 04:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please please please do not try to force myspacers to touch important things like articles. See Wikipedia:Social networking for what is (in my opinion) a best practice for dealing with such editors. Friday (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Because of the page I can't tag it, so will an admin delete User:StewieGriffin!/myfriendlywelcome.js (G7). StewieGriffin! • Talk 19:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, user JS/CSS pages can be tagged for speedy deletion just like any other page. The speedy deletion template won't show up on the page itself, but the page still gets listed at CAT:CSD. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about this guideline here. Most of you will be interested and should take a look.--Phoenix-wiki 20:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider this all that credible, but I want to mention it before the page gets speedy deleted. [10] DGG (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I just deleted it. For the record, I looked at it for a moment and thought, nope, on balance I don't think any further action but delete. Oops. Pedro :  Chat  15:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's still visible to any admin who wants to look. I am relieved that your assessment confirms mine. DGG (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the ip who created it? 15:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

82.110.157.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Based on the whois information and the content of the deleted article it looks like this is the subject of the article or someone who knows them. Hut 8.5 16:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What was on the talk page? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessary to make that public. Suffice to say that it was a short threat relating to the speedy deletion of the article. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up, discussion at MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice#Boardvote. Was thinking I should link this at the village pump, but couldn't decide which section to put it in, so defaulting to here instead. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I need to make an edit to Template:Nengo, a protected page. -- Taku (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please add {{editprotected}} to the template talk page. Thanks —Travis^talk 00:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Solidly sourced information on the Bolthouse Farms article is being repeatedly removed by Belem2005 (talk · contribs), particularly information regarding a botulism outbreak and information regarding the Bolthouse Foundation. The user has been reverted by various users and notified a few times on their talk page but they are unresponsive. An administrator stepping in would be helpful. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone said in a thread on ANI that "the signatures alone are giving me a headache". While I assumed that the person meant Xp54321's signature, I just wanted to know: is my signature too complicated? Am I annoying anyone? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Not readable, thanks to my color blindness, and a tad long for my liking (but within the guidelines), but there are far, far worse about. The main problem is not usually the signature in isolation. It's when one huge green signature is next to a huge black-and-red one which is next to a bright orange one and so forth, then the page starts to look like MySpace or Geocities. Ugh. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 13:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had other people complain that they couldn't read my signature, but none of them will tell me what they can't read. What is it that is unreadable? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For me, it reads J     noygabsadds as the green "eats" the orange. And I didn't know until just now that it had a period in it. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 13:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Even for me (not color blind), the contrast between the J.d and the ela is slightly harsh. The J.d slightly blends in to the background, and the ela part that is blinding. So in my head, I just call you noygabs. But that's just me. Although on the issue as a whole, I don't see the need for large garish signatures. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I concur, it's difficult to read the yellow part, though when we are onto it, I have had my signature for years now, and none has complained, but is it ok in your eyes? _→AzaToth 13:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to read as it hurts my eyes. The contrast gives me a headache. Wish I was joking. Bstone (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The yellow-segueing-to-lime-green (everything from the J to the a, really) is kinda eye-burning, yeah. I mean, I can READ it, but I'd rather see something a little less...ouchy. (And thank you for even ASKING--the worst offenders wouldn't think to.)Gladys J Cortez 15:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Azatoth, your's is fine to me. Everyone else, I apologize for having such a signature as I do for so long. I had no idea it was unreadable, and I didn't think about the *FLASH* eye-burning part :S How is this? J.delanoy^gabs_adds Can you see the dot OK? I tried to find a heavier dot, but there isn't anything that I could find that would be at the bottom, so I just bolded it. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't you use a darker green and yellow? Just abuse the RGB format, which uses hexadecimal numbers:

• J.Delanoy
• J.Delanoy
• J.Delanoy
• J.Delanoy
• J.Delanoy
• J.Delanoy
• J.Delanoy
• J.Delanoy
• J.Delanoy
• J.Delanoy
• J.Delanoy
• J.Delanoy
• J.Delanoy
• J.Delanoy
• J.Delanoy
• J.Delanoy
• J.Delanoy
• J.Delanoy

Can the color blind people say which looks better? (sorry if the list hurts your eyes) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

J.Delanoy looks pretty good to me. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll just go with this, J.delanoy^gabs_adds. Is that OK? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you should use that entire list as your signature. And make a lot of small, unimportant edits all over AN/I. ;-) Tan | 39 17:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

YESSSSS!!!!!! Than would be AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Too bad we're limited to 255 bytes... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If length is an issue, make yourself a javascript (to prevent others from changing) signature template in your userspace. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was, if I used that whole list of J.delanoys for my signature, it would never fit. I wasn't serious. My present signature is just over 200 bytes, a little long, but not too bad. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The signature length limit was put in place for a reason. Let's not encourage people to bypass it, shall we? Mr.Z-man 23:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, transclusion of templates or user subpages within a signature isn't allowed. Ral315 (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

yeah, it says that right in the signature area. Even if I was allowed to do it, I still wouldn't have made such a long, annoying signature. IMO, the point of a custom signature is so that people can make themselves easily identifiable. They are not intended to be unreadable or to fill up entire pages with text. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This user is reverting English-language naming of tennis player biographies and names despite being informed about Wikipedia policy concerning those names. The relevant diffs showing his or her edits are here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. This user's rather incivil posts to my discussion page can be found here. Tennis expert (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, all Serbs, (also Croats, Bosniaks...) in this encyclopedia are listed whit original names whit Serbian (Croatian) latin letters š, đ, č, ć, and ž. There is no reason that tennis players be exeption. If somebody want double standards, I can't "fight" against strog inequitably power. --Pockey (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

New instances of this user's disruptive editing: 14, 15, 16. Tennis expert (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing illiterately. --Pockey (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edit #17. Tennis expert (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC) And #18 --HJensen, talk 21:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that if all of the appropriate redirects are available, it will be a matter of indifference to most of our readers which spelling holds the actual article. - Jmabel | Talk 15:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But that's not established Wikipedia policy. What we're talking about here is a user who has been informed of the policy, has a personal disagreement with it, and is disruptively editing based on those personal feelings. Tennis expert (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not only my disagreement. Everyone who knows what is correct spelling of Serbian names can not accept this so called policy. Have you consulted Serbian and Croatian speaking users when you decided to make double standards about tennis players? Almost all people whit those leters in this encyclopedia are listed correctly and some so called proficients of Serbo-Croatian language can't tell over night what we must do whit tennis players. I will always be high-class user of this Wikipedia, and i will always correcting illiterately names. --Pockey (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I can see now that User:Tennis expert have produced big number of edit wars all over Wikipedia, because he think he is a lecturer of Serbian and Czech languages. Similar situation we have on article Radek Štěpánek, where he can't be tolerate for standardised Czech language. --Pockey (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Same thing whit article Daniela Hantuchová. This user speaks Slovak as well! :) --Pockey (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

More disruptive edits by User:Pokrajac: 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. Tennis expert (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to give my full support for User:Pokrajac and other users with brain on the right place and with the feeling of the common sense. This so-called "policy" is nothing else than a silent consensus reached by several like-minded users of WPP Tennis, their "consensus" goes against the common sense and the Wikipedia precedence and general consensus policies. Their fresh ruthless policies should be changed and reverted back, otherwise we will have double standards here. - Darwinek (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my brain apparently being misplaced lately, for having no conception of common sense, and for imposing "fresh ruthless policies." By the way, why did you say in response to the arguments that Redux made on your discussion page "I see your points" if those arguments were full of double standards and represent a mere "silent consensus reached by several like-minded users of WPP Tennis"? I have noted with interest your reversion of three renames of tennis articles after your dialogue with Redux: 1, 2, 3. Tennis expert (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

All should be moved back to their proper names. Several stubborn users can't stop the whole community and the common sense of decent Wikipedianz. - Darwinek (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you're calling me "stubborn." What have I done to deserve being called names? That's very un-administrator of you. Tennis expert (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but if you don't see a problem with calling user "disruptive" for correcting article titles and report him for that at WP:AN/I, it is sad. This is no more, no less than a content dispute and should be dealt with as such. There would be 500 threads each day here if everyone would be dropping in with similar "issues" as you do. --Darwinek (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This was the exact procedure that Redux said should be followed: make reports to this noticeboard. If you have a problem with that, maybe you should talk to him and direct your name calling (e.g., stubborn, brain in the wrong place, no common sense, ruthless, disruptive, lacking decency, double standards imposing) in his direction. Besides, I thought you were supposed to avoid this kind of thing. Tennis expert (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

My civility parole ended two months ago, my record is clear now, therefore I say to you, "No comment, this discussion is completely useless. I quit." - Darwinek (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Darwinek - although he should be aware Tennis expert is not the party at fault here, I've established after a conversation with him that he was not part of the original disputes nor was he aware of them. The articles should not be moved, just as we don't rename places because poor Anglos (of which I am proudly one, by the way) can't read foreign characters, and in general we don't name biographies, we shouldn't be creating a culture of exceptionalism where one WikiProject decides to violate norms elsewhere in the encyclopaedia for no apparent reason but that some other organisation thinks it necessary to drop diacritics. Orderinchaos 10:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

So, it will be the usual "respect for native culture" argument that should guide naming on the English wikipedia? Not English spelling. What is the point here? Everytime consensus is reached about moving names to their English spelling, some days goes and then some natives round of their friends and start reverting. Are we just going to accept that? Just because East Europeans are more sensitive to this issue than, say, Scandinavian? (ps: what on earth does "i will always correcting illiterately names"?).--HJensen, talk 21:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There has been a long-standing consensus, or at least practice, to use original spelling for names in languages which use the Čatin alphabet and don't have English names (this has nothing to do with things like Vienna, or Spain, or John Paul II - all of those do have actual English names). For whatever reason, it's sports article editors which occasionally start these renaming-to-diacriticless-version campaigns. The last time I followed this, it was hockey, this time it's tennis. There are three coherent arguments for dropping diacritics for tennis players that I have managed to discern, but they are all misguided:

• One claim is that diacritics make it hard for English speakers to find articles. This is a particularly bad argument, since we do have redirects.
• Another is that tennis players are registered with WTA or ATP by their "Anglicised" (i.e. simplified) spelling. Accepting this as a valid argument leads to ridiculous conclusions - a young tennis player who hasn't turned professional, would have his names spelled with diacritics, and when he goes professional we should move the article. Obviously a bad idea.
• The apparently strongest argument is that tennis players are most often referred to by the simplified spelling of their names in English language sources. While that may be true, it tells are more about the nature of those sources than about tennis players' names. Most sources for tennis players are newspapers, and newspapers tend to spell all non-English names without diacritics. OTOH, dictionaries and encyclopedias tend to use diacritics where appropriate. So in this case, "follow common usage" applied properly means "use diacritics".

The argument for using original spelling is really simple. There is nothing special about the names of sportspeople. There is no justification for using a different convention for tennis players, as opposed to writers or politicians or scientists. If we had a consensus to drop diacritics from all names, it would be entirely appropriate to do so for tennis players. But since UTF-8 titles were introduced by the developers because we wanted diacritics in titles, that sounds unlikely. Zocky | picture popups 12:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

More disruptive behavior by Pokrajac here. This is on the Djokovic page hwere consensus for the English spelling has been reached after a long, long discussion. Now this user unilaterally acts against consensus. --HJensen, talk 19:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Zocky: (1) Why do you think the websites of both players' associations for professional tennis (the Women's Tennis Association and the Association of Tennis Professionals) omit diacritics? Neither are newspapers. Both are international organizations. What makes their usage unreliable but general purpose dictionaries and encyclopedias reliable for purposes of tennis biographies on English Wikipedia? (2) An amateur tennis player is unlikely to be sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article. And even if he or she were, there's nothing wrong with changing the name of the article when it becomes appropriate to do so. Otherwise, Wikipedia would never include unmarried women lest they get married at some point in the future and agree to take their husband's name. (3) Why is the usage of the International Tennis Federation, the official international governing body of tennis, irrelevant? See, e.g., the biographies of "Novak Djokovic" and "Jelena Jankovic". (4) Why is the usage of the official website of the French Open (Roland Garros) irrelevant? For example, it uses "Djokovic," "Ivanovic," and "Jankovic". (5) Why is the usage of the official website of the Olympic Games irrelevant? See, e.g., names of "Nicolas Massu" and "Fernando Gonzalez". (6) Why is the usage of the International Tennis Hall of Fame irrelevant. See, e.g., the biography of "Martina Navratilova" (7) The reason that diacritics should not be used in tennis biographies on English Wikipedia is not because they are "special." Instead, diacritics are not used in the most reliable and official sources of English-language tennis information, from newspapers to websites to official tennis organizations, and THAT is why they should not be used on English Wikipedia.

What's really upsetting to me are edit summaries like "stop depressing Serbian language" by Pokrajac (Pockey) that demonize those of us who honestly and reasonably believe that diacritics should not be used in English-language Wikipedia tennis biographies when official tennis organizations do not use them. Tennis expert (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have now reverted the user's edit on the Novak Djokovic article again, see here. And have, to make things crystal clear, made an entry on the Djokovic talk page explaining that for that particular article the user is acting against consensus. A consensus that involved numerous editors, and where proponents for using the Serbian spelling generally had better arguments than the kind of "using English spelling is sign of imperialism and disrespectful, etc." - arguments that the user in question here uses. Can this user just go on unnoticed with this behavior? Is this acceptable behavior on wikipedia? I would be happy to hear a clear answer from an admin on this. The admins here seem to be just (re-)starting a general diacritics discussion here, thereby avoiding an assessment of the actions of Pokrajac (talk · contribs) (which I thought was the whole purpose here). --HJensen, talk 05:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC) (Addition: One may also note that the user has engaged in canvassing, as evidenced here.)--HJensen, talk 06:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Um noted, but (1)canvasing is a behavioral guideline not a policy and (2)this isn't exactly widespread solicitation with intent to 'disrupt' a well 'organized' conversation. More of noting a similar edit by another user and informing of a AN notice, not exactly a neutral message, but definitely not canvasing.--Samuel Pepys (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It is definitely canvassing. The issue is whether it is disruptive. There I disgree with you again. The user explicitly states that s/he will use e-mail lists, so it is non-transparent, and also clearly partisan. So it fits into at least two categories defining "disruptive canvassing". --HJensen, talk 13:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hjensen, it's really simple - these are articles about those people, not articles about their registration with WTA or ATP. Their names don't change when they join. The whole thing is a non starter. I repeat, the fact that somebody is a tennis player has nothing to do with their name. If you can get Wikipedia to drop diacritics generally, you'll have a good argument to do so for tennis players. Until then, you're just wasting everybody's time. Zocky | picture popups 11:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so should I start a new ANI section on Pokrajac's behavior relating to the Djokovic article only? Like it or not, there is consensus in that article to use English spelling. Is that easier to cope with? (And my god; this is not about diacritics - it is about using the English spelling that can be verified by reliable sources. You are the one wasting everybody's time by digging up that argument as a scapegoat. So again: This is not about diacritics.) --HJensen, talk 13:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so the argument is that these people have English names? That borders on ridiculous. We're talking about spelling, not names. Zocky | picture popups 14:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No. That would be ridiculous. Did I really say that? It is the spelling that changes. And when Djokovic became a renowned tennis player, an English spelling of his name developed. I don't know for what reason or how, but it did. He even uses it himself on his English version of his web page but uses the native spelling on the Serbian version of his web page. He seems to be a smart guy. --HJensen, talk 22:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the same happens to every other person and place that gets mentioned in English-language media. It's exactly the same for writers, plumbers and tennis players. The convention at Wikipedia has long been to use native spellings anyway. Zocky | picture popups 11:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully, but I don't understand your final sentence, "The convention at Wikipedia has long been to use native spellings anyway". You say "convention". Well, this English wikipedia convention says something opposite. It says: "If a native name has a common English-language equivalent, the English version takes precedence". Note that this convention is written for the English wikipedia (where we are right now). You just mention "Wikipedia" per se; which conventions are you precisely referring to in your statement?--HJensen, talk 17:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That is for Vienna vs Wien, not to install blatantly incorrect spellings on limited ranges of articles because a few Americans think it's too hard to link them. We have redirects for a reason, and your conduct across a whole range of talk pages has been far from exemplary. Orderinchaos 02:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to be incivil and slam Americans. Besides, HJensen is not American anyway. Tennis expert (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In essence my point was that one of the rationales which have always been given for such moves is that the names are too difficult for monolingual English speakers to handle. That was what I was addressing, albeit somewhat facetiously (many Americans can speak Spanish which uses accents). Orderinchaos 07:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Could an OTRS volunteer please check this ticket just to verify that all Animal Liberation Front images are in the public domain? I was going to transwiki some of those images to Commons, but just needed to confirm the license first. Kelly ^hi! 16:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The following images are in public domain per the ticket.

• Image:ALFbeagles.jpg
• Image:Britches.jpg
• Image:ALFItalymink.gif
• Image:ALFattackpork.JPG
• Image:BarryHorne.gif
• Image:Hornebeagles.jpg

Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the ticket alludes that all ALF are in the public domain however explicitley states the email applied to the images listed. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks for checking...I ran across some other images that use the {{PD-because}} license with the statement "all ALF images are in the public domain", so I've been trying to find the OTRS ticket or copyleft notice. I thought maybe it was that one. I will work with the uploader (SlimVirgin) to try to straighten out the copyright. Kelly ^hi! 16:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The ticket does state in a generalization that all images are in the public domain but I interpreted it as a generalization, esepcially because the ticket early on states that the following images are in the public domain and only later briefy mentions that all images taken by ALF activists are in the PD. I am sure it could go either way. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think something like that could only apply to images where ALF is the publisher of the images - i.e. hosted on ALF's website or issued in their press materials, correct? But based on what you say above, I think it's a valid PD claim with the proviso I just mentioned. Kelly ^hi! 16:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the ALF e-mail sent to permissions states that all ALF images are in the public domain, not just the ones listed above. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 01:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I would advise extreme caution in your handling of this content. Do you even know what you are getting yourself into? ALF content is User:SlimVirgin's territory, so proceed with caution. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was all about the other ALF and was thinking "yay! free images!" Sadly, no cute aliens here. Orderinchaos 06:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear readers. I have been blocked by User:Neil without any justification, nor providing the means of appeal, following a request filed by user User:Biruitorul. When I asked the blocking admin to justify, no further explanation was given. A second admin, User:CIreland wrote on my talk page in a very aggressive manner "out of the question", but still did not give any explication, nor provided any diff. The third administrator User:AGK did provide a diff[11], although without any further explanation either. Now when you click on the diff and read the reason the third admin gave for blocking me (edits such as this are in violation of the basic levels of civility expected from Wikipedia editors) - it appears as some sort of misunderstanding, incoherence, irrelevance, to say the least. When I tried to edit my talk page yesterday, I could not do it, although the little message that appears as I log in says - I can edit my talk page (which was indeed the case until yesterday). So, I guess somebody also deprived me of the right to edit my talk page. As of this morning, time after which I was supposed to be unblocked, I was still blocked and unable to edit even my talk page. Please, take some time to look into this matter deeper if you can. Thank you very much in advance.--Moldopodo^talk 13:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For those interested, there's more info at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:Moldopodo. --Onorem♠Dil 13:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:BlockIP&ip=Moldopodo

repeatedly adding unblock requests is disruptive and abuse of the "unblock" template results in your talk page being protected (this is stated on the template itself). Additionaly three admins have reviewed and declined your request for un-block. That in itself shows that the block was already appropriately looked at. Valid block and appropriate protection used. --Hu12 (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, please note that editing your talk page is not a right. Please see WP:WINW. Soxred 93 15:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted. I imagine being administrator is not a right either? Therefore it implies administrator having the privelege of taking and enforcing at the same time the decision, has in return certain obligations - the one of responsibility and giving proper account of her/his acts.--Moldopodo^talk 19:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block - As a third party admin, I endorse the block. Moldopodo was uncivil and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Wikipedia user. There is no way those diffs provided in the unblock templates could be interpreted in any other fashion. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I did not block Moldopodo. Moldopodo was blocked by User:Moreschi ([12]). I did refuse one of Moldopodo's unblock requests, as he had clearly violated the terms of the Arbitration enforcement he is under. I did also protect Moldopodo's talk page, with an expiry date of 10:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC) - this was the exact time his block was due to, and did, expire. I protected his talk page as he was spamming unblock requests (something he also did the last time he was blocked, and for which his talk page was also protected back then). He knows exactly why he was blocked, and knows exactly why his talk page was protected. Neıl 龱 14:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• As an aside, I don't know if anyone noticed this bit of canvassing by Moldopodo on the French Wikipedia, calling for editors to come and participate in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 28#Template:Romanian_historical_regions. Neıl 龱 14:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Serious Cross wiki WP:CANVASSing.
  • Moldopodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
  • Project:Café de.wikipedia.org
  • Project:Разговори bg.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Александър bg.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Skycycle bg.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Stanislav bg.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Spiritia bg.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Borislav bg.wikipedia.org
  • Project:Bar/ it.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Joana it.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Sailko it.wikipedia.org
  • nl.wikipedia.org
  • fr.wikipedia.org
  • Project:De_kroeg pt.wikipedia.org.
  • User talk:Paul Pogonyshev ru.wikipedia.org
  • User talk:Wind Pogonyshev ru.wikipedia.org
  • User talk:Kalan ru.wikipedia.org
  • User talk:Lvova ru.wikipedia.org
  • User talk:Putnik ru.wikipedia.org
  • Википедия:Форум/Общий ru.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Ahonc uk.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Tomahiv uk.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:A1 uk.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Leon_II uk.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Rainman sr.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:BokicaK sr.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Михајло_Анђелковић sr.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Odder pl.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Beau pl.wikipedia.org
  • User_talk:Ludmiła_Pilecka pl.wikipedia.org
  • Project_talk:Przedstawicielstwo_dyplomatyczne pl.wikipedia.org

Ths is concerning--Hu12 (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not concerned. His polling message appears to me to be neutral, and arguably the renaming of a wikipedia is of cross-language interest. I think we conflate two issues by bringing his polling into this discussion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Warn before blocking. I looked on his talk page and I could not find the appropriate warnings at any level. Why was he blocked before warned? Bstone (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Warnings are not required. Al Tally ^talk 14:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:Moldopodo and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Editors warned. Neıl 龱 14:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. Plus, Molodopo doesn't have his facts right. Neil never blocked him, Moreschi did. Neil merely declined an unblock. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Endorse block. I would have blocked a repeat-offender like this User for a month or more. No sympathy here. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block. User clearly is no stranger to blocks, I'd suggest waiting it out and take time to reflect upon your actions. 48 hours isn't that long (and some of it has already expired). Rudget (Help?) 15:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Consider extending per Hu12 diffs. Rudget (Help?) 15:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Mass multiple project WP:CANVASSing is inexcusably disruptive, and I would support such a sanction.--Hu12 (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
      • WP:CANVASS says Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive. The message left by Moldopodo appears to me to be neutral in outlook -i.e. not on nthe face of it seeking to influence the outcome, so much as make as many people as possible aware of the discussion. Seems to me to be well within the bounds of WP:CANVASS. Let's not get carried away here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Mass multi-project disruptive campaigning (15 projects +) is clearly not withing the "certain conditions" intended by the guideline, nor does it justify excessive canvassing.--Hu12 (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Hu12 it is quite bewildering for me to see how you baldly read what is simply not written in Wikipedia regulations regarding canvassing. It is even more striking that you fail to see the truly disruptie canvassing in the message sent by User:Biruitorul on ro.wiki and translated, analysed with diffs below.--Moldopodo^talk 13:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. It's not as if vast numbers of ro.wiki participants strongly embrace Moldovenism, and my two-line message led them to vote differently somehow. They do have minds of their own, you know. And I didn't canvass on 15 unrelated projects, either. So really, this line of argumentation can be dropped. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Moldopodo's unwise effort to canvass the French Wikipedians has not gone unremarked by them. Maintenant, il semble que nous soyons désormais tout juste assez bons pour recevoir son spam ahurissant (portant notamment sur le troll de renommage de la Wikipédia en langue roumaine), mais en langue anglaise. (I didn't know that 'spam' was a French word too). EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  "Now, it seems that we are good enough to get his staggering spam (including the trollish renaming of the Romanian language Wikipedia), but [only] in English". Neıl 龱 16:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Yup, google translate verifies this--Hu12 (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note - I was canvassed via email by Moldopodo to 1/ unblock him, 2/ summarily delete {{Romanian historical regions}}, 3/ votestack the discussion on renaming ro.wikipedia.org to mo-ro.wikipedia.org, and 4/ spread the word to other wikis about the template and meta discussion, but only to people who would agree with him. I have no particular interest in any of these, or the fate of this user. east.718 at 16:43, June 4, 2008

This is a gross lie, I can copy the message I sent you, I have never asked you to delete a template or whatsoever. You have received basicly the same message as the note cited below in English.

Copy of your message to East718: Wikipedia e-mail

My unjustified block

Dear administrator. Although using Wikipedia already for about ten months, I could not figure how to write an e-mail to an administrator (where to find the list), so I went on the main page and started checking the last edits, where I saw you. That is how you became my last recourse. I have been blocked without any justification, nor providing the means of appeal, following a request filed by an ethno-racist Romanian user, who keeps alterating the contents of Wikipedia to put through Greater Romania propaganda. When I asked the blocking admin to justify, no further explanation was given. A second admin wrote on my talk page in a very aggressive manner "out of the question", but still did not give any explication, nor provided any diff. The third administrator did provide a diff, although without any further explanation either. Now when you click on the diff and read the reason the third admin gave for blocking me - it appears as some sort of misunderstanding, incoherence, irrelevance, to say the least. When I tried to edit my talk page yesterday, I could not do it, although the little message that appears as I log in says - I can edit my talk page (which was indeed the case until yesterday). So, I guess somebody also deprived me of the right to edit my talk page. As of now, the time by which I should have been unblocked anyway, I am still blocked and unable to edit even my talk page. Please, take some time to look into this matter deeper if you can. Thank you very much in advance.

Also, please have a look

If you could spread this to interested users participating on English Wikipedia:

1. Discussion of Deletion of Template:Romanian historical regions[13]
2. Discussion of renaming ro.wikipedia.org into mo-ro.wikipedia.org[14]

Thank you in advance if you can repost the message where it belongs for interested users speaking English

Sincerely,

Moldopodo

• First of all "canvassing" was never discussed on the administrators' board in the request filed against me. An attentive user, moreover administrator, would clearly see the scope of the request, as well as the scope of this discussion, by simply reading one more time (if he has ever read it before) the logged request and following discussion was never mentioned. Now, if you do mention canvassing, let's talk about it. The one who started the canvassing was User:Biruitorul (in fact I did not even know this was posible before User:Xasha posted a note about this on the discussion related to the deletion of the template "Romnanian historical regions"). Here is the message User:Biruitorul posted on the ro.wikipedia.org[15] Stimaţi colegi, e serioasă treaba! Un moldovenist a propus schimbarea numelui ro.wp in mo-ro.wp. Vă rog să vă exprimaţi părerile acolo cât mai e timp, şi dacă tot o faceţi, să vă uitaţi şi la această propunere de-a lui. Vă mulţumesc frumos. Biruitorul 1 iunie 2008 17:06 (EEST)
  Translation in English Esteemed colleagues, a serious matter! A Moldovenist proposed changing the name of ro.wp into mo-ro.wp. I request you to express your opinions there as long as remains time, and if you do it, look also at this proposal of his. I thank you very much. 1 iunie 2008 17:06 (EEST)

Here is my message, which with minor changes (relating to language of Wikipedia project) was posted on different Wikpedias, only after I read the note of canvassing by User:Biruitorul. Please have a look
If you could spread this to interested users participating on English Wikipedia:

1. Discussion of Deletion of Template:Romanian historical regions[16]
2. Discussion of renaming ro.wikipedia.org into mo-ro.wikipedia.org[17]

Thank you in advance if you can repost the message where it belongs for interested users speaking English

Now, let's make it clear what is canvassing, or allowed cnavassing and what is not here. As per Wikipedia definition: Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive. When you compare the contents of Biruitorul's and mine messages you see a huge difference. First Biruitorul refers to a user (myself), second - in the following terms: and proposal of his, third he clearly gives an indication how to vote by labelling me "Moldovenist", four - he urges users to do it quickly... Whereas all I do in my message is informing people of the discussion, period.--

If you're trying to tarnish my name, you're not going to get much mileage using my message to ro.wiki. First, I posted to the Romanian Wikipedia because the discussion involved Romania, not to over a dozen other projects including totally uninvolved ones like France and Italy. Second, the bulk of my message referred to your meta proposal, and merely included a link to the other discussion as an aside. Third, if you're upset I called you a Moldovenist, I'm more than willing to apologise; otherwise, you can drop the subject. And of course I asked users to look quickly at the meta proposal - it's a big deal, and it's important our side brings out its arguments early in the discussion. And finally, I see your e-mail referred to me as "an ethno-racist Romanian user, who keeps alterating the contents of Wikipedia to put through Greater Romania propaganda". Unsubstantiated personal attack noted. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Biruitorul, as per Wikipedia definition, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive - this is the exact description of the message you posted on ro.wikipedia.org. As for your name, I do not know how can one tarnish it more than you have done already. Like I said earlier, when I refer to your edits as ethno-racists it is because they are ethno-racist, and not because in fact the are "red rose" edits. You cannot continuously negate the existence of a nation, of a state of a language. If there had been a possibility to post my message in one place, where the discussions would have neen automatically notified to all Wikipedias, I would have done it. Unfortunately such program does not exist on Wikipedia. (Here is what one could think of in order to improve the neutrality and general quality of important structural Wikipedia discussions, as well as those touching different linguistic projects)--Moldopodo^talk 22:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, your case about my ro.wiki post is built on a rather thin reed. And I'm sorry, but WP:NPA does not give you license to attack me because you disagree with my beliefs. Yes: the "Moldovan language", the "Moldovan ethnicity" and the "Moldovan state" are all figments of the Stalinist imagination, created in order to deprive Romania of her rightful territory - and yes, Romanian is the language spoken all the way to the Dniester, Romanians are the only Romance people who inhabit the land between the Prut and the Dneister, and Romania ought to control that land, not the illegitimate entity that does so at present. If my stance annoys you, you have every right to express reasoned disagreement, or ignore what I say. You do not, per WP:NPA and WP:CIV, have the right to respond with personal attacks to my statements. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My case against you on ro.wiki is that you had recourse to disruptive convassing by writing a message to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion which compromised the consensus building process. Now, please read one more time my message and tell me how is it influencing anybody to vote for or against in the indicated discussions. As for your last comment on "illegitimacy" of Moldavian existence and "rightfulness" of Romanian, the one who will describe me how this is NOT ethno-racist, may consider that I take back all what I have written above and below.--Moldopodo^talk 22:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

First, just to make clear - the Moldovan state - Moldova - is what I consider illegitimate. Having gotten that out of the way: again, avoid personal attacks. Be civil. Avoid inflammatory terms that denigrate other users' character. I happen to hold a belief, common in Romania and not that uncommon in Moldova. You may not like that belief, but using terms like "ethno-racist" to describe it remains unacceptable, regardless. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but some of you failed to look into the matter again. None of those who "endorsed block" provided any argumentation, except saying, "the other one did just right" or "he is used ot it". I find such justification a rather primitive reasoning, not bringing any human input in the discussion. Otherwise we can appoint robots doing the same review. I repeat, there was no appropriate warning from a third party (User:Biruitorul's messge cannot be considered as a neutral objective warning for obvious reasons, as he was the one who filed the highly subjective POV request, absed on his sole explanation and interpretation). Secondly, the user/admin/whoever it was who blocked me in the first hand did not write something like "you are blocked for this and that, here are the diffs, here are the ways to appeal", which I find rather strange for an objective administrator, having such important privileges.

The sole diff[18] provided by the third admin User:AGK after two previous requests remained unanswered (or answered in a rude and aggressive manner - User:CIreland out of the question - which is unacceptable from a neutral adminsitrator) really does not make this block justified in any sense, please have a look at it and try to explain me how this diff merits a block.--Moldopodo^talk 16:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As a point of order - your block has expired, yes? What action would you like to see happen here? How should this be resolved? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So basically, even though multiple people have agreed with the block, you still arguing against it, pretty much on procedural terms only - lack of a formal warning and no diffs provided? Mr.Z-man 17:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically, one administrator UltraExactZZ has given me a strong impression of really reading the diff and sticking to the subject, trying to present me a constructive argument, for which I thank her so much. Automatic endorsement, without any personal input is rather charactesitic for not so much thinking robots, than for multipe people.--Moldopodo^talk 21:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am arguing on both: procedural and merits (substantial). In fact it cannot even be called an argument, as in an argument there is at least a properly formulated accusation (opponent's opinion) with relevant evidence, justifyig the decision. Here none of these are present. That's wy I titled this section "New rule on Wikipeda?". If my responsibility was unjustly engaged, I want the responsibility of those who contributed to this to be engaged as well. That's the main purpose of the whole thing. If an administrator has a privilege to block someone - then first of all it's a responsibility for the adminisrator, since it's not a divine right where administrator has no account to give to anybody. The answer of administrators, which can be resumed to "it is because it is and because I decided so and don't you dare to ask me for more explanation" is not an answer which ensures that a person is engaging her/his responsibility by taking a decision with important consequences--Moldopodo^talk 19:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, in reviewing the block, the unblock requests and reviews, and the arbitration enforcement items, it looks like the block was justified based on incivility as seen here, specifically beginning an edit summary with "Adriatikus, your edits are rather wicked,...", which very specifically ascribes a bad faith motive to a named editor. Even if an editor is acting in bad faith (a point on which I do not speculate), responding in kind is just as unacceptable. Is a block of 48 hours too harsh for such an offense? Were it not involved in an arbitration case (of which you were aware), I might be inclined to say yes - but the fact of the matter is that you were warned that conduct related to that arbitration case was being scrutinized, and made an edit that appeared incivil anyway. It looks like a block that is consistent with policy. As the block has expired, I would strongly recommend that you drop the matter and let it go; take it as a lesson learned (Be WP:CIVIL at all times), and move on with your life. I know you're quite upset, that much is obvious; unfortunately, I do not believe that you will find any satisfaction from continuing this thread. There does not appear to be consensus that the block was unjustified, and that is the only administrator action within the purview of this board. Not the answer you're looking for, I'm afraid, but that's my honest analysis. Best to you, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Frankly speaking I already have an experience[19] with the review of the unjust block and know that most administrators don't bother reviewing the damn request, but just sign off "endorsed" partly because of fear to stand off, partly simply for suppoting their mates to keep their own privileges when the hard moment will strike. Now, as far as I understood, calling user's edit a wicked one, is the basis for the block. Let me explain that the aforementoned user had intentionally repeatedly deleted large portions of very important neutral official text (taking Moldavian mixed linguistic situation) and inserted some other text. To explain the changes made, this user simply put in the comment "adding new references". Now, here we have definition of "wicked"[20]

• morally bad in principle or practice
• sinful: having committed unrighteous acts; "a sinful person"
• severe: intensely or extremely bad or unpleasant in degree or quality; "severe pain"; "a *severe case of flu"; "a terrible cough"; "under wicked fire from the enemy's guns"; "a wicked cough"
• impish: naughtily or annoyingly playful; "teasing and worrying with impish laughter"; "a wicked prank"
• disgusting: highly offensive; arousing aversion or disgust; "a disgusting smell"; "distasteful language"; "a loathsome disease"; "the idea of eating meat is repellent to me"; "revolting food"; "a wicked stench"

It is clear to me that the repeated edits by the aforementioned user were morally bad in principle or practice. What is then exactly wrong with this definition?--Moldopodo^talk 20:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Put that way, nothing; it's entirely possible that the other user's edits did indeed match that definition, and I have no doubt in your sincere belief that that is the case. However, the key issue is that the only conduct that goes into determining the nature and duration of a block is the user's own conduct - in this case, your own. That conduct, ascribing wicked motives to another editor's conduct, was incivil, and it would be judged incivil even if the other editor was indeed being wicked. On that basis, and given the prior warning of activity regarding Arbitration Enforcement, you were blocked. The other editor's conduct may be reviewed, or it may not; they may be blocked, or they may not, but that does not factor into the review of your conduct in the matter. Had you said "You seem to be removing sources rather than adding them", there may have been no problem. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate your contribution to the discussion, as you clearly take your time explaining what you have to say, even if I do no necessarily agree with you, at least there is an intention of constructive argument from your side. I have just browsed definitions of civility/civil and could not find one which would support your point of view that calling a wicked action wicked is uncivil. Sure, You seem to be removing sources rather than adding them is an appropriate formulation when one really seems to be removing, but it did not seem to me, it happened at least three times in a row[21], [22], and [23]. There is no reason I would say that he/she seemed to be removing something. It did happen on purpose, obviously totally delibrately.--Moldopodo^talk 21:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ask checkuser to verify please. 61.145.163.228 (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

On what basis? They won't proceed unless evidence of some form is provided. If provided, we'll ask them. Orderinchaos 15:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel we need to clean up Category:PD SerbiaGov (and possibly other similar categories of other countries too). This Public domain image category is meant for things that fit a regulation in Serbian copyright law which exempts from copyright "Laws, decrees and other regulations" as well as other "Official materials of state bodies and bodies performing public functions". Looking at the hundreds of photographs currently in the category, I can see how that would work for official emblems, military symbols et cetera. But the category is also filled with dozens or hundreds of simple photographs from government-run websites, mostly photographs of the Serbian military, including historical ones of unknown original authorship.

I can't see how these are "official materials", and I also note that the source websites do claim copyright [24]. Note that the Serbian law is a lot more restrictive in this respect than US law, where the criterion is that an image only needs to have been created by a federal employee in the course of their duties.

I thought I'd bring it here before I'd start acting unilaterally, since we are talking about a lot of images here. Opinions? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You're correct, it appears this license has been much abused. Definitely support a thorough housecleaning, though, as opposed to deleting the images outright, it should be verified that they are unusable under fair use criteria first. Kelly ^hi! 13:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, changing the licence may fix the problem provided the images are non-replaceable. Orderinchaos 13:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments; this is now being further discussed at WP:PUI. About fair use and replaceability, many of these are being used in galleries and such, and as far as the photographs of military equipment are concerned, we do get a lot of similar images that are freely licensed by private photographers (or at least claimed to be such), so non-replaceability would be difficult to argue in such cases, in my view. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have read just about everything I can find to help me go to the right place and I don't think you have any place for what I won't to know. Some one in my family by the name of James Orton. Professor James Orton in 1869 he was appointed professor of natural history in vassor college, I would like to know if there are any pictures of him that I could get a copy of, I'm trying to make up a small little book for all my kids and my sister about our family and I have only one very very poor picture of him..hope you can help and sorry if I am writing to some place I'm not supose to... gary orton <email redacted>—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.111.4 (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You're better off asking this question at Wikipedia's Reference Desk; this page is about alerting administrators to issues that require their action. I hope they can give you some information at the Reference Desk. -- Natalya 13:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"These pages are not the place to raise disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour. Administrators are not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors."

seems a bit misleading to me. Editors should be encouraged to report abusive behaviour that violates our WP:NPA policy and admins have wide latitude to warn or block offenders making this text inaccurate. Exxolon (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree - but I think the main reason it's posted there is exactly what it says - I'm an admin but there's not a great deal I can do in many of the things that come here, they should really go to Dispute resolution of some form or be hammered out in the presence of a third party with some knowledge of the subject. I've tried to sort out situations here only to find out my knowledge of an intensely complex and divisive situation is very poor and I may be acting on one offence only to find the target is the victim of a much greater one, or something like that. This isn't a complaints board as such, and a lot of the things that come here remain unanswered by anyone of any authority as noone quite knows what they're supposed to do with the incomplete information provided. Orderinchaos 15:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that issues about personal attacks should be handled at the incidents noticeboard rather than here, but the line between here and there is a little blurry. J Milburn (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering where i report open proxies to because I have a list here which may help but not sure which ones are blocked on wikipedia. Any ideas where to report them? Chemistrygeek (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep: Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Will an admin restore User talk:StewieGriffin!/Auto Archive/Archive 2. A stupid bot's deleted it! StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 16:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a deleted redirect, with essentially no content, certainly nothing that you needed to archive. Suggest you read Help:Archiving a talk page and start over. Archive pages should not be redirected. Risker (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a redirect. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 17:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was what the bot deleted, but I looked further and discovered that the redirect was created by one of the move vandals, and I've now dug up your Archive #2. Please note that the page name you provided is not the name of the archive page, though, and User talk:StewieGriffin!/Auto Archive/Archive 2 and the redirect are both empty. I've adjusted the links on your talk page to take you to the correct location of your Archive 2, which is named User talk:StewieGriffin!/Archive 2. Risker (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There has been a spate of anonymous vandalism to Cyprus-related articles e.g. Cyprus and Limassol, typified by attacks on Greek cypriots and "...GREEKS ARE THE REMNNANT OF CRUSADES..." in the edit summary. I've blocked a lot of users and about 3 IPs. Is this guy known, and does he have a name? Do we know anything else about him? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of it, but isn't a six-month block for User:78.168.47.169 a bit excessive? It's more likely that he's going to keep swapping IP addresses all day anyway. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Nicosia has been seeing the same vandalism. Corvus cornix_talk 23:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I requested semi-protection on Cyprus several days ago and was denied. Corvus cornix_talk 23:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Cyprus sprotected now. The 6-months block against the dynamic IP is technically nonsense, of course, unless you see it as a purely symbolic expression of a six-months ban against the person behind it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It also seems way out of line with blocking policy. Given that IP addresses can change in as short as a a few hours, there is a very serious possibility of collateral damage. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Another user will help out here, has been asked for help Malinaccier (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[25] There's a nasty discussion with two people refusing to accept that guessing the date of a TV episode is original research (not an issue for admins, I know) but there's also a lot of incivility, bickering over assuming good faith, snippiness ("spell things correctly if you're going to"), rude edit-summaries and so on. It could do with an admin asking everyone (including me!), on the talkpage, to calm down. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'll have a look at this, see what I can do. I don't think it needs administrative intervention, it more likely needs informal mediation of some sort. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 19:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  I tried to provide a solution for presenting the arguments in a more succinct format; it seems it was well received. --Gutza ^T 19:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'll see what I can do to forward the discussion. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 19:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a large backlog at this page, if someone wouldn't mind clearing it out.--Serviam (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I found this protected page very difficult and frustrating to use.

And there are complaints on its talk page that have not been addressed.

I would like to work on and improve the page. Would someone unprotect it please?

The Transhumanist 19:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you outline your proposed changes in the talk page first. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you suggest that? The Transhumanist 03:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I would trust Transhumanist to make changes, he's a coding/layout wiki-genius, longterm editor in good standing. I would support a reduction in protection to semi for a period of time for improvements to be made (your ideas would help this gather consensus though TTH, I agree). What do you want to change? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. There are some complaints posted on the talk page pointing out the problems, and nobody is doing anything about them. It is a simple matter of wiki-cleanup and copy-editing to make the page easier to understand. As the page is protected, nobody except admins can fix these problems.

If you'd unprotect the page, the community would fix the page. It would be a simple matter to monitor it while the improvements are taking place. The page probably shouldn't be protected in the first place - it isn't any more high-traffic than the Community Portal or Help - interactive wiki-editing has refined these high-traffic pages to a high-degree of quality. Even policy pages are unprotected to allow anybody to make grammatical improvements, etc.

If it can't be unprotected, even temporarily, then admin attention is needed on the page. The problems pointed out on the talk page should be fixed by someone.

The Transhumanist 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you willing to address the complaints/make the changes yourself TTH, using the talkpage to garner consensus when necessary or otherwise contentious? (I read them too, they are legitimate complaints, but I rarely work with images). I will reduce it to semi protection barring any significant objection/rationale given here in the next few hours. Posting this on that talk page as well. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't I always?  :) I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you. The Transhumanist 20:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

We should make changes by forming consensus then using {{editprotected}}, semi-protecting it would make it a target to shock vandals who often use sleeper accounts. Transhumanist can make a draft in the userspace then check for objections on the talk page. _{1 != 2} 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Shock vandals can be reverted and blocked, and if they aren't vandalizing this page, they'll be vandalizing some other page. Besides, it would be better that they attack a page in the Wikipedia namespace than an article in the encyclopedia. And once this page is unprotected, editors and admins will be adding it to their watchlists. Which makes vandalism a pretty weak argument for keeping the page protected. I've added some traffic statistics below comparing this page with other higher traffic pages from the sidebar which allow editing. If semi-protection works for those pages, it could certainly work for this page. The Transhumanist 03:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 1==2 here. I think it may need to be changed but proper discussion and reaching a consensus on what to change would be a good idea. I would like to note that image copyright is even confusing to experienced editors so I think there are going to be some limitation on how much we can change the page to make it less confusing. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

But you didn't mention why you think this is the best approach. Why should this page require preapproval of changes, when higher traffic pages benefit direct wiki-editing by not being protected? Why shouldn't we allow normal wiki-processes to work on this page? The Transhumanist 03:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. Reducing one of the most visible pages on the project to semi-protection and then announcing it at a noticeboard is just asking for trouble. Common sense dictates a more conservative approach, like proposing a draft version of the page. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Retracting my opposition, the arguments below make sense. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(I'm not an administrator)Hi. Why should the page be unprotected? It can be collaborated by user discussion then fixed by an admin if nessecary. Wikipedia:Upload is a frequently used page, and we wouldn't want it targeted, because it houses sensitive Wikipedia copyright policies and laws. Leaving it open for any extended time could make it a target to vandals like Grawp. It's sort of like a high-risk template, I think. If the page is confusing, we can view source and edit it on maybe a subpage, then put it for discussion. Or, is that too much of a hassle, or am I not understanding the question correctly? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the page should be allowed to take advantage of the strengths of this wiki. This approach works for countless other pages, including pages with a lot higher traffic than this page. Page protection is a bottleneck and a damper to creativity and editing participation.

The most relevant question is "Why should it remain protected?"

The Transhumanist 02:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The page being protected does nothing to prevent you from copy and pasting all of the content into a subpage in your userspace and editing it there. That would allow you to more easily illustrate what you want changed to the community at large. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

But that isn't a reason for the page to be protected in the first place. I believe that other high-traffic pages have benefited from being semi-protected, and that this page will benefit as well. Editors should be allowed to interactively edit this page, because then the page will evolve in the wiki-way in the same way other pages do. This page has stagnated under protection. The Transhumanist 03:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

TT, this page has been my gripe with WP since day one for Non-free images. I've tried bribing Devs onwiki and in RL to recode part of this page per User:MBisanz/ImageSystemProposal#Proposal_2:_Reformatting_Upload_Page and they've all thrown up their hands at this page which apparently resembles the Augean stables to a coder. If you could fix it, I'd be very very happy. MBisanz ^talk 22:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Evula, page protection kills spontaneity and collaboration. Plain and simple. Why do you think this page has been a problem for so long? I've avoided working on it for this very reason. But I'm offering to work on it. But if you're going to force the bureaucratic draft proposal approach, well, I'd much rather go work on pages that don't require that procedure. The feedback loop is much better on live pages, and each edit represents an immediate improvement to the project rather than a potential improvement that must be ratified first. If you are willing to take the page live, then I'll be happy to improve its grammar and formatting. I don't mind my edits being reverted. Because only crappy edits tend to be reverted, and I agree only the good edits should remain.  ;) The Transhumanist 22:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want a bureaucracy, I was trying to define what I wanted someone smarter than me to change. I think the reason its been protected so so long is if you look at WT:Upload's history, you'll see at least 2 to 3 bad edits a day from misguided, registered editors. Would we really want a page a technical, and highly used as Upload breaking. Plus it would become a regular GRAWP-type vandal target, of build up an autoconfirmed account, break the page, be blocked, etc. MBisanz ^talk 22:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't replying to you - I was replying to Evula. You can tell because my reply was indented under her post and not under your post (like this one). Sorry about any confusion. The Transhumanist 22:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A few hours of unprotection should be enough time to fix the problems reported on the talk page. I'll be on hand to ameliorate any problems that occur during that time. The Transhumanist 22:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Notched it down to semi for a couple hours. MBisanz ^talk 23:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Reprotected per strong opposition. MBisanz ^talk 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You guys haven't addressed the points I raised about the Community Portal and the Help page. Those are semi-protected, and they are very high traffic pages. Why can't that approach be applied here? Don't you trust Wikipedia's editors to improve the page? We did an amazing job on the help system. Don't you agree? The upload system has been notoriously incomprehensible for as long as I've been around on Wikipedia (years). Probably because it is protected and isn't being improved very fast by those who can edit it (admins). The current approach isn't working very well. Maybe it's time to let some editors on there to do what they do best: interactive wiki editing. If it doesn't work out, well, that's what we have the revert and protect buttons for.  ;) The Transhumanist 22:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I thought it was silly to full protect that page from the very beginning and still do. From http://stats.grok.se/ Wikipedia:Upload gets about 10 thousand hits a day. By contrast the 1000th most visited page gets 13 times that much traffic. There are literally tens of thousands of pages more frequently visited that Wikipedia:Upload, and nearly all of those are unprotected. The thing that full protection is accomplishing most is making it much slower to make useful changes, and I support permanently reducing this to semi-protection. Dragons flight (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's part of the interface, and frankly, doesn't need to be changed very often anyway. High visibility templates are fully protected; I see no reason why high visibility (non-article) pages should not be as well. The upload form used to be on MediaWiki: page. Simply because it has been moved to a different namespace does not mean that it needs a reduction in protection. {{editprotected}} will do. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

High visibility templates are generally used on at least several thousand pages and very plausibly can be rendered millions of times per day. This is orders of magnitude less visible. That something was protected in the past because there was no other choice is not an argument for why it needs to be protected now. There are lots of things we could choose to protect, but this being a wiki we want to invite people to improve things. This is something that needs improvment and there is no evidence (aside from speculation) that reducing this to semiprotection would cause some form of disaster. Dragons flight (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that's true; a test couldn't really hurt. If it turns out badly, we can simply reinstate full protection. Though, I took a look at the protection logs of some of the other pages that are linked from the sidebar. 'Tis not a good sign. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it is in its current (confusing) state suggests that it has needed to be edited, it just hasn't been editable. The main reason templates are protected is that they affect large numbers of content pages, with the secondary reason that those pages may not be immediately reverted if the template is. Neither is the case here. Moreover, it is a page that only editors need to use, so it will not affect random readers, but will get attention from editors very quickly if there is a problem. GreenReaper (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

←OK, I've been thinking about doing this for a while but haven't really felt the motivation. I agree that the upload interface needs to be more open because freedom and openness is the driving force behind this project. However, I do not think that the protection level of Wikipedia:Upload should be lowered, since it is a very high-visibility page.

Instead, I have moved some of the instruction pages to the Wikipedia namespace and semi-protected them with full move-protection. Edit links to these pages will not be visible, which should also help guard against abuse. I have not moved all the pages, just some so that we can try this solution out before completely deploying it.

The new pages are:

• MediaWiki:Uploadtext/en-ownwork => Wikipedia:Upload/Uploadtext/en-ownwork
• MediaWiki:Uploadtext/en-withpermission => Wikipedia:Upload/Uploadtext/en-withpermission
• MediaWiki:Uploadtext/en-nonfree => Wikipedia:Upload/Uploadtext/en-nonfree

—Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you reconcile your position on keeping this page protected in light of the Community Portal, which is an even higher visibility page, is not protected. I don't understand why you think this page should be protected even though that one isn't. Can you explain that to me please? The Transhumanist 09:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• We wrote Wikipedia:Discuss and draft graphical layout overhauls so that pages like this wouldn't be tinkered with live anymore. Please, create a draft in a subpage-sandbox; don't confuse the live users with a different experimental version every few minutes/hours over the course of several days. Again. It wasn't a pleasant experience the last few times. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Pages like this are tinkered with and tweaked frequently, without undue problems. For example, one of the pages listed on the guideline, the Help page, often gets tinkered with and tweaked (and occasionally by me). Even Quiddity tinkers with that page whenever he wants - he did an experimental change to its layout elements as recently as last February (and somebody reverted him). Also, not too long after the guideline was written Quiddity joined me in overhauling about half the pages on the list in the guideline and we directly edited those pages, completely transforming them without drafting or getting approval on the changes first. Since that guideline was written, I've overhauled, adjusted, tweaked, and improved many high-profile pages without proposing drafts for them and without pissing anyone off.

So what's going on here? Please let me explain. The thing that Quiddity appears to be worried about is a repeat of the Community Portal fiasco that occurred in early 2006. That involved a relatively new user inexperienced in wiki-layout (me) who was grinding through his learning curve right on the high-traffic Community Portal itself, without even using Page Preview. :) The Community Portal is many screens long, and so moving sections all around from screen to screen day after day really annoyed some people. :) But page transformations that once took me days or weeks now take me minutes or hours. And I'm intimately familiar with Wikipedia's graphical style (which we didn't even have back then, and which I helped develop and refine), and so there's no need to build unique layouts from scratch or to test 100 different color combinations to see what looks good.

By comparison this page and situation is totally different than the Community Portal overhaul. First of all it is a single screen of information - so there's little or no chance of someone getting lost. Second, we're not talking about an overhaul here - just fixing a few problems reported on the talk page. Third, there's hardly any graphical layout involved here - this proposal concerns the comprehensibility of the content, not the coloring of the page. So the guideline Quiddity mentioned doesn't even apply (though I would ignore it even if it did - the important thing is not to disrupt users as they go about their business).

The main thing that the page needs is to be editable by the community so they can refine it over time - in the same way that the Help page and Community Portal have been refined and improved over the past couple of years. The Transhumanist 08:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made fixes to address the concerns in sections 2 and 6 of the talk page; any other specific concerns you have? GDonato (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, several. But I find it very awkward to edit this way, and very time consuming. When I edit I think of better ways to word things as I'm typing them. What if I think of a way to improve a sentence each time I have you post a new version of it? Would you change it every time for me? I often notice slight ways to improve grammar when I'm looking at the preview of a page, but by having to pass suggestions through you, there is no preview. You're turning a simple editing process into a publishing process, which is much slower and much less efficient (extra steps). The Transhumanist 03:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

←Responding to an earlier comment, I was uncomfortable dropping the protection level of Wikipedia:Upload because an astonishing number of users like to post articles they created to Wikipedia talk:Upload, [26] for example. But come to think of it, those were all new users, and so semi-protection should keep them off the upload page. Full protection is proably overkill. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• After reading through the discussion, it feels very non-Wikipedia-style and very unusual to keep this page protected, especially if the reason is to force users to get pre-approval for their edits. The whole story gets even stranger when considering that the page in question is visible only to Wikipedia editors and is a relatively low frequented page under heavy supervision. Whoever opposes the unprotection (to semi-protection) of that page (at least temporarily) better come up with a very good reason. Cacycle (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that the page is imperfect. First, in the summary section, there's a link at the {{tag}} section. But if you try click on it, you will be brought to a page that requires you yet another click to another page before you can see the complete list of tags. The dropdown list is woefully incomplete, especially in non-free tags. But I realized that the dropdown list would otherwise be too long so I suggest to have a step-by-step process.

For example, I am about to upload an image under British {{Non-free Crown copyright}}. The first step of the new process will ask "Is your media... a) free license b) public domain c) United States government d) non-free content e) not sure". So I would click option d, which brings me to another page for finer selection of more appropriate tags. Then it will ask "What category is your media? a) cover art b) logos c) UK government d) ..." And now I will click option c and brings me to the last page where all the tags in that category will be displayed and you can pick the one you want. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Good luck getting people to use your new version properly. The average person will look at it, throw up their hands in confusion, click the first option ("free is good, right?"), and go from there. --Carnildo (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, do you want 30 seconds more before upload or a correct license after upload? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a comparison of the Upload page's traffic with the traffic of some unprotected high visibility pages

• Wikipedia:Upload - Traffic

All but one of these are from the sidebar menu:

• Portal:Contents - Traffic
  • Portal:Contents/Portals - Traffic
• Portal:Featured content - Traffic
• Portal:Current events - Traffic
• Wikipedia:About - Traffic
• Wikipedia:Community Portal - Traffic
• Help:Contents - Traffic

Considering that the above statistics show that the Wikipedia community is responsible enough to handle high traffic pages...

...why should Wikipedia:Upload remain protected?

The Transhumanist 02:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I simply never paid attention, or maybe I simply don't upload images locally anymore, but I was actually surprised to see this no longer as a MediaWiki page (at least I think it was). A page that is essentially a part of the user interface, one that guides users through the image upload process, should not be free for editing by anyone simply because they're autoconfirmed. Changes to this type of page should be discussed. If you want to edit freely, copy the source into a subpage of your userspace, edit until your heart is content, then post an {{editprotected}} request on the talk page. This should not be unprotected. - auburnpilot talk 03:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Other high-traffic pages on the sidebar have benefitted from being semi-protected. Why shouldn't autoconfirmed editors be allowed to edit this page? The Transhumanist 04:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

" A page that is essentially a part of the user interface, one that guides users through the image upload process, should not be free for editing by anyone simply because they're autoconfirmed. Changes to this type of page should be discussed." Why can't you use the Wikipedia talk:Upload/Sandbox? - auburnpilot talk 04:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Help:Contents is part of the user interface (as is "Help" on just about every program ever written), and it (and its subpages) guides users through just about every process, and it is free for editing by autoconfirmed editors. If that approach works for Help, why wouldn't it work for Wikipedia:Upload? The Transhumanist 17:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Page should remain protected, in my view. Unprotecting it means that anyone can change one of our very sensitive pages any time at will. Given the fact that we have had pretty nasty edit wars at several of our major policy pages, sometimes resulting in the need to protect pages in the wrong version, the desire of one particular Wikipedian to edit this page without even making the effort of seeking consensus beforehand is quite silly. We cannot afford to have that page in anything other than a usable form; it may not be ideal right now, but it still works. Transhumanist, if you are able to improve the quality of information on that page, excellent and more power to you. But you have not justified why your unwillingness to discuss and demonstrate proposed changes in advance should override the protection on this page. The process of seeking consensus is also part of the five pillars. Risker (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's say for argument's sake that I'm not going to make any changes to the page at all. The page would benefit from wikiediting. It is not benefitting from it now, because it has been taken out of the loop. Administrators aren't doing an adequate job of developing this page. But the users of the page probably would. We should find out. The Transhumanist 04:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The page gets used 10,000 times a day. That's 10,000 opportunities for users to help fix the page if it were unprotected. Improving a page in any other way besides clicking on "edit this page" is inconvenient, inefficient, and not as familiar to our users. The Transhumanist 05:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely hope I've misunderstood your most recent comment, and that you haven't actually just admitted that you never really needed to edit the page. Because if that's the case, it would explain why you still haven't detailed what changes you want to make, why you haven't used the sandbox another editor set up, and why you haven't copied the page's source into your userspace. Again, I sincerely hope I'm just tired, and am misunderstanding, but if not, we have a greater problem than Wikipedia:Upload being protected. - auburnpilot talk 05:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you do that? Rhetoric, I mean. It's like you want to purposely confuse the issue. How can you take "for argument's sake", and then twist it around as some form of confession? The discussion shifted early on to whether or not the page should be protected in the first place, and why. This is what I'm trying to discuss with you now. If the current state of Wikipedia:Upload is frustrating to and turns users away from uploading images, then it is a pretty big problem. I know it has discouraged me from uploading them. I can only assume it has affected other users in a similar way. It's true that we could proceed with bureaucratic proposal processes. But why do it that way? Wiki-editing is much more efficient. I'm trying to discuss with you the merits and potential pitfalls of unprotecting the Wikipedia:Upload page, to understand why it is or is not a good idea to take advantage of the same processes that have been benefiting Help:Contents, Wikipedia:Community portal, Portal:Contents, Portal:Contents/Portals, and many other high-traffic pages. Why shouldn't this page be semi-protected like those are? Why shouldn't this page take advantage of wiki-collaboration and wiki-evolution? The Transhumanist 17:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And I see you still haven't suggested any changes for the page. Why is that? As I've stated, and restated, a page that serves as a user interface for editors to upload images should not be freely open for editing. This is no different than suggesting we open Special:Upload for editing. If you're really so concerned about this page, use the Wikipedia talk:Upload/Sandbox to suggest a change. - auburnpilot talk 17:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Why should a page that serves as a user interface for editors to upload images not be freely open for editing? I know that you believe it shouldn't, but I'd like to understand why you believe that... What do you think will happen? What problems could it cause on this page that wouldn't be an issue on other pages? The Transhumanist 18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(I'm not an administrator)Hi. I understand that this page actually does not get that much traffic, but the other pages that do are unprotected either because they are articles that require editing, or noticeboards, thus it would be foolish to protect them. Any vandalism to those pages can be reverted, and semi-protected. Now, I hope all the Wikipedia:Upload pages have at least been fully move-protected. As we have seen, vandals like Grawp are still evading semi-protection by using sleepers which those editously-impared people at EB are creating for him. Now, if we do unprotect the Wikipedia:Upload for a few hours (still enacting semi-protection, because those that can't upload shouldn't edit the page either), I'd be fine with that so we can re-design it a little, and if vandalism is made we shall revert, block, and if it gets bad enough, we may have to protect. I suggest a bit more discussion on this, and I see why you may want to edit it for a while. Now, I personally am not watching Wikipedia:Upload, so please watch this interface while it is unprotected. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 12:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No real reason has been given to reduce the protection level. This almost seems like an exercise in idealism. I don't think there is any obstacle to improving the page while protected, lets just leave it as it is and any changes can be proposed in a sandbox and implemented with {{editprotected}}(like we do with pretty much every interface page). I have seen no indication that such a method had failed requiring a reduction in protection.

The page has suffered from stagnation. Is that a real enough reason for you? Editors avoid improving this page, because it has to be done through proposal processes which they either find frustrating, cumbersome, or that they don't even know about. Administrators aren't required to follow the proposal process on this page, but even they haven't fixed the page, probably because admins are spread too thin. Personally, I can't stand proposal processes, which is why I usually stick to editing pages that are unprotected. That's why I requested Wikipedia:Upload be unprotected. But if you don't want editors to work together on the fly to improve this page over time, then you won't get on-the-fly editors like me, who like to pop onto a page when they notice something they can fix or improve. I can assure you there are a lot of us. That's why wikis are so popular. And it's the driving force that has built Wikipedia to over 2,000,000 pages, many of them of very high quality. Protection should be used sparingly, to intervene when there's a problem. Permanent protection is overkill on this page. Semi-protecting the page on a trial basis probably wouldn't hurt. I'll watchlist it to check for vandalism. I'll even use a Lupin feed in one of my windows to keep an eye on it. I'm sure others will be willing to do so as well. The Transhumanist 17:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The page describes our criteria for image uploads and is used to make sure users follow our own policy, and our legal constraints when uploading. Any changes will need discussion first anyways. _{1 != 2} 12:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but that applies to policy and guideline pages as well. And those are unprotected, which allows editors to get on there and fix the grammar, the order of presentation, etc. to make those pages easier to comprehend. That's exactly what this page needs. The Transhumanist 17:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

TT said earlier: "What if I think of a way to improve a sentence each time I have you post a new version of it?" That is why development in a sandbox is a good idea.

I was pointing out that that is what page preview is for. You've taken it out of context. The Transhumanist 23:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, this is an incredibly specialized area of Wikipedia, and unless you have suddenly developed an expert grasp of all aspects related to image policy, I strongly object to your tinkering with it live. You tend to learn-as-you-go, and this isn't an appropriate page to make those kind of mistakes on. (Apologies if I'm wrong: Do you have an expert understanding of Wikipedia's image policies?)

The page itself doesn't contain any image policy minutiae that requires an expert. It's just a menu taking people to where they need to go, and that doesn't require policy or procedural experts. Though I am an expert on Wikipedia navigation, menus, and lists, and all three would apply here. The Transhumanist 23:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, I don't understand why you keep bringing up the last few overhauls, because we did all of those in sandboxes (partially because you kept tinkering with the live version and pissing people off): Help:Contents/Draft, Wikipedia:Community Portal/Redesign/Draft2a, (plus the redesigns for the mainpage and sidebar were obviously in sandboxes, and Wikipedia:Category schemes was a bare outline when you started the overhauling of that). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

But this isn't an overhaul, and certainly not a graphics design overhaul. The Help page hasn't been protected since its overhaul 2 years ago, and has been modified a little at a time since then, including by you. That's the approach I'm supporting for this page. We should let the page evolve over time from its current state. Since 2006, that's the main approach that has been taken on most of the overhauled pages you've mentioned. One change at a time. That approach would work fine for this page. The Transhumanist 23:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) At this point, it seems to me, as an uninvolved bystander, that you're doing your cause more harm than good. Assuming, than is, that your cause is to actually get Wikipedia:Upload unprotected rather than just to drag this discussion out for as long as possible. Here's a free hint (for what little it's worth): alienating everyone who actually bothers to discuss the subject with you, rather than just ignoring this pages-long thread, is not a good way to get your suggestions implemented. However well reasoned they might be. Frankly, while I personally find your original suggestion reasonable enough, the longer and more petulantly you argue about this here, the less it makes you seem like the kind of responsible editor I'd feel comfortable letting edit any high-profile page. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're not uninvolved or a bystander anymore!  ;) Ignoring the reasons that are posted doesn't improve understanding of them. And if I understand their reasons, I might actually agree with them or be able to alleviate their fears. At this point it appears that Quiddity thinks I want to overhaul the page. I don't. What I'd really like is to be able to watch the page improve over time. That inspires me (and others) spontaneously at unpredictable moments to join in and make changes here and there. I've been watching the unprotected Help page improve over the past couple of years, and I've liked what I've seen. It's been refined quite a bit since its overhaul. It inspired me to add my own little touch to it - the horizontal menu at the top. And I've added a similar menu to the top of the unprotected Community Portal. Note that those were not proposed anywhere - I just dreamed them up and added them. If those pages were protected, I wouldn't have bothered - because I generally do not work on protected pages, or through proposal processes. They're too much of a hassle, and much much slower than normal wiki-editing. For example, in order to get a single word added to the Main Page took days. To get a few words added to the sidebar took over a year. In those cases it was necessary to slog it out, because those are central integrated components. But this page is peripheral enough, like the Help pages and Community Portal, to be less worried about. Any vandalism or misguided edits to it would be easy to handle. I believe many editors avoid improving protected pages, which chokes such pages off from Wikipedia's main resource. Well, that's where I'm coming from. Cheers. The Transhumanist 23:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did believe that you were about to overhaul the page, based on your statement that "the whole thing sucks", and based on past experience! I don't imagine you will now, at least not without a sandbox draft. -- Quiddity (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is quite clearly not going to be unprotected, so there really is no need to further this discussion. If you want to change the page, use the talk page and the provided sandbox. - auburnpilot talk 00:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Help page 2 years ago → Help page today. The same approach would benefit this page. Cheers. The Transhumanist 00:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Insisting to keep the page protected in order to force a user in (very!) good standing to get your pre-approval for his changes is AGAINST all Wikipedia conventions and is NOT a valid reason to keep a page protected! We will not invent special rules for this page and/or for certain users. Use user or discussion pages if you have real, non-hypothetical problems with actual edits.

Please note that nobody (!) disputes that major changes should be discussed in advance. The original request was for implementing long overdue and already announced and/or discussed improvements.
I urge anybody to return to a respectful tone, to assume good faith, and to start a real and rational discussion.

So far nobody has come up with a plausible reason to not semi-protect the page (at least temporarily). Again: this editor-only page is under heavy supervision, and any vandalism could be handled in the usual Wikipedia way (including full protection for heavy vandalism), similar to a lot of comparable pages. Cacycle (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I was bold and reduced the page to semiprotection. Here are a few more reasons for doing so:

• The page uses rather complicated code, which should scare away good-faith newcomers that should not be editing the page.
• Relatively little damage can be done to the upload forms because new forms cannot be created without administrator assistance, nor can the license selector options for forms be changed without administrator assistance.
• If the page becomes a vandal target then we can just reprotect it.

—Remember the dot ^(talk) 07:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

RtD, I strongly disagree with the unprotection. You have a whole thread above you that has stated that it does not want this page unprotected. There is a difference between boldness and going against consensus. Please reconsider your action. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page, if we have any sort of problem with the page being semiprotected instead of fully protected, go ahead and increase the protection again. I'm not here to pick a fight. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 07:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I support all three of RememberTheDot's reasons; seems logical to me. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 07:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason a page like this is fully protected is not so much to stop vandalism or the such, it is because this page is a core page to anyone uploading a photo. This page must work. The worst thing that could ever happen is a new user trys to upload a photo and this page doesn't work. Now I am sure The Transhumanist can do a great job, but as everyone knows, as one progresses through a major change on a page, there is always an error of some sort. Now on a regular page this is fine. But on a page like this, we cannot benefit from someone making a small error, and then someone else navigates to this page right after and has difficulties with the page. We all know how frustrating it can be when things don't work. Confusion drives people away from contributing. That is why we create a sandbox for these changes, so that the new version can be tested on different browsers, links can be tested before going live, and consensus can be formed for changes on such a visible page. That is why this page should be fully protected. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Leaving editprotected-requests on talkpages (and creating changes in sandboxes) is preferable in cases like this, because:

• it guarantees feedback
• it avoids the danger of confusing the users with temporary mistakes (watchlists aren't instant)
• it leaves a more visible record of why an edit is beneficial - for others to learn from - whether the correction was to grammar or code. -- Quiddity (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

More eyes see a live page than a draft, and so feedback is more critical (changes have to please more people). Reverts and their edit summaries are excellent feedback, and alert editors when discussion is needed about their edits on the talk page. Most of the time, talk page discussion isn't needed, because editors feed off of each others' creativity and will correct and refine each others' work without any more discussion than in the edit summaries. If an edit is rejected, good editors try something else. There's no need to waste time with preapproval. Good edits survive, crappy edits get reverted. It's natural selection! Besides, Wikipedia:Upload is a page intended for editors. Editors are more intelligent than you give us credit for. It feels like you're babysitting us, and that's, well, insulting. We can take care of a page that serves us, and most of us are smart enough to figure out when something isn't working quite right.

That being said, mistakes or vandalism that send users to the wrong upload form is a slight concern, though increasing the size of the titles of the upload forms would solve this problem. Such reroutes could conceivably result in incomplete information being posted about an image, causing it to be speedy deleted. Or possibly even the wrong license being posted for an upload. Or a link could be changed to take users to a totally unrelated page, confusing or frustrating the heck out of newcomers, but that can happen on any page.

Until the titles are enlarged on the upload forms, a compromise concerning Wikipedia:Upload would be to open the page up temporarily upon the request of experienced editors in good standing. It would be a judgment call on the part of the accommodating admin, and the editor doing the editing should be on the lookout for vandalism while editing, and request the page be reprotected when he or she is done.

But enlarging the titles shouldn't take an admin longer than a couple minutes per form, unless it has to go through a proposal process first.  :)

By the way, initial cleanup on the page is completed. Please feel free to revert or modify the changes as you see fit.

See ya later. I gotta get some sleep.

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist 12:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Transhumanist for your efforts. I have seen a need for a long time for many improvements to the many upload pages on Wikipedia and the Commons. Getting changes made via the talk pages is like pulling teeth sometimes. Many people just give up. If nothing else your discussion here may have gotten a few more admins to pay attention to the talk page requests for changes. I hope more admins watchlist the many talk pages listed in the tables at the top of these pages:

Wikipedia talk:Upload

commons:Commons talk:Upload

I created those tables as a result of similar frustrations I had.

I also created Wikipedia talk:Upload/Sandbox - This sandbox idea may be better than other sandboxes since it is directly connected to the main talk page.

I don't see any problem though with also opening up the Wikipedia upload pages themselves to semi-protection now and then at the request of experienced editors.

commons:Commons:Upload has been at semi-protection without problems for a long time. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you need help with any other problems, let me know.

By the way, I've been working on graphics a lot these days, and have been uploading quite a bit because of it. This will continue for the near future. So I'll be stopping by to check the page often. The Transhumanist 23:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you look SexySeaClownfish (talk · contribs)'s contributions, you should see that this user has made only 19 edits to the mainspace out of this user's 500 edits. Is that really necessary? Most of the time and most likely, this user will not edit the mainspace and will keep on editing talk pages, user space, etc. This user also makes signatures for many users. Is this user overdoing it? I personally think this user thinks this is a myspace. Well, it isn't. I would like opinions on this. Thanks, RyRy5 (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This apparently is a renamed account of Wikieditor222 (talk · contribs) who also has a section a few up, for the very same reason. - auburnpilot talk 03:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you rediscovered the square wheel --Samuel Pepys (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This user had a user name rename located here.-- RyRy5 (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and notified User:SexySeaClownfish of this thread, and would be interested to hear what he has to say. Tiptoety ^talk 04:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the user has 36 edits to the mainspace out of 571 edits total. Honestly, I'd go through every item in his userspace and delete it all (I'm really tempted to).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I say go for it, I do not seem them being constructive to building a encyclopedia, but instead a myspace. We do not need another User:Nothing444. Tiptoety ^talk 05:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't comment otherwise but the user inadvertently broke the RfA listing, resulting in the entire WP:BN and several other pages it transcludes on being right-justified for much of the morning. Orderinchaos 04:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that - it was another user using "Sexy Sea" something or other in his sig. Orderinchaos 05:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: User:Ryulong has began deleting all of his userpace per WP:NOT#MYSPACE: [27] Tiptoety ^talk 05:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And all done.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

*whistles* Holy crap. Isn't myspace free? Maybe we should consider an indef block/ban until he decides to actually improve the encyclopedia instead of his social life. I would certainly support such a measure. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Now lets not go too crazy here. Wait for SexySeaClownfish to at least read this thread, maybe just the deletion of his userpace will be enough to make him change. Tiptoety ^talk 05:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but I seem to remember two or three similar threads before his username change. If he didn't listen then, I doubt he will now. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody think we should protect his user page? I have a feeling that he will just recreate it with something new. I would really like this user to edit in the mainspace more before any further editing in userspace. Opinions? --RyRy5 (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Terrible idea: if all their mainspace contributions are as helpful as this, this and this, then please keep away from my precious articles. If Sexy is incapable of contributing constructively anywhere, just block them. east.718 at 06:11, June 7, 2008

Although I agree with East that his edits can only be very little as constructive, I think we should let this user see this thread and tell him to contribute to the mainspace constructively. If very much nothing changes, and that we have another User:Nothing444-like user, then a block would be appropriate.--RyRy5 (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Should we merge this section with the above section about this user? iMatthew _T.C. 12:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The tagging Bob Burns, the drummer for Lynryd Skynyrd as speedy shows remarkabe bad judgement on this user's part. Perhaps he could go into some sort of mentorship program, and I hope it doesn't turn out like Nothing 444. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 12:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

He came back this morning to announce he is retired. iMatthew _T.C. 15:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The last time he "retired", he came back the very next day or two. -- RyRy5 (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. You know, I've been having similar problems with users like User:The SRS (getting better), User:SimonKSK, and User:Altenhofen. iMatthew _T.C. 15:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it strange that 3 of them like wrestling? Anyway, we'll probably hear from this user soon, unless this retirement is actually true. If this user has truly retired, then I don't think we have a problem, for now. -- RyRy5 (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I believe this user might be a sockpuppet of User:I'm On Base. I'm not completely sure, but the IP "67.189.185.73" was editing Sexy's userpage before, and his contributions show that he edited I'm On Base's pages often. I'm On Base was blocked as a sockpuppeteer, and SexySeaClownfish shows very similar actions that I'm On Base did, such as being to userspace addicted. iMatthew _T.C. 16:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, both users were constantly changing their signatures, and the Wikieditor account was created one day after I'm On Base's talk page was fully protected for abuse of the Unblock template. iMatthew _T.C. 19:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it to me. *Sigh*, how many sock circles are worming around professional wrestling articles? The Verdict load, Hornetman, JB196, and a few others. *Sigh*. D.M.N. (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Any other opinions? iMatthew _T.C. 20:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFCU? D.M.N. (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

About the signatures, this user constantly asks, wait, no, makes a signature for many users and then asks all of them. This user did that to me once. I declined the user's request politely. I really think this user thinks this is a myspace. And i also believe this user is a sockpuppet of I'm on Base. --RyRy5 (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked as a sock, as there's no need for a checkuser when the case is so obvious. Spellcast (talk · contribs) has also blocked the IP for 6 months with account creation disabled; that was going to be my next step. - auburnpilot talk 21:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I was filling out the form at checkuser, when I opened another window, and saw he was blocked. Also, were both IP's blocked? There were two IP's involved. Look at Clownfish's userpage history. iMatthew _T.C. 21:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Can admin please delete this page. I created it the wrong way, and it can be deleted. iMatthew _T.C. 21:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)