Revision as of 00:03, 4 October 2007

Purge the cache to refresh this page

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Current issues

Protected Administrator User Talk Pages

# To request assistance from a specific administrator, enter User talk:Whomever in the search box to the left and press "Go."

How do I leave messages to admins who've sprotected their usertalk page? (and their user page). 132.205.44.5 22:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You can click the "E-mail this user" link in the toolbox on the left side of the administrator's page. Unless their talk page is suffering from enormous amounts of disruption or vandalism, sprotecting it is generally not endorsed. If you can point out the page in question, someone can look into it and ask the admin in question about unprotecting it. Thanks! —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont't see such a link. Is it only available to non-anons? 132.205.44.5 23:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User Talk:Bishonen 09:17, 29 July 2007 Bishonen (Talk | contribs) m (Protected User talk:Bishonen: fed up with abusive IP edits for now. ) (undo)

You can also create an account. Corvus cornix 22:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to wait four days after creating your account if you wish to edit a semi-protected page, though, so e-mail is of course faster if you need to contact a specific administrator urgently. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The anon is right; "E-mail this user" is only available for logged-in users. For that reason, admins should not semi-protect their talk pages long-term or without a pressing situation. Chick Bowen 01:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And over two months is far too long. Bishonen should really unprotect his/her talk page. Natalie 13:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Her email is enabled, and that's good enough.--MONGO 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, anonymous users cannot use the Special:Emailuser function, so they currently have no way to contact Bishonen. Melsaran (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone happen to mention to Bishonen that this discussion is going on, in case she didn't see it? I'll mention it to her just in case. Newyorkbrad 15:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

CrossRef here.Rlevse 17:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the thread on ANI is marked "resolved" and will soon be removed, I'll reply to both that and this one here. First of all, thank you, MONGO, your defense is much appreciated. Secondly, it's not that I'm especially sensitive to having anonymous little penis vandals I've blocked coming to my pages and calling me Bitchonen. (Disappointingly, only a few have in fact had the inventiveness for such a simple pun.) Not at all. There's another reason why I've sometimes been keeping my userpages semiprotected for quite long times: it's to discourage a special "friend" of mine who never gives up. I would rather not elaborate, but instead ask people to consider my record before they decide whether or not to extend an assumption of good faith to my words. If Misplaced Pages is in fact not for me, I suppose now is as good a time as any to find out. Bishonen | talk 21:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC).

As I have so recently asked another administrator, please unprotect your talk page, user talk page protection is not nice to legitimate anon and new users, as well as being a violation of the protection policy. Prodego 21:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Friday's post, to which Bishonen linked above ("If you can't handle being abused by random strangers, Misplaced Pages is not for you."), I very much doubt that Bishonen would protect her page because of random strangers. I am aware of several cases of user talk pages being semi-protected because of a particularly vicious form of trolling. I don't think one should do it just out of whim, but I have no trouble in extending an assumption of good faith to productive users and admins who don't have a reputation for being over sensitive or for making unreasonable demands. Nor do I feel that it's ever essential for an anon to be able to post directly on a particular admin's page. If Bishonen blocked you, posting on her page would be block evasion anyway; use the {{unblock}} template or try the unblock mailing list. If she protected a page that you want unprotected, make a request at WP:RFPP. If she deleted a page, there's always deletion review. If you have something you badly want to say to her, you could make a post on the talk page of one of her friends. And I don't see that it's a violation of the protection policy, which says merely that it shouldn't be used "with the sole purpose of prohibiting editing by anonymous users." Let's not make too big a thing of this. There are hundreds of active administrators with fully editable talk pages. If a very small number, who are not known for being unreasonable and who are known for contributing productively to the encyclopaedia, have personal reasons for being more comfortable with semi-protection, it's not really doing any harm to anyone, so why not just leave it and go and spend more time writing an encyclopaedia? ElinorD (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• For what it is worth... agree with ElinorD's and other's comments. --Iamunknown 23:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• I hereby invoke WP:IAR. (poof) Leave the talk page protected until the persistent troll gives up. As long as we have more administrators than persistent trolls, this solution works. See also crapflooding. Access control is sometimes necessary to preserve a shared resource. - Jehochman 00:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

From WP:PPol: "Indefinite semi-protection may be used for (1) Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism. (2) Biographies subject to vandalism and/or POV-pushing that are not widely watchlisted (3) User pages (but not user talk pages), when requested by the user" No mention of being allowed to semi-protect a user talk page there, it is expressly forbidden. For temp protection: "(1) Preventing vandalism when blocking users individually is not a feasible option, such as a high rate of vandalism from a wide range of anonymous IP addresses. (2) Article talk pages that are being disrupted; this should be used sparingly because it prevents new users and anons from being part of discussions." Once again, shouldn't be protected. Here there is a caveat, since semi-protection is ok on user talk pages for a short amount of time, when disruptive users can't be blocked. But July was several months ago, so the page should be unprotected, the troll probably did give up. WP:IAR says " prevents you from working with others... ignore it". But protecting a talk page does exactly that, prevents you from working with others! So the policy and ignore all rules both say to unprotect the page. Prodego 01:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find this response to be anal retentive and excessively legalistic. Nothing is permitted unless it is specifically written down? No, not really. Admins should be accessible to users but there may be exceptions, and as this thread shows, this anonymous user has had no problem getting attention from other admins. It's a wonder that no one has actually asked the anon what he or she wanted and why only Bishonen could provide that. Thatcher131 02:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Sometimes, maybe just sometimes, longtime great contributors should be able to do things others can't. ie IAR and make an exception. It's not like it's so desperately critical to the functioning of the encyclopedia that all anons need to be able to get a hold of her immediately. I submit that good contributors are more important than trolls and we shouldn't feed. - Taxman 03:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Silly me, thinking we should actually follow policy. Prodego 16:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do follow policy; WP:IAR comes to mind? --Iamunknown 21:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's now 3 months since Bishonen's talk page was semiprotected - surely a trial period of unprotection could be attempted without the world coming to an end. Neil ム 11:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Or we could let it go and reallize all 2,000,000 articles are more important to work on than continuing this issue. - Taxman 14:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

While admins with semi-protected talk pages should be few and far between, I guess I can imagine situations where persistent IP harassment makes no other option feasible. We’re smart people here, we can figure out a workaround. Assuming that the admin doesn’t want to create an unprotected subpage (which the troll could just attack instead), I think Ryulong’s solution shown here seems reasonable; the admin just needs to be willing to watch the talk page of IP’s and new editors they interact with, and talk pages of articles they edit. This breaks down if too many admins do it, or if the admin interacts with too many IP's, but for special cases, it seems a reasonable compromise. Perhaps a note at the top of the admin's talk page that tells IP's that this is how it works is appropriate. The only other problem is that there is no way for an IP or new editor to contact the admin if they have never interacted before, but I'm trying to think of a reason this is vital, and I can't come up with one. --barneca (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

(more) Plus, there's always {{helpme}}. How's this: if you feel the need to semi-protect your user talk page for long (or even short) periods, put a notice similar to this in a prominent place on your talk page. --barneca (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I would reword that to avoid feeding the trolls. I'll make a duplicate revision on the page you started. - Jehochman 15:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I see your point. Personally, I'd average the two versions, and at least mention semi-protection, but the idea is the admin can adjust it however they wish, to fit in with their overall talk page scheme. The important thing is that a good-faith new editor isn't left staring at the admin's user talk page going "????". --barneca (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Opera proxies

At ANI, it has been discovered that a banned user has operated off of IP addresses that resolve to the offices for Opera Software. Two of these IPs are 195.189.142.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 195.189.142.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and both appear to be open proxies (putting the IPs into Google gives many results). Currently, the range that is given in the WHOIS data is being scanned for other IPs that open ports and allow for open proxy usage. If it turns out that a sizable amount of IPs can be utilized (or have been utilized), the entire range may be necessary to block. However, as this is a prominent company, there may be issues with blocking it for any period of time, even if no one should necessarily be editting through an IP owned by a company that is not an internet service provider.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already hardblocked the first address, unbeknownst to all this. I portscanned it and it came back as an open proxy (both squid and socks). Blocked for 12 months and templated. I intend to contact netops at Opera in the morning and discuss the situation & maybe they can tighten up their public network infrastructure - Alison 06:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've found a few (at least a hundred) that might be open proxies as well, based on having either 1080 or 8080 open. List is at User:SQL/OProxy SQL 06:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, this is a proxy system used, by Opera Mini, an browser applet used by many mobile phones, and PDA's. SQL 06:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

So, we've got the Google Web Accelerator problem all over again?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing like Google Web Accelerator. I do half my editing via Opera Mini; if you have to block them, block them anonymous-only. Neil ム 11:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the proxies don't actually seem to be open to casual surfers. The open ports I've seen are 22 (SSH), 113 (identd), 1081 (SOCKS?), 4949 (Munin?), 8080 (Roxen webserver) and, for one of the servers I scanned, 8120 (unknown, no response). Of those, 1081, 8080 and 8120 would seem suspicious, but I haven't actually been able to use any of them as a proxy: port 8080, which seems to be the one actually used by Opera Mini, returns an authentication request when asked for its root document and "Proxy support disabled." when asked for "http://en.wikipedia.org/". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

They are usable via the Opera Mini demo applet, though. So, yes, I'd say these do seem to qualify as open. So, an anon-only range block on 195.189.142.0/23? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Short blocks when vandalism takes place only, please - again, these are shared IPs. Neil ム 15:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the Opera Mini proxies do provide X-Forwarded-For headers, although they are of limited usefulness: when accessed via the demo interface, they simply give the IP address of demo.opera-mini.net (195.189.142.176). Neil, since you say you have access to a genuine non-demo Opera Mini, could you try looking at, say, http://showip.net and check what the X-Forwarded-For header looks like. If it gives a different address for real Opera Minis than for the demo interface, then it might be worth having the proxies added to the trusted XFF list so that we can only block the demo interface if and when it gets abused. (Of course, it'd be even nicer if the demo interface were to pass along the actual IP of the user, as they apparently do for the User-Agent header.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty ... www.showip.net gives the following info when accessed via Opera Mini 4:

• IP address: 195.189.142.149
• IP number: 3283979925
• Host name: p10-15.opera-mini.net
• Network owner: OPERA SOFTWARE ASA
• Country (guess): Norway
• City (guess): Asa
• User agent: Opera/9.50 (J2ME/MIDP, Opera Mini/4.0.8993/58, U; en)
• Browser: Unknown browser 0
• Connected at port: 49120
• Operating system: Unknown platform
• Accepted languages: en
• Accepted encodings: deflate, gzip, x-gzip, identity, *;q=0
• Then a bunch of lines repeating the same info, then
• X-forwarded for 195.189.142.148, 193.113.200.172, 10.206.75.68

Is that what you need? Neil ム 17:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that's very nice. So it's only the demo interface that stops at the first hop. Yes, I do think we ought to add these to the trusted XFF list. Thank you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

So what does that mean? Assume I know nothing about this stuff. Can we stop the demo interface being used to vandalise without hurting people who use the actual browser? Neil ム 22:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Once the proxies have been added to the list by a developer with shell access (such as Tim Starling, who's been handling much of it), then yes. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:GladstoneandRosebery.gif

It has been pointed out repeatedly to User:Giano II at that the image is not in the public domain. User:Giano II remains defiant and refuses to consider any alternative licence. 41.208.217.170 20:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems just plain silly. Yes, there's an infinitesimal chance that the photograph was first published after 1937, but it's a minute one. It was taken in 1879 for god's sake. Aside from anything else, given the sitters there's a reasonable chance this is a crown copyright in which case it's undoubtedly now in the public domain. Can you really not find more problematic images to worry about? — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There's actually no chance that the photograph was published after 1937, as it was published in 1879 by being handed out to the participants in the house party that is the subject of the photograph. - Nunh-huh 21:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to "anons" statement above I don't care what copyright tag it has (I see it has just been changed so long as Anon is not trying to have it deleted), as that is plainly daft. I just though {PD-old}} was the most logical. Giano 21:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon never mentioned the word "deletion", but simply requested that the tag be changed. If the change had been made then, all this fuss could have been avoided. 41.208.243.92 07:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not quite true you mention deletion twice in this one short post. You also kept reverting my changing of the tag. Never mind all is well that ends well. Giano 07:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

FGS If Carnildo is happy what on earth is all this about? Giano 06:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Truly, if Carnildo is satisfied that's the last word on the matter. No administrative action is required here; the IfD will run its course. Mackensen (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The administrative action is required here. The IP needs to be investigated for sockpuppetry and the account(s) has to be blocked for pesky harassment. --Irpen 21:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Copy & paste move help needed

UCE Birmingham has renamed itself Birmingham City University. Unfortunately a user went and created a new article at Birmingham City University, largely copying the text but with amendments, making it hard to just delete it and move. Can someone with the skills do a bmerger to Birmingham City University? Timrollpickering 09:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done the history merge, but I'm confused about what version should be 'top'. Could someone please revert to the correct version, if it isn't on that version already? --ais523 10:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for that - the correct version should settle now. Timrollpickering 17:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Old/first generation FAs

There are many FAs which got promoted under the old FA criteria. A quick glance at these first generation FAs reveals that several of them fall way short of FA-quality under the present guidelines. Political integration of India and Malwa are just two examples. The former, for example is almost entirely unsourced! Even the sparse referencing is studded with non-RS sources. The latter too has serious sourcing issues. And sourcing is just one of the issues with these articles. Both suffer from rambling prose, possible POV, MoS issues, non-WP:EL links in external links etc.,. I am sure that there are more FAs like this. Is there any way that these articles can be de-featured without having to go through the motions? imo, de-featuring these articles is only fair because it would be a travesty if these articles were to hold up more deserving FAs from gracing the main page. Also these FAs are certainly not among wikipedia's best and shouldnt be anywhere near the main page. Thoughts? Sarvagnya 11:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes - {{sofixit}} springs to mind. And this is not an issue requiring administrator attention - it would be better off being brought up at Misplaced Pages:Village pump. Neil ム 11:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} springs to mind. Yes. And if you peek into the recent edit history of the article, you'll see that i've been doing my bit to "sofixit". Being Indian myself and being reasonably familiar with the topic, I can tell you that the article needs a complete overhaul and large portions of it may even need to be restructured and rewritten. And I dont see that this has to go to the pump. Lot of admins gather here and if enough admins agree with what I'm proposing, it should save us all a lot of trouble. Misplaced Pages, afterall isnt a bureaucracy, for us to keep running from pillar to post. We could probably agree on something like ... "If atleast half a dozen editors of long standing admins agree that an article is not FA-quality, the article should be downgraded to say B-class." - this of course, would apply only to FAs promoted under the old guidelines. So do you have anything else to say other than "sofixit" and "take it to the pump"? Sarvagnya 12:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins do not have special authority over content issues, which is what FA/FAR/FARCs are - such issues are determined by the community, of which all admins happen to be a part, but only in the fact we are all also editors. Issues such as this ought to be discussed on the Village Pump because it is the appropriate location for such discussion. Admins do not have special authority to revise community-determined policy - everyone has an equal right. Neil ム 13:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just work through them gradually. Nominate them at a slow enough rate to (a) allow work to be done on them, and (b) not to overwhelm FAR. Carcharoth 12:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Both these articles have already appeared on the Main Page (see here and here, and thus will not appear on the Main Page again for the foreseeable future. See the "Article Milestones" template on the talk pages to confirm this. Just let these article appear on FAR in the fulness of time. ie. Don't overwhelm FAR with excessive nominations, and, as always, be prepared to work on the articles you nominate. Carcharoth 12:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. FAR is the way to go. That is exactly what it is for. This is not an admin matter at all. --Stephan Schulz 12:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

So whenever the FA criteria changes all FAs should be un-FAed for not meeting FA? Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A generally good approach is to comment at the article talk page and solicit help from the relevant wikiprojects. Brush it up a bit yourself if you have the knowledge and sources. If no one steps in to help after a month, then FARC it. I've done this a few times. Durova 16:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The bottomline is, an article is FA if it meets FA guidelines. If it doesnt, it shouldnt be FA. And if it doesnt by a good distance and by reasonable estimate requires substantial work, we shouldnt have to go through a pointless FAR to get it de-featured. I dont understand the community's obsession with bureaucratically holding on to FAs when they are clearly not FA-quality and also stand no realistic chance of making it past a FAR. Sarvagnya 03:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles get promoted to featured, standards get tougher, articles get reviewed and either improve or are defeatured. Nothing new here. Those two articles you list are more like third generation FAs. This is what a 'first generation' FA looked like. And the articles being promoted to FA now? In two years they'll be sub-par unless they continue to improve. We don't go and wipe away the featured status of every article immediately each time the standards go up. Yes, that means that some of our featured articles are still under what I would call 'third' (inline references only for salient points) or possibly even 'second' (detailed and well written, but few references at all) generation standards, but that's hardly a problem. The day will come, I am convinced, when we adopt FA standards requiring that every fact in an article not only be referenced, but that those references have actually been looked up by independent reviewers and verified to support the information. When that happens every current FA will be failing of those standards... but we won't de-feature them all immediately. There would be no point to it. Ditto with the present. We allow a 'grace period' for articles to continue improving towards the current standards. The point of FAR isn't to get things de-featured. It's to see whether people will put in the time to get the article up to current standards so it doesn't need to be de-featured. --CBD 11:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Strange articles

I occasionally come across some strange articles. That have issues with the scope or just seem like they don't belong in an encyclopedia in the form that they are in. If they are stubs and contain very general information like Food crisis I have nominated them for deletion. But some of these are large with specialized information that would not want deleted, but they don't fit in very well either. Like Comparison of open source wireless drivers, Empire of Japan (additional economic and financial data), and Identification in Burkean rhetoric. What should I do about these sorts of articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BirgitteSB (talk • contribs) 14:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If the issue is that their context is unclear, then {{context}} may be what you are looking for. If their scope is the problem, then you could either try raising the issue on the talk page, or raising an AfD or RM to discuss what to keep and what to move elsewhere. Warofdreams talk 15:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The strangest one I found was Library damage resulting from the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. Articles like these tend to be people dumping their research papers on Misplaced Pages. I recently cleaned up Arsénio Pompílio Pompeu de Carpo from this to this. But sometimes they are not needed or so obscure it is not clear how to start rescuing them. I sent the library one to AfD to see what to do, but it was kept and I did a brief tidying, moving lots of data to the talk page. Carcharoth 14:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Submit request to use images

October 1, 2007

Hello,

I have gone through the details on Administrators' noticeboard.
As per the instruction:
"Post request on the administrators' noticeboard,"
I am submitting request for using the following images on
http://mysexdoctor.blogspot.com,
which covers human sexual health.

Image 1]
This file is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0
This is the link to the image originally posted by Inferis:
"http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Closeup_of_female_breast.jpg"

Image 2]
I seek permission to use the images licensed
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
secondary sexual characteristics MALE
http://de.wikipedia.org/Bild:Mann_geschlechtsmerkmale.jpg
and

Image 3]
secondary sexual characteristics FEMALE
source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:Frau-2.jpg
Thanking you in anticipation.

Dr. Ashok Koparday

Consultant in Sexual Medicine

http://www.mydoctortells.com

ask(at)mydoctortells(dot)com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drashok (talk • contribs) 16:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

These images have been released under free licences. You do not need anyone's permission to use them, as long as you adhere to the terms of the licences. Sandstein 18:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This mess needs sorting out

Okay, so I followed a link from Richard Brittain (from St. Mirren F.C.) and came across a page about the former Countdown Champion - a page which itself had been deleted as per a discussion. The page for Richard Brittain (soccer player) also exists.

Older (and previously deleted) versions of the undisambiguated Richard Brittain read precisely as I expected - much in the same vein as former Countdown Champions Julian Fell, Graham Nash, Ben Wilson, etc etc. The current version of Richard Brittain's page reads very much like a borderline CSD G1 candidate.

Please advise. Part of me knows this to be a straight CSD-G4 candidate, even, but on the other hand, this page is already ten days old. If Richard Brittain's page is then deleted, we need to move the article for the soccer player to an undisambiguated title. Bobo. 16:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted Richard Brittain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as G4. It had much the same content as during the AfD, only now with added silliness. Sandstein 18:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Buttons for blocking/unblocking users

User:Gurch has pointed out that the button for blocking a user/IP/range says "Block this user", but the button for unblocking a user/IP/range says "Unblock this address". It's not clear whether this inconsistency is harmful, or what consistent text should be chosen if it is; more input at MediaWiki talk:Ipusubmit would be helpful. --ais523 17:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Incivility, Trolling and accusations by Jack Merridew

I am a new user to[REDACTED] and recently noticed that a page had been reverted overnight. I corrected the revert and placed the appropriate antivandalism template on the user page of the vandal User:Jack Merridew. I think I may have walked into an ongoing dispute as another user User:Eusebeus removed the template and accused me of being a vandal and a sockpuppet? Anyhow an edit war on the reversion of the page Chris Conley started between two other editors and the page was eventually protected from editing. Since then page has been unprotected User:Jack Merridew has put it up for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Conley and spammed my username with accusations of sockpuppetry. For evidence he has removed my civilised warning here , left me with an uncivilised and rather rude commenton my user talk page , vandalised my user page accusing me of being a sockpuppet of another editor (who happens to be blocked , accused me of various other stuff on an administrators user talk , and another admins . He has then taken his malicious editing to the talk page for the chris conley page, failing to address and debate the issue at hand and accusing me of being a sock puppet . he makes comments to other editers such as this guy , and here . Now correct me if I am wrong, but he has made more edits to try and discredit me and make me look like someone who I am not, than actual edits that I have made. From reading about[REDACTED] it is supposed to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, however all I have encountered is incivility and an onslaught of accusations that have no basis or merit. Is there any proof that I am a sockpuppet of the R:128 whatever guy? Of course not, as I am a new editor! I would appreciate it if someone could look into the matter and take the appropriate measures to pull this Jack Merridew guy into line. It is editors like him who give[REDACTED] a bad name. Punkguy182 18:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You're new (you started editing 25th Sep) yet you know all the wiki terminology? You also know how to provide diffs and where to post this message. Have you edited before under any previous account at all? It would really make this situation different if you had.

Seraphim 18:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• No I have not, but I have been looking and reading code for a while as I am interested in the simplified HTML format (I'm a web designer). I had made a few anon spelling corrections, but decided to get more involved last week. I feel it mayhave ben a mistake now and[REDACTED] is not the place for me. Punkguy182 18:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

'triff.... that was that editors last edit to date! Was he a sock? Well, we'll never know now... Can we remember not to WP:BITE and WP:AGF, pretty please? Trolls and socks will come and go, but perhaps trying to encourage the WP:BOLD enthusiasts (or at least lead them gently into this "Encyclopedia tht anyone can edit"). Remember, we were all new once. LessHeard vanU 20:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Aww I tried to make sure that it didn't sound bitey. In this suspicious situation, I was trying to give them a legitimate reason that would explain why they are so knowledgable about the workings of wikipedia, despite being brand new. I remember when I was new...I definately couldn't have told you what a sockpuppet was and I didn't know this admin noticeboard existed until a few months ago (although that could be because I'm a bit slow sometimes :( ). Since that didn't come across properly, I'll modify my tone for the future.

Seraphim 21:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to target you with my comment, and I apologise if that appears to be the case. I did AGF with your response, but thought the point was made by the other editor. Perhaps it is to the good, you need a reasonably thick skin to edit in some areas of WP! I've left a welcome message on their talkpage; maybe they will come back and maybe not... LessHeard vanU 21:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• I believe a CU will quickly clear this up. This is almost certainly a sockpuppet, and any futher response here falls under WP:DNFTT. Eusebeus 21:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  If Punkguy182 is the returned (as promised) User:R:128.40.76.3, User:A.J.1.5.2./Curious Gregor, Mad kemist then I don't expect a simple CU will link him, for reasons explained here WRT User:Mark1mark2. See User_talk:Newyorkbrad#Punkguy182 for links to more history. Pete.Hurd 04:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my statements to the effect that User:Punkguy182 is a reincarnation of User:R:128.40.76.3. Given that he has since copied a portion of my user page onto his user page, I would say it is quite likely that this ‘user’ is also User:Jack..Merridew who copied my entire user page and attempted to impersonate me. I am sure someone will end up restoring the sockpuppet tag I added to his user page once this is all said and done... and he's blocked again. --Jack Merridew 13:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I also think they are the same user, but I doubt a CU will provide definitive proof, given his apparent use of different IP ranges for different users in the past. Note also, User:R:128.40.76.3 socks have copied excerpts of my userpage to his user page: User:Mad kemist , User:Tim.Boyle , and User:Curious Gregor , but in a slightly different manner than was done with Jack's page. Whether User:Jack..Merridew is a User:Gorge He or User:R:128.40.76.3 sock seems besides the point, which is that User:Punkguy182 is clearly here to troll. Pete.Hurd 16:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Kekkei genkai Vandalism

I think I screwed up trying to revert some vandalism on Kekkei genkai. can someone please look and see if it's fixable/rollbackable? --Rocksanddirt 19:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks fixed now. --Iamunknown 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User warning template inconsistancy

I've noticed that even after the user warnings have been cleaned up, templates such as Template:Test4 have not been made consistant with their new counterparts (Template:uw-test4. Most of the older templates are only editable by admins, so I mentioned this here.--Avant Guard 19:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason the older templates have not been made similar is that, when the newer ones were made, the admins who used the old ones didn't want to see them changed. Perhaps it has been long enough now to just redirect {{test4}} to {{uw-test4}} and so on. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is probably a better place for this discussion, but as somebody who uses the test templates, and not the new ones, I would not like to see them simply redirected to their new counterparts. For numerous reasons, including my dislike for the new wording and use of icons, I (and I assume others) prefer not to use the new templates. - auburnpilot talk 20:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest boldly changing them (it's only a redirect, should not be a big deal), and if there turn out to be objections, discussing the matter on WP:TFD. >Radiant< 08:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Current events

Portal:Current events has been under continious attack today. The project page is semi-protected, but the templates (such as Portal:Current events/2007 October 1) are not. Therefore, a better system for supervising and protecting these templates is urgently needed. --Camptown 20:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've cascade protected it for 12 hours, after which an admin should restore the original protections. Maxim_(talk) 21:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Several of those templates can probably be protected as high-risk. Except for the one you mention (Portal:Current events/2007 October 1) which really isn't. >Radiant< 08:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Extra eyes needed

There seems to be a fascination to adding false future destinations to the G8 article. I think this is due to some website or another linking to an incorrect past revision as a joke... but subsequent vandalized versions are staying unreverted for way too long and I have no idea how much longer this will continue. Some extra eyes would be helpful. --W.marsh 01:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to watch the article. NCurse _work 05:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• It got Farked, heh, that's where it's all coming from. ♠PMC♠ 22:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion (or more!) requested

IDNexpert (talk · contribs) is a new user who created an article called Social Parking regarding a Domain parking monetization practice. I closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Social Parking, and deleted the page. Shortly thereafter, I got a talk page note from User:IDNexpert asking for the deleted content.

The editor apparently found it without my help though, and it had already appeared at User:IDNexpert/Social Parking by the time I read the note. The editor had also created mainspace redirects to the userfied version. I deleted those, and informed the editor.

I'm wondering whether the userpage is an acceptable use of userspace, or is it too far in the direction of promotion? Do search engines even see user subpages? -GTBacchus 06:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith on IDNexpert's part and assume that the userfied article is to improve it until such time that it can be moved back into the main article namespace. I'd say it's appropriate, though creating links from mainspace to userspace is not. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they do see user subpages. On at least one occasion I've seen user subpages of old versions of articles have higher pagerank on Google than the mainspace article. They should be deleted, or blanked and the user can view them in the history feature. The other thing to be careful of is live links to mainspace categories from user pages. SchmuckyTheCat

Indeed. I editing the userfied page to remove both the categories and the navigation template that had cats attached so that that wouldn't happen. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit waring by CapitalR (talk · contribs)

Since yesterday, CapitalR (talk · contribs) has persisted in editing {{Infobox Govt Agency}} adding significant amounts of pollution and unnecessary information to this infobox. The infobox is currently used on some 250+ major articles and usage is increasing as knowledge of the infobox becomes known amongst the wider community. To cut a long story short, his editing has persisted and despite being sternly warned about this, he has continued editing an intricate template and breaking it. This escalated to the point where administrator Orderinchaos (talk · contribs) implimented a full protection on the template earlier today, and reminded the aforementioned user that they should build consensus before making such changes. Instead of attempting to build consensus, he solicited opinions from a friendly admin, who has since come to agreement with Orderinchaos' reasonings for protection and the call for consensus building, and has now decided to construct his own version of the template to acheive his desired result. This is a significant case of edit waring and Tendentious editing on the part of CapitalR, and needs some immediate attention to bring the issue to a head and not make unnecessary replication of existing and well formed work just to prove a point which was well beyond the principals of WP:BB. I should not need to ask for any assistance to resolve this, but previous efforts of a number of parties have failed. The assistance of an outside admin to bring about an appropriate conclusion would be greatly appreciated. Thewinchester 14:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note All the templates created by the user have now been nominated for deletion as they are depreciated and redundant. Thewinchester 15:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I reviewed the situation and left an appropriately detailed warning on the user's talk page. AKRadecki 15:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:ClaimJumperPete

FYI

An FYI. There's an odd persistent vandal, ClaimJumperPete and sockpuppets whose habit is to insert seemingly misguided "ant-vandalism" comments in random articles, using a highly stylized southern U.S. accent. He plays the "just trying to help" and "I don't understand why you don't like me" games, but has also started scoreboarding his vandalism (see Example 1, Example 2). I've asked for full protect on the user and user talk pages this vandal can edit, to stop the scoreboarding. I mention the guy here:

• to alert a wider range of admins, since he plays the naive user game very well
• to inquire if there's more that can be done

I'm not an admin and don't know all the tools you guys have for squashing vandalism. Studerby 19:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to mention this at WP:LTA.--Avant Guard 20:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notice, Studerby. It appears that all the known and declared socks were all blocked independently by different administrators, so it is nice to tie it all in one package so we can keep an eye out. Appreciate it. Keegan 20:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

CheckUser filed. Lets see if we can catch some sleepers, or an IP address. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of posting Studerby's comment on WP:LTA along with a modus operandi section that I've written.--Avant Guard 21:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the transfer over to LTA, I overlooked that board. Sounds like the admins are on the case... Studerby 22:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Threat

The vandal just used a new sockpuppet, User:GhostofPete, made the general threat in this edit:

It won't take ya long ta be figurin' this is yer ClaimJumperPete. n' I dun really care how fast yar gunna be choosin' ta report this account neither, but I gotta cupple uh werds for ya pal. I been noticin' yer takin' quite n' involvement revertin' my rosters, ya know i had to be takin' notice uh that. 'nother thing, it's kinda clear that ya got an interest 'n silencin' me. Perhaps ya might want to know what yer gonna be up against. Ya might be thinkin' dis is sum sorta game: yer bullet hit the mark. Jus' the other day me 'n a friend kicked it off the same time, he dern got 37 hits n' I got 31 before we were both cleared out. Soon enough yer gonna see a site such as CJP.suddenlaunch3.com or a better variant. A forum where I'll be roundin' up a posse of dudes I dun even be knowin' yet. Ya think 'am havin' a wild time doin' this? ya don't know the half of it. But y'all got a choice. ya can either get ma' account unblocked, and move yer merry way, er I can keep doin' this till the cows come home. Ya herd that clear: If ya unblock me, ClaimJumperPete, I'll never be makin' another edit again, 'n it'll be over. But if y'all shut me down again, it'll be back ta yer status quo right here. Otherwise 'am perfectly fine wit dis lil' charade, in all actuality. The ball's in yer court, pal. GhostOfPete 02:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

...and we can do this 'til the cows come home, too. Don't feed the troll, vandals are dealt with as they pop up. Keegan —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Newest sock added to checkuser. Hopefully, he'll keep making accounts so we can CheckUser him and report his ISP. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy for transferring photographs to Commons

A humble suggestion follows. Motorrad-67 21:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Before doing anything to initiate a transfer, the photographer must be contacted to discuss the potential transfer. No transfer will ever be made without prior communication with the photographer.

• The person wishing to execute a transfer (transferer) must ascertain the photographer's opinion about making the transfer. If the photographer does not understand the meaning of the transfer or the nature of the Commons, the transferer must explain this to him or her.

• If the photographer agrees to the transfer, the transfer may be made.

• If the photographer does not agree to the transfer, discussion must continue to ascertain the reason(s) for the disagreement in an attempt to implement reasonable and mutually acceptable procedures to secure agreement.

• If no agreement can be made, the photographer will be provided the option to have his or her photograph(s) deleted completely from Misplaced Pages. If the photographer does not agree to deletion and does not agree to the transfer after reasonable efforts are made to secure his or her agreement, the transferer may transfer the photographs 14 days after the initial contact with the photographer was made.

The best place to discuss policy isn't on the AN, it's on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy). Will 22:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have posted it there. Motorrad-67 22:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

WoW

I'd like to report 82.45.40.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet of Willy on Wheels. He has similiarity to his other socks. The use of "WWWWWWWWWW" , the term "fucking bastard" , and more if you check his contribs. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are signs of an uncivil vandal, but far from proof that it's actually the same person as the earlier famous vandal (who, I think, had more class and couth... he just moved articles to titles with "...on Wheels", without cursing anybody out as far as I know). *Dan T.* 22:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you even click the diff links? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it's a pretty blatant WoW sock. east.718 at 22:32, October 2, 2007

Or a "me-too" vandal trying to ride the coattails of WoW's fame or infamy, anyway. Didn't the real WoW supposedly "reform" and apologize? *Dan T.* 22:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Accoriding to a rejected arbitration case, someone claiming to be WoW said that the one who apologized was not really him. hbdragon88 00:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Dan T; this WoW sock business needs to stop. That's not Willy's ISP, at least not the one I remember, and any random jackass with an internet connection can fill the edit summary with the letter 'W'. Moreover, this is a non-static IP that hasn't made an edit since June and which has no sockpuppets active on it. What would you have us do? Mackensen (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Frankly we shouldn't care whether or not this is the "official" WoW. It's irrelevant. If it's a vandal-only account, revert, block, ignore. Even the Ancient Greeks had that one down pat. >Radiant< 08:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• It's worth noting, that this IP hasn't made an edit in nearly 4 months. SQL 08:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Skateremorocker continues to delete sources and citation requests, among other things

Here are some of his edits of the past 10 days:

Examples of sources being deleted:

Examples of citation requests being deleted:

Examples of changing sourced information:

Hoponpop69 23:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why was this not even acknowledged by anyone?Hoponpop69Hoponpop69 22:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What I see is a classic content dispute over the band The Classic Crime being a Christian band or not. This does not require admin attention. Please talk it out on the talk page. Though I will say that Skateremorocker's remark "or I will ban you" was inapropriate. — Edokter • Talk • 23:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Need a sock-knowledgeable admin

Could someone look at this, it's a sock puppett case that I got into when it was on ANI and it is snowballing. This user keeps dropping notes on my talk page, I want to help but I'm not very knowledgeable in sock cases and I'm now in over my head. Can another admin please help? Thanks. Rlevse 01:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• User:SarahLover has been indefinitely blocked as a suspected sock, obviously picking up where another account left off. Keegan 02:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you be more specific? What sort of further help do you need? I see Betacommand's analysis suggesting all of these are related. I'd hate to actually run CUs on all these userids. I suggest WP:DUCK. ++Lar: t/c 02:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Hey Lar, I think the issue was over the fact that SarahLover was not blocked, although a non-admin placed the indef-blocked sock tag on the userpage. A CU could reveal the underlying IP, but I'm hardblocking to take care of that anyway. So, case closed I think. Keegan 02:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Other users were hard blocked, so why can the person keep editing? Dynamic IPs, different computers? Also, the reporting user seems frustrated that the sock can keep creating accounts--can anything be done to stop this? Rlevse 02:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser, second door on the left. Seriously, it is the only avenue to take care of account abuse. We as admins don't have the capacity to track socks to the extent required here. Keegan 02:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
          • And it's already there. Sharp eyes and an even temperament, that's all you can have. Keegan 02:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Hard-blocking users is only effective for 24 hours via WP:AUTOBLOCK. It's not like hard-blocking IPs. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Rats, this guy's really bad. Sounds like we really need CU to stop this guy.Rlevse 02:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Learn something new everyday. Keegan 03:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Luffy1794

This user keeps removing deletion templates w/o following policy despite two warnings i left on their talk page. The Placebo Effect 02:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message for the user, plus a standardized welcome message (and a 3RR warning at that). The user hasn't reverted the most recent templates, and it's been about an hour, so perhaps your message did the trick. We can always still monitor the situation. -Andrew c  03:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

AFD socks

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/London tunnel run contains many socks. Send help. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticizing other users' statements on one's own userpage

User:GHcool has a list of "Accusations vs. Reality" on his/her userpage which is more of a collection of quotes without context and rebuttals thereof. Most of the quotes are chosen to make the respective editor look anti-Semitic or just plain stupid. Is this really what userpages are for? Pedro Gonnet 15:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This would not be the first time somebody challenged by user page. The first time it happened, User:SlimVirgin and User:Jpgordon exhonerated me of the accusations of misconduct citing that I quote my subjects fairly and accurately and even provide a link to where the quotation came from so that others can check the context themselves and judge accordingly. They also said that it does not violate WP:NPA because I keep my criticisms to what was being said as opposed to criticising the person who said it. --GHcool 17:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm another victim of this behaviour - which drives a cart and horses through accept good faith. But I've never bother challenging it, I assumed GHcool had some special permission to behave in these unpleasant ways, and that if I attempted to behave in any similar fashion I'd be immediately blocked for disruptive use of UserPage, personal attacks and probably several other things. It's especially bizzare that he should be the one doing this, because I'm pretty sure I could present a lot of what he writes as being extreme, displaying disruptive logic, writing tendentiously, edit-warring against consensus, along with flouting BLP and probably breaches of a whole pile of other policies. Several of these patterns of behaviour are clearly visible at this talk page, where he seems determined he'll hold up editing to consensus. GHcool's behaviour and outrageous attacks on an excellent scholar (and the small amount of uncontentious material from him we'd like to use in the article) seems calculated to protect another source used extensively - a race-hater with a strong association to violence amounting to terrorism. PR 18:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how assuming good faith and criticizing somebody's statements are necessarily contradictory. People do it all the time all over Misplaced Pages. --GHcool 18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiki admin going out of bounds

Hi,

I need your help. There is an admin called Leuko who is vandalising an article on American University of Antigua. I feel that Leuko is extremely biased against a medical school called University of Health Sciences Antigua, and has added an unnecessary line worded as, "For the unaccredited medical school with a similar name disapproved by many U.S. states, see University of Health Sciences Antigua" at the beginning of the American University of Antigua article. I have made an edit and he threatened to ban me. He tries to edit most medical school articles, and in the end, all that is left is " according to Leuko". Would it be possible for you to help me?

Thanks

DrGladwin 17:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

First, Leuko is not an admin. Second, Leuko's preferred wording for the disambiguation message at the top of American University of Antigua College of Medicine violates NPOV. My own feeling is that the names "American University of Antigua College of Medicine" and "University of Health Sciences Antigua" are not similar enough to warrant disambig notices at all. I have removed the message accordingly. Third, your removal of it is not vandalism and Leuko was wrong to imply it was such. Forth, this noticeboard was probably not the best place for you to bring up this concern, as it does not involve use of administrative powers. Mike R 17:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. I always thought Leuko was an admin from the way he "bosses" over other other mods. He even threatened to ban a fellow mod! Can you believe that?! Leuko hacks through articles and no one, I say no one, is allowed to undo the changes he has made. Notice his edits and the sentiments he as stirred up on his talk page from his previous edits. People who go against him are threatened by bans. Anyways, thanks for your help. DrGladwin 17:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:DrGladwin so as to desist from clogging up AN. Mike R 17:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to keep posting here, but it is clear that Leuko is implying he is a mod/admin. He posted on my talk page a message regarding a different medical school and indicated if I continued making certain edits I would be blocked from editing. He very clearly implied that he has this power. I have removed this from my talk page as it is plain silly and very bullying of him. While he makes no explicit statement of being an admin he clearly implies it. BTW, the article in question is Caribbean Medical University. I beg for your assistance. Bstone 17:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he used a standard 3rr warning template. There is nothing wrong with any editor warning other editors to not edit war. No idea if it was warranted in this case, but there's nothing automatically wrong with a non-admin using that template. Friday (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Has Leuko been notified that this thread exists? There are mechanisms for resolving disputes with particular editors. In general, unaccredited schools are a touchy subject. Leuko has worked on a number of these articles. We've had issues in the past with these articles and how to present accreditation info. I would strongly suggest following the dispute resolution methods, such as asking for a third opinion or filing a user-conduct request for comment, rather than soliciting people with a dislike for Leuko to comment here. MastCell 18:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, it's not a question of disliking Leuko. It's the question of him threatening to ban other editors and mods if they make changes in articles that he disapproves. I had removed one line from the AUA article (this same line has been removed by an admin), and notice the warning Leuko wrote on my talk page: he simply threatened to ban me. I feel this is not right and is against our principle of "Being Bold." DrGladwin 18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that in posts on DrGladwin's talk page, Leuko specifically and unambiguously stated on DrGladwin's talk page would be blocked from editing if he continued with certain edits. He wrote, "you will be blocked from editing" (emphasis not added). Leuko's incivility, bullying and implying he has the ability to block someone is what is making is incredibly uncomfortable. Thank you for the dispute resolution links. I shall be following up with them. Bstone 18:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The block warning is a part of our standard warning templates. They in no way indicate that the person leaving the warning will be doing the blocking and, in fact, are for the use of all editors. See WP:WARN. -Chunky Rice 18:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

it's a standard template message - if you don't like the wording then obtain consensus to change it, the fact that certain words within are highlighted does not provide you with a stick to hit Leuko over the head. Do some basic research in future before attacking other editors with such claims. --Fredrick day 18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless one reads and is familiar with WP:WARN they would immediately to the conclusion that the person issuing the warning has the ability to make good on it. The policy for issuing warning should change as it is very ambiguous as to the standing of the person issuing it. Notice that by issuing this message two casual editors (DrGladwin and myself) were both convinced Leuko as an admin. Be that as it may, I will be drafting a request for mediation based on Leuko's incivility and bullying. I don't see the need to post here again. Bstone 18:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to what you and DrGladwin believe, it doesn't matter whether an admin or another editor or a kitten issues a warning. Your response to one should be the same regardless: you'd ignore it if it's meritless or adjust your actions accordingly. However, I'd warn against going for the former method, as some tend to see every warning they receive as meritless, even when some are not. -- tariqabjotu 19:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion on external link adding...

User:Malcjennings has decided to add literally hundreds of external links to a specific site (). I'm not entirely sure whether it's external link spamming or not. Second opinion before I set VandalProof on his contributions list? Any help much appreciated. If people agree, it'll probably need more than just me reverting: about 200 added, and the account was only created today(!). Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked a few of the entries; the linked to website is merely regurgitating other people's advertising copy and reprinting the game instructions, which are copyrighted. I'm sure it's a very helpful site for people who have downloaded warez, but I can't think of a particularly good reason[REDACTED] should link to it. Studerby 21:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(third opinion) Oh, definitely external link spamming. Someone else already gave them a final warning, and they seem to have stopped half an hour ago. Revert all. I'd help, but I'm not automated. --barneca (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the final warning before spotting this thread, even though they were only on level 1 previously, as I looked at their contributions beforehand. I didn't revert any of the changes myself, as I too am unaided, but I called on User:Moonriddengirl to rollback the changes. However, this leaves a lot of links to cpczone.net, and many of the user's edits were simply modifying the existing links (possibly spam). Would it be too much to remove all ELs to cpczone, while leaving any legitimate uses of the site as a reference? --Dreaded Walrus 22:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards