Felicity4711 has beenasked to refrain from forcing "smartquotes" or directed quotes, but, as far as I can see, is unilaterally imposing them, as inMonochrome painting andother edits. I don't know enough about the technicalities, but I think someone who does ought to check this out.Tyrenius23:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, to me this is borderline vandalism, unilaterally imposing a style that is widely disagreed with on dozens of articles without discussion. It makes the source impossible to read. -Merzbow23:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I’m unsure whether it is my place to post my opinion here (as I am not an administrator); however, apart from the html v. unicode argument, what objection could anyone have to the use of ‘smart quotes’ over the use of " & '? It seems to me an entirely irrelevant issue (as long as the unicode, rather than the html versions are used). Personally, I am lukewarmly in favour of the use of ‘smart quotes’ - they are typographically correct, and somewhat more æsthetically pleasing - though I am not as zealously committed to the cause asFelicity4711 is. If she wants to go around, doing the mammoth menial task of swapping " for “ & ” and ' for ‘ & ’ in the many myriad articles of Wikipedia, then good luck to her - it’s not a negative thing to do (although, Icould think of better things to do with my time). It would be inappropriately authoritarian for Wikipedia to impose the exclusive use of one form over the other (particularly the less correct " & ' over ‘, “, ’ & ”); slight differences of style are to be expected in an encyclopedia with so many editors. Please, tolerate some inconsequential diversity of style, and allowFelicity4711 her harmless pedantry.Doremítzwr03:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Doremítzwr. I’ll be careful to use Unicode directed quotes from now on.Felicity471114:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Doremítzwr, especially this part:as long as the unicode, rather than the html versions are used. The “ and ” nonsense has got to stop, but other than that I see no problem. —Keenan Pepper03:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Unicode it is, then, from now on.Felicity471114:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the unicode is fine, but the HTML stuff is rubbish. If she modifies any more articles in that way I'm going to exercise my right to harmless pedantry to make then readable again with the unicode. -Merzbow06:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

As long as the end result is still directed quotes, you will in fact have my gratitude for changing them to a more-agreed-upon standard while maintaining their directedness. In the meantime, I am also going back through all my contributions and changing the HTML directed quotes to Unicode directed quotes.Felicity471114:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed to unicode smart quotes or keyboard apostrophes and primes (I presume that you mean the former; however your meaning is rather ambiguous)? If you do the latter, she’ll probably just go back and revert your changes; however, if you coöperate and change them to the former, it may encourage her to do so as well, and agree to only use unicode smart quotes in future. Shall I send her a message on behalf of you all, asking her to do so?Doremítzwr14:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Doremítzwr. I am going back through all my contributions and changing the HTML directed quotes to Unicode directed quotes.Felicity4711

Doremítzwr is only partially correct: typographer's quotation marks are correct in aprinted document. Wikipedia is not a printed document. Typographer's quotes have absolutely no place in the content of Wikipedia articles which are not themselves about typography, and Wikipedia policy should be revised to make this fact explicit. --BBlackmoor^(talk)01:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should therefore strive for the same professionalism as a printed encyclopedia. If Wikipedia outlaws directed quotes completely, I might as well not even bother having an account.Felicity471114:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That Wikipedia is an encyclopedia is irrelevant. Typography is a matter of themedium, not of the subject matter. Typographer's quotes are appropriate toprinted matter, regardless of the subject. They areinappropriate to HTML or XHTML documents delivered over the web, again regardless of the subject. (As with anything else, there are exceptions to both cases, but Wikipedia is not among them.) Every medium has its differences, and (as I would have hoped you would have learned by now) it is counterproductive to try and force the norms for one medium onto another. As for "not even bothering to have an account", that would be entirely your decision. I am the last person who would try to convinceanyone to spend their time editing Wikipedia. --BBlackmoor^(talk)04:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Her work is going to be changed, as has already happened withMonochrome painting. -Tyrenius15:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I’ll take that as a yes.Doremítzwr18:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

For reference, I have postedthis screenshot showing how the quotes added byFelicity4711 to the articleCalvin Trillin appear on the latest version of Internet Explorer for the Macintosh when the user is logged in in Japanese. The quotes are double width because IE renders them in a two-byte Japanese font. I suspect that similar problems may occur in many Chinese, Korean, and other non-English computer systems.Tomgally22:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don’t mind if my work is changed from HTML directed quotes to Unicode directed quotes. If the quotes are made undirected, I will change them back to directed, but this time in Unicode.Felicity471114:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Does this happen with html smart quotes only or with unicode ones as well? Either way, it’s the final nail in the coffin for html ones. If this also happens with unicode smart quotes, then perhaps it is best that smart quotes in general are discouraged; I personally find an extra space where it shouldn’t be more obtrusive than primes used in place of quotation marks. However, if unicode smart quotes donot cause this phenomenon, then I reïterate that it should be a matter of personal choice. I don’t see the validity of Bblackmoor’s distinction betwixt a printed document and Wikipedia - both are read, and users (including me) often print articles. I think it best that Wikipedia does not legislate on this matter; it is not important enough, and to do so is simply creating another point of conflict.Doremítzwr20:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well said.Felicity471114:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why they wouldn't render identically: it's like "&" vs "&".—Quarl^(talk)2006-07-04 07:30Z

"I don't see the validity of Bblackmoor's distinction betwixt a printed document and Wikipedia..." Search Google for the phrase, "the web is not a magazine". --BBlackmoor^(talk)06:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I still don’t see your point. The only relevant stuff those twenty-eight websites mentioned were encoding problems, which we all agree are important. However, nothing I read convinced me that the web ought not to use directed quotation marks and apostrophesdue to them being directed. Furthermore, the fact that twenty-eight websites all make the same point doesn’t sway me in the slightest; a thousand people all arguing the same bad point doesn’t make that point any more convincing than had it been advanced by but one person — that’s democracy, and I’m not a democrat.Doremítzwr11:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what this discussion has to do with administrators. The discussion should be atWikipedia talk:Manual of Style, though please bear in mind it has been discussed many times before. (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style archive (quotes and quote marks),Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 18,Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 40).Angela.12:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry. I do not want to look like I am spamming. I contacted an admin directly a while ago, but I guess he is not there and I contacted one today, but I also think he is not there. I just want this behaviour to stop.

They are making unfounded attaacks and accusations against me. As show here for example.[[1]]. The user who made this also did not sign which put together with an anoymous comment is not a good sign. I would like to know on what groundsuser:Baku87 anduser:Grandmaster are making these claims. I have never made any negative comments on contributions. They continue to make these claims without any proof.69.196.164.190

Here is more examples;[2] Once, again can he please provide proof for these claims, especially the anti-Azari statments he keeps claiming I made???

Theuser:Grandmaster iscontinuing to make unfounded accusations and attacks against me. As shown here[3]. I left him a polite warning, but noticed that this has been a discourse of behaviour and that he has been warned for uncivil behaviour in the past. I told him once on his talk page tobe polite and keep all comments directed towards edits and that he has no right to make such accusations and additionally no grounds; I said I will let it pass as a warning and act in good faith and consider it an honest mistake on his part. But after looking at his talk page and contributions I have noticed he is making accusations to other editors about me and is still continuing to do so as you can see above. Any comment I make on a talk page is labelled POV and attacked right away? It is automatically lablled anti-Azari! I have no idea how saying every human being is equal and that we are all brothers and sisters is bad or anti-Azari? These comments are groundless, uncivil and simple attacks.

Can you please talk to him as an administrator. I do not appreciate this harassment. Like I have said, I am not here to fight, I am here to edit and to enjoy editing. User:Grandmaster continues to accused me of being anti-Azari when I myself am a Azari!? I do not know what makes him an authority to make such attacks or conclusions? He is basing some of his rationale on articles I have edited and continuing to claim I am another user, which is okay as long as it is civil,but it is not civil these wrong assertions are expressed through actually uncivil attacks. I would like him to stop making uncivil comments about me to other users and on article talk pages. Can you please get him to provide proof about the anti-Azari statments I have made! I am pretty sure I would be blocked if I made any anti-anything statments! It is easy to make such assertions, but can he provide proof before attacking my name on talk pages?

His claims does not make personal attacks legitmate or okay nor do they allow uncivil behaviour. He continues to make them and say I am anti-Azari! I do not appreciate this type of trolling and personal attacks. Regards69.196.164.190

Have you posted anything to thePersonal Attack Noticeboard yet?Shadow120:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that part of this is what I put this on onTitoxd's userpage, I'm copying it to here as I want some opinions. If that's alright with you all, that is.

So here's the story. This guy likes to remove everything from his userpage, and that includes warnings. I stumbled into it from RC, I think, and put the warnings back. We got into an edit war, as he didn't want them there. I tried to tell he they have to stay, but he didn't listen. After going back and forth, he told me that reverting the removal of warnings from his userpage put me in violation of the 3RR rule, and then said editing without a usernameis against policy. Ha. Anyway,Titoxd somehow got involved and blocked him for 24 hours. After those 24 hours passed, he removed the warnings yet again, for around the seventh time. I had obviously removed his 'warnings' from my page, and he said that that meant he could remove others from his page. Confused? It gets worse. Going back through his talk page history, I found he's been warnedten times before for vandalising, personal attacks, and blanking sections of pages. I told him that, and he responded by saying that the only person who warned himwas banned. He was, for a while. But he's not now.

But wait! The plot thickens. This is what I said to Titoxd last night. It is addressed to him and explains my confusion.

After he was given all those warnings and blocked heremoved them all again. I said he shouldarchive them if he doesn't want to see them anymore. So Irishguyadded back the warnings. ER then responded to me by saying everything on his pageis junk. I told himit would be put back regardless. He claimed thathe is allowed to delete comments and that his block was for deleting things in unimportanat articles. He proceeded torespond to the question about his email beforeremoving a warning again. So heremoved the question he responded to and removed another warning. Itold him once more that he shouldn't remove warnings. So hewent into a rant about how he can delete whatever he wants, thensaid he could deletethe warning he gave me about the 3RR and editing without registering. So what did he do?remove all the warnings on his page. He went on tofix up his rant and say he isn't vandalising. Irishguyrestored it again, and ER promptlytook them out again. Kungfuadam, aparently in RC,restored them. ER wrote himself atalk page policy while removing things again. I was upset he would consider my a vandal and thought because I removed his warnings he could remove all the others. So Iranted about it and have not yet recieved a response. I'm at a loss here. Since you were involved (and just so happen to be an admin) could you please help out? Thank you.

That was yesterday. Today, Iput all the warnings back, and told him that if he didn't stop, I'd come here. Not surprisingly, heremoved the warnings and proceeded to say he's going to change his IP and start a new account. So far as I know resetting your router won't change your IP... Anyway, what do you all think? This is a basic summary of what happened; I'd flip through his contributions and talk page history to see all the warnings he removed and people he yelled at.

Man that took a long time to type.

I agree the warnings should not be removed (they could be archived after a while). Resetting the routerwould get a new IP if the ISP uses dynamic IP, which, for example, most DSL and dial-up providers in the US do. If he is on good behavior in his new account and stops using the old one (and thus avoids sock puppetry) then it would be okay for him to "start over" without the bad history. Hey, you stand for rights for anons, he could stand for "right to start a new account".  :)—Quarl^(talk)2006-07-04 08:21Z

Can do.

Well, except for this, which he added to his talk page a while ago, removing the warningsagain.

:::::Yep, here I am with a new IP already...(see edits). No wonder I had so much difficulty talking with 69.145.123.171. The guy does not know what he is talking about. Him and Irish Guy are complete retards... with the continued reverts of the talk page. To what end? To what benefit? Do people think about what they are doing or saying before they do or say it? I can only presume that these are the people who do it the way they are told to do it. The ones that can't think for themselves. I guess I have to give up my nice login and go for something a little more anonymous....ER MD09:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

...Also, here's hisnew IP address, where he removes warnings and flames Irishguy. I'd put the warning back in, but I'm getting sick of this. I think an admin really needs to be involved. :( --69.145.123.17118:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And under his new IP, there's apersonal attack,another personal attack, which was thenremoved, followed bythis comment, and finally, hisremoval of another warning. --69.145.123.17118:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm on my knees begging for help here. I'm gonna lose it with him if we don't do something. He is usingdifferentnames and IP totroll andspread personal attacks. I'm afraid Ilashed back because I'm sick of this.

Okay, hecrossed the line...twice. Ilost it. Go ahead, yell at me-I can't deal with sick people like this. >:( --69.145.123.17120:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have asked that assertions of fact be cited. This is in accord with wikipedia policy. Rather than address the policy and why it is being ignored, my request has been removed from theevolution talk page for this article by userRJN. Please address.84.146.238.126

This is an established user who does not want to be identified and is just engaging in disruptive behavior by placing {{fact}} all over the article because he/she does not support the assertion of evolution. Other editors have reverted this, but user failed to stop and discuss on talk page. —RJN08:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

RJN is an established user who should know better than to ignore the most basic wikipedia policies all over the place in an attempt to hide blatant disregard for wikipedia policy regarding citation of facts and verifiability.84.146.238.126

(Ahem).3RR.SWAdair08:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You were disrupting the process of that article. You were reverted by numorous users, not just me. I am neutral to whatever is going on in this article because I have no past or present involvement in editingevolution. Please do not drag me into this mess—I was only reverting your disruptive behavior. In addition, this user has been reverting way past the 3RR and has been changing IPs to circumvent the 3RR as well. —RJN08:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The person using theUser:IP 84.146.238.126 appears to be a creationist troll engaging in vandalism of theevolution article. He/she seems unwilling to actually read the article itself, which actually deals with his/her objections, and is instead inserting nonsense into the article without engaging in proper dialogue on the talk page. It is apparent from their knowledge of Wikipedia that they are an existing user who is masking their identity in order to engage in said vandalism.JF Mephisto15:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm bringing forth an idea brought up onWP:AIV. Should we have a separate page for bad usernames? A few times a day, we have people posting "xxxxxx is in violation of the username policy". The problem is that it's not really appropriate for AIV since it is not vandalism just to have a bad username. On the other hand, we probably need a board where non-admins can post usernames that possibly violate policy without having to clutter up AN or AN/I any more than we already do. It could be similar to AIV and WP:PAIN. Thoughts? --Woohookitty^(meow)08:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for it; go ahead.Lectonar08:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I, too, feel that this is a great idea. It would help me keep Wikipedia from being disrupted by various violators ofWP:U.Ryulong09:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I see no reason why obviousWP:U violations shouldn't be posted onWP:AIV. They're even simpler than vandalism - with vandalism you have to check the contributions, whether the user has been warned, and then block, whereas with offensive usernames you just need to look at the name. The outcome is the same - quick check, then block. Where it's not sufficiently clear for an immediate block, the user can simply be asked politely to change his name and/or the account can be posted onWP:RFC/NAME. Further, those who create offensive usernames usually vandalise anyway, soWP:AIV is definitely where they belong.

There's just no need to have a separate board, making our processes even more complicated, and resulting in slower response time (as not all admins are going to immediately watchlist the new page). I'll add a note toWP:U saying where apparent violations should be posted, as it seems to be lacking there. --Sam Blanning^(talk)09:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What we're seeing right now are not "offensive usernames" being posted. Instead, we're getting alot of email usernames listed. Usually when offensive usernames are posted, the person is a vandal. But these are not vandals that I am talking about.This is what I am referring to. --Woohookitty^(meow)10:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

People who use their email for thier username should get a polite note. They do not need to be blocked at all. I don't see why we would need a page where we can list user's like this. The people who are adding them to AIV shouldn't be doing so, they should simply advice them of our policies on thier talk page.Theresa Knott |Taste the Korn15:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And people who haven't ever contributed, as seems to be the case with Woohookitty's example, aren't usually worth bothering about unless it's likely that vandalism is forthcoming (i.e. deliberately offensive usernames and obvious sockpuppets- not email addresses). I would be more inclined to askDure to stop trawling for email address user accounts and suggest RC patrol instead, rather than setting up yet another new process. --Sam Blanning^(talk)15:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. Mind you, it would probably be worth having at least a short summary on the Register page of what constitutes an acceptable username. Especially as it seems using an email address is a common newbie error, and move the "your account should not contain" sectionabove the fields where the account name is entered. With luck we could stop most of the problems at source.Just zisGuy you know?18:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. But going back to the original question: creating an extra page would just create an additional backwater to check. Just likeWP:AIV/TB2 isn't as well-known as AIV, and things there are usually handled by an admin on IRC. Non-vandalism usernames can be dealt with on the same manner than non-vandalism activity reports are.Titoxd^(?!?)18:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the general gist that we don't need something new for this. If someone has a "bad" username and is making bad faith edits, or they have such an awful username that it must have been chosen in bad faith, then I would consider either case to be vandalism so go ahead and list onWP:AIV. However, if someone is making good faith edits but has inadvertently picked a "bad" username, blocking them will simply alienate a possible good contributor. Just mention it on their talk page, or, if you can't get through to them, list it onWP:RFC/NAME Either way, we don't need something new.JYolkowski //talk23:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed: we don't need something new, but we might need to stop the problems by tweaking the registration screen per my suggestion above. Who do we talk to?Just zisGuy you know?12:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No one, just editMediaWiki:Signupend.Titoxd^(?!?)00:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to apologize for this vandal; it was my live-in cousin, who apparently edits Wikipedia under another username (unknown to me) trying to get me blocked by collateral damage. I walked in on it, however, but not before he got blocked. I've undone the collateral-damage block (which is why I'm here; I wanted to mention that I was unblocking myself) and made sure that he spends the next month grounded from the internet. -A Man In(conspire |past ops)08:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE! DESYSOP! DESYSOP! Oh, wait, nevermind...;) •)08:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, at least it's not because somebody thought I was a Plautus Satire sock. -A Man In(conspire |past ops)08:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Now imagine if you lived with Willy on Wheels. :DCanadianCaesarEt tu, Brute?09:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, there isUser:A Man In Black on wheels... -A Man In(conspire |past ops)09:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently your cousin loves pokemon. Anyways, it's your cousin's fault, not yours.--WinHunter^(talk)11:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I still think an immidiately desysop is in order. RIGHT NOW. RIGHT.... NOW. Whenever. --Lord Deskana (talk)11:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And this Wikipedia moment has been brought to you by...the letter S. --Woohookitty^(meow)14:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please undelete this article, Aaron Walton.Alw441620:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted perCSD A7, which states that non-notable people or music groups may be removed from Wikipedia.Naconkantari20:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at the deletion review log.Alw441620:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Then please wait for DRV to finish before posting here. ThanksNaconkantari20:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Alw4416 appears to be perverting the DRV with sockpuppets... nice. -Merzbow23:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The articlecolor has a long history of being edited, without consensus and against Wikipedia's policy on national varieties of English, to substitute "colour". This just gets reverted, but today someone did a page move from color to colour. If I understand correctly, this cannot be reversed except by an administrator (because of the redirect created). However, someone did step in and did a copy/paste revert, unfortunately breaking the edit history. Anyway, we now have colour redirecting to color, but there is also an articlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Col%D0%BEr&redirect=no, and I really don't know what that is doing there. It would be good if an administrator could resolve this mess (with color being the main article, with all of its history). I have markedcolor with an {{inuse}} tag in the hope that people won't add good faith edits in the mean time. If I could have fixed this, please let me know how!Notinasnaid22:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, to get to Col%D0%BEr, go toTalk:color and follow the link that appears (apparently to talk:color again, but not), then click on Article.Notinasnaid23:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be fixed now.Naconkantari23:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I don't particularly like reporting such crap, because I prefer talking things out with users, however...have a look at the last few anonymous comments on mytalk page, and if anyone believes action needs to be taken, please let me know what would be most appropriate. Note that although the edits are from anon IP, this is registered Wikipedia user. Thanks.Mindmatrix23:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've warned the IP concerned. If it re-occurs a short block would be appropriate. Unfortunately because this is an IP supplied by an ISP the user behind this will likely just come back on a different IP address if he's blocked.Gwernol00:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. If you look at the anon's last message, he linked toan image created by a registered user, for the sole purpose of attacking me (look at the image edit summary). I'm an admin, and I could delete the image, but I'd rather not use my privileges to affect a dispute in which I'm involved. Could somebody take care of it for me, either by deleting the image, or removing the reference to me, whichever you feel is most appropriate.Mindmatrix00:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the image and warned the uploaderUser:Hubert Derus. He also redirects his User page and Talk page toUser:LoBo. I have no idea if it is a mixup trying to change name to Lobo or an attempt to circumvent blocks and messages.abakharev02:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion this user is bound for troubleHe's making personal attacks and being uncivil, along with a NPOV username. --CFIF(talk to me)00:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• I have given him the UsernameBlockabakharev02:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Software cracking currently links to [link removed-Ral315], which supplies files that arguably (IANAL) violate theDigital Millennium Copyright Act. Do we have a policy about whether to provide such links? If not, do we need one? Is this the right place to ask? Interrogatively yours,CWC(talk)13:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In this specific case, the link does not improve the understanding of the subject. Rather, it provides an incoming link and free publicity to that site.Wikipedia:External links applies. More generally, I'd say that there may be cases where one wants to link sites that could be illegal, for example an article about one of these sites. (Liberatore,2006).13:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally operates under the laws of the United States, given that servers are hosted in Florida. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to try and interpret the DMCA, but in general, I don't find the link useful to the article.Ral315 (talk)13:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for those helpful responses. I'll delete the link.

User:Paolo Liberatore's comment that "there may be cases where one wants to link sites that could be illegal, for example an article about one of these sites" strikes me as a pretty good guideline. PerhapsWikipedia:External links should say something about this?

Thanks again,CWC(talk)14:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the other external link, which was to a site with instructions on how to crack Amiga games. They may be old, but it is still illegal. --Kjkolb17:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone should probably ban this user indefinitely.User:Urfuct.Batman200514:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Over the past weeks since the AfD success ofPaul Lau, the article's contents merged toLa Salle College#The first layman principal. Since then, there was continuous vandalism targeted at that single passage. I've requested a semi-protect atWP:RFP but was denied due to "inadequate vandalism activity". However, that inadequacy was, in fact, an illusion. Consider the edit history of the article for the past week:

1. (cur) (last) 2006-07-05 23:41:57 Deryck Chan (Talk | contribs)rv/v
2. (cur) (last) 2006-07-05 18:14:59 203.218.124.219 (Talk)vandalism
3. (cur) (last) 2006-07-05 15:01:32 Deryck Chanrv/v
4. (cur) (last) 2006-07-05 00:10:16 219.77.113.65vandalism
5. ... (subsequent edits in "clean state")
6. (cur) (last) 2006-07-04 23:27:06 Deryck Chanrv/ previous vandalism
7. (cur) (last) 2006-07-03 17:13:07 Tawkerbot2rv/ further vandalism
8. (cur) (last) 2006-07-03 17:13:01 82.110.221.72further vandalism of another passage
9. ... (subsequent edits after the vandalism was done but not spotted)
10. (cur) (last) 2006-06-27 22:43:33 222.167.114.37vandalism
11. (cur) (last) 2006-06-27 22:07:54 Misza13rv/v
12. (cur) (last) 2006-06-27 22:06:59 218.103.166.54vandalism

If checked carefully, since 27 June, the article has 188 hours in vandalized state but only 6 hours in clean state. Apparently this is a terrible ratio,meaning that for a random visitor coming to the article at any time, he has only 3% of chance to see a non-vandalized article.

I admit my fault for not being able to sweep the vandalism in that 7 days (27 June to 4 July) due to my short wikibreak, but even after I've come back, the ratio is still terrible. Since 4 July, there are only 5 hours that the article is clean but 20 hours that it is in vandalism. It still accounts for a 80% ratio for a random visitor to se a vandalized passage.

The problem is severe and was underestimated by a lot of people. I want some admins to take note of this and help me watch out the vandalism, or do a semi-protection. Thanks in advance. --Deryck C.15:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason why this is needed. This seems like a content dispute. The anonymous users are removing a section that really pertains to the principal, and not so much to the college. While the blanking without comment may be disruptive, it's by no means vandalism, and certainly is not worthy of semiprotection.Ral315 (talk)13:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of that passage was agreed perWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Lau. The anon editors also made no edit summary over all the edits (I suppose they're the same person or the same bunch of persons, because all the IPs come from Hong Kong ISPs). I'll seek negotiation when I revert next time. --Deryck C.14:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

(Continued fromWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive115#Deleting libellous revisions)

It appears that that more (allegedly) libellous material was added toMichael Jackson (Anglican bishop) on 1 July[4]. An anonymous IP has again contacted me requesting this information be removed, so I'm forwarding that here. Cheers --Pak2115:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

MatthewFenton (talk ·contribs) is insisting that the use ofImage:Admin mop.PNG on this userbox violates our policy on fair use images in userspace. I'm of the opinion that this is bollocks. I've just reverted it for the third time, so I could do with some confirmation that I haven't gone completely mad. —sjorford++16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You're correct. The image is copyrighted, but not every copyrighted image we use is a "fair use" image. In this case, the image is copyrighted by Wikimedia (because of the Wikipedia logo), and is used with permission.Mangojuice^talk17:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mangojuice. Seems like a violation ofWP:POINT byUser:MatthewFenton.Naconkantari17:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

OnTemplate talk:User wikipedia/Administrator, I raised the point that this shouldn't even be an issue. Only one editor supports getting rid of the image while at least 7 have supported keeping the image or questioned why it was deleted. Seems like consensus to me. And I agree with the above comments that this seems like a case ofWP:POINT.--Alabamaboy17:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally like thePope Clement VIII picture that Herostratus has on his userbox. --Mr. Lefty_{Talk to me!}17:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The case has closed.

• User:SPUI,User:JohnnyBGood,User:Rschen7754, andUser:PHenry are placed on probation and may be banned by any admin in case of disruption of highways related articles.
• Consensus encouraged
• Until a formal naming convention policy regarding state highways is reached, no page shall be moved from one controversial name to another.
• JohnnyBGood and SPUI are warned to remain civil at all times.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Drini16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have strong suspicions thatUser:Beeboe is a sockpuppet ofpuppetmasterHogeye, who has beenbanned repeatedly for ban evasion, POV editing, and various other violations of Wikipedia policy. My suspicions are based upon the fact that this week-old user has beenediting articles that Hogeye was previouslyheavily involved in, making very similar changes. Further, this user has a surprising knowledge of the use of Wikipedia after only one week. Moreover, in recent days, Hogeye has been attempting to evade his ban by using anonymous proxies or by creating sockpuppet accounts.

I would greatly appreciate it if someone with the right tools could explore this in greater detail. Thanks. --AaronS18:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFCU would be the right place to ask for a checkuser,WP:SSP for a non-checkuser sock investigation. •)08:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI,CAT:CSD has eleventy billion pages in it, some of which have been there for 3+ hours.BigDT19:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

SeeUser:MulderandScully, which hasImage:Xf promotional ftf.jpg on it. I don't think this user is any friend of administrators, as seen bythis diff. And actually, that whole thread onUser talk:Jimbo Wales#Tolerance of Criticism Continued seems like the work of... no, I can't say it. I'm not supposed to say it. Just deal with the fair use image on a user page. --Elkman -(Elkspeak)23:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed (he also had one on his talk page). --Sam Blanning^(talk)00:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this user has an inappropriate username. Is that right?Voortle00:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's that bad. We have this page:Shit.Tobyk77705:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm borderline on it, but I will not block it.User:Zscout370^{(Return Fire)}05:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look atWikipedia:Username, it could be inappropriate as "...it alludes to excretory functions of the body.."; you left a message on the user's talk page, let's see how it goes.Lectonar05:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that they're going to be the next great admin, though. --Mr. Lefty_{Talk to me!}15:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It was a puppet show aired in the UK, hosted byMichael Bentine. SeeMichael Bentine's Potty Time.Just zisGuy you know?22:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

From my Talk page:

User:HayMeadows

You nominated a pair of articles byUser:HayMeadows to AFD today with an "is there an echo here"? type comment on the second.

http://www.haymeadows.com/links/seo-link-exchange.htm Demonstrates that there is a company by that name involved in search engine optimization. One of the two companies you AFD nominated is specifically listed as an SEO client. I'm not sure what more to do, so I'm alerting you.GRBerry03:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As you'll see form the contribs ofHayMeadows (talk ·contribs) this is pretty transparent stuff, but I'm wondering whether any less blatant examples have crept in. Anyone who wants to take a look is welcome.Just zisGuy you know?06:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

TheBoss Hoss article was nominated for deletion and then deleted. The userTirdun created it again.

Please delete it per theAfD discussion. --Stellis07:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Done, and on my watch list. --ajn (talk)07:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Mine as well. --mboverload@10:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Btw, next time if you see such recreation of content you can simply tag it with {{db-g4}} and no need to post in WP:AN. --WinHunter^(talk)11:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete this article. This article has beenendorsed for non-copyvio recreation. —BozoTheScary22:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

PerWikipedia:Username, is there a "rough consensus" that this is an inappropriate username?Snottygobble12:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As you can see in contribs, only a trolling account to harass an admin. I support. --mboverload@12:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Already indefblocked by Andrew Norman.Syrthiss12:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty clear who this "new" user is. --ajn (talk)12:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

He has now been blocked.FearÉIREANN\^{(caint)12:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)}

Karada does not have an email address enabled, even though all admins, especially those involved in blocking users (as Karada is[5]), should be contactable outside Wikipedia. From what I've seen an RFA is extremely unlikely to succeed if the candidate does not have a valid email address. I have asked Karada twice on his talk page to enable his email or explain why he hasn't, but he hasn't yet responded (he responded to my first query on the 26th June which regarded a blocked user, but did not address the question of his email). I've checked his contributions and he has edited since I asked him last. Can someone please reinforce my request? --Sam Blanning^(talk)13:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to stick my neck on the line and say that I strongly disagree with this "requirement". If s/he has their email turned off, that's their business; not least because replying reveals one's own email address. I can't say I've received a single adminship-related emailever which I got any value out of reading and which couldn't have been discussed here. Furthermore, if it's needed for appealing against a block that can be done on the blocked user's talk page. (I'm expecting a flame or two now, so let me just point outmy emailis enabled, albeit reluctantly). --kingboyk13:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There is alsounblock-en-l.Jude(talk)13:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's nothing wrong with enabling email. When I get an email from someone who I'd prefer not to have my address in possession, I simply reply to that person's talk page. --Deathphoenixʕ13:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree,kingboyk. I think that there are some situations and issues that need to be discussed off the site. Read Wikipedia Review and the similar sites and you see that trolls and banned users love to see us talk about them. Also a quick direct conversation between two users, admins or editors, can be much more effecive than a massive discussion.13:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The user talk pages of blocked users are sometimes protected, e.g. due to abuse of{{unblock}}, and that just leaves email. I'm not familiar with the mailing lists, but I distrust all off-wiki public fora, including mailing lists and IRC, given the Blu Aardvark fiasco et al. The point is that you should be able to contact the same admin that blocked you directly. If revealing your email address bothers you, just get a free one and use that. --Sam Blanning^(talk)14:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I use a gmail address for Wikipedia, which strips my IP from the header, and have set it to only display my username as the sender (not my real name). So, it's no big deal if someone sees my email address. --Aude (talkcontribs)19:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no requirement that an admin have an available email address, nor should there be.User:Zoe|^(talk)02:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
mboverload@ chimes in that he has email, AIM, and IRC "enabled"

I am writing due to inappropriate sock puppeteeruser:Logologist, which was identified as such in June 23 . This user should get punishment because:

1. He used 3 sock puppet accounts.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=60172140&oldid=60171126
2. He used these 3 sock puppet accounts (together with his main one) in voting on very sensitive issue – naming the main article of ruler:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_II_Jagie%C5%82%C5%82o/Archive_5#Sockpuppetry
3. Violate "one person, one vote" principle casting 4 voices:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_II_Jagie%C5%82%C5%82o/Archive_5#request_for_move
4. Wikipedia policy on sock puppetry during the vote is strict:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Voting
5. Due to his united votes as ”oppose” consensus was not reached on article naming , if not these 3 votes the consensus could been reached than.
6. Due to his voting, the weeks spent on talks gone in rubbish.M.K.14:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The sockpuppets were blocked and their votes discounted. The user hasn't edited for three weeks. There is no need for any further "punishment".Haukur14:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe his voices were not discounted[6] (vote ended in June 13, he was identified in June 23). Only blocking sock puppets is an encouragement to other misconducts (not necessary by this user), because there was no outcome to the puppets master. But if you say its ok...M.K.15:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please take the matter toWP:SSP.Iolakana|^T15:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hipcrime is a page that seems to be repeatedly subject to image vandalism. The changes are repeatedly reverted and then the reverts are reverted by the vandal. The reverts usually come from open proxies so a vandalism alert template is useless. The page was semi=protected but an admin removed it a while ago. I'd like to request that the semi-protection be reinstated.Duskglow20:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:198.187.154.33 has been adding a commercial link repeatedly toRomani language and other Romani-related articles. It's a link to a discussion forum for a language course based on a single textbook, and looks like it's meant to drive up sales of the textbook. I've warned him three times with the Spam tags, but he persists.CRCulver01:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Robbyfoxxxx has gotten involved and continues to spam the link.CRCulver01:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This would probably be best suited forWP:AIV.--Andeh03:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I get the deleted articleConservative Underground restored to my user space? Thank you in advance.Crockspot04:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Done - but be careful what you do with it!Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp !^(Whisper...)07:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Noindexed pages