Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive40

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Noticeboard archives

v • d • e
Noticeboard archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68
Incident archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159
3RR archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34
Other links
Talk | Checkuser | ArbCom enforcement | Backlog

Contents

[edit] Talk:Prem Rawat

I'm looking for a volunteer putting Talk:Prem Rawat on his watchlist, enforcing WP:NPA, guiding Wikipedia newbies not to use the talk page for endless discussions of the subject etc. I've tried but I'm not up to the task. No prior involvement with article would be a plus. --Pjacobi 11:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried once, in mid-February, and I burned out like that. It's a terrible place. I'd say no prior involvement is more than a plus, it's a precondition, because once people have tried to do those things you describe, Pjacobi, they're unlikely to go near it ever again. I mean, I tried, and look at me now, sticking straws in my hair, muttering to myself, clutching at the air. Prem Rawat and its talkpage are home to some contributors (I speak euphemistically) who edit only there, who are at Wikipedia for no other purpose than pushing their POV at that article. It's a lot like the notorious Bogdanov Affair in that respect. Frankly, in several cases, I don't think it's that they're newbies (they aren't any more), it's that they're not here to learn. Rather than sending new waves of fresh-faced young admins into these purging fires, it might be time to send the article and its habitual editors straight where The Bogdanov Affair ended up: to messy and acrimonious arbitration. Bishonen | talk 12:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC).
Ah, the Bogdanov affair. Is it a bad thing that I can look back almost fondly on that? --maru (talk) contribs 02:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I found your comments, Bishonen, to be unnecessarily negative. Yes, we have sometimes contributors that come with the only intention to bypass policy and push their POV, engage in uncivil behavior and disrupt talk-page discipline. These come and go after a few weeks. But we also have committed contributors that are civil and do a great deal of research to improve the material in the article. At the end of the day, it is perseverance and patience that wins the game against POV pushing. The article has benefitted from your first intervention and from P. Jacobi's. Efforts have and continue to be made to make the article better, more succint and more compliant. Unnecessary negative comments and comparisons as the ones you made above, only help those that want to sabotage Wikipedia's processes. Your Barnstar to a self-declared POV pusher, commending him for "his efforts to balance the article" after just a cursory look at the article, did not help either, and shows a definitive bias that I am surprised to observe in you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I think I fully deserved Bishone's award for keeping the Prem Rawat article balanced against Jossi's POV pushing. Jossi repeatedly removed all specifics of criticism from the summary. Bishonen's observation of Jossi's behavior then was enough or could have been enough to see that Jossi is not exactly the ideal, neutral contributor to that article. Andries 22:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
This is an outrageous and untruthful statement, Andries. Judge me by my edits, by my behavior and by my contribututions to Wikipedia. I have welcomed each and every editor that came to edit this article, even those that attacked me personally and were banned. I have explained policy to each one of them. I have restored criticism deleted by proponents. I welcomed Bishonen's and Pjacobi's interventions, while you were at work in the detractors' forum colluding on how to push their POV with your help. You are the self-admitted POV pusher, not me. Just read your own words. My opiniopn remains that Bishonen's "award" was a mistake and did not help, on the contrary. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I do admit that you try to be fair even on that article, but it will be clear that I do not think you are fair and reasonable. Andries 22:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I openly admitted that I was a POV pusher, but I wonder how other editors would feel if e.g. the article African American, Dutch people, or Swedish people stated that they cannot be trusted and do not speak the truth. I am not aware of any other article in Wikipedia that makes such generalizations. Andries 22:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
POV pushing is POV pushing is POV pushing. Two wrongs do not make a right. So, before you accuse anyone of that, just look at your behavior at Satya Sai Baba. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Bishonen, arbitration for violating what policies and guidelines? Yes, the talk page is used by minor contributors for many off-topic discussions, but I do not think that the violations by the main contributors relative to the amount of contributions by them on the article have been frequent and serious enough for arbitration. I almost wished they were, because then the endless disagreements, reverts and discussing could possibly lead into constructive directions. Now the proportion of non-constructive edits and discussion remains too high and this is not likely going to change. Andries 13:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It can change, if we all help with it. Join me and other experienced editors in reigning some kind of basic talk-page discipline. We can do it, if we apply ourselves to it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help vs. Harrassment!

I made one ill-considered edit (I thought it was legit), and now I am being attacked from all sides, with ordinary users placing vandalism warnings and sock puppet notices on my personal page in retaliation. I haven't vandalized anything and I'm not a sock puppet. Full story is here. Help! -- Gomi-no-sensei 20:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Why was your very first edit to the encylopedia under this username to another user's userpage? --Syrthiss 20:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I saw a red user name when I hit "Recent changes" and asked the person who was showing me Wikipedia why the user's link was red, even though he had made lots of edits. I thought it would be innocuous. -- Gomi-no-sensei 20:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, looking at your contributions I don't see anything that looks naughty. I'm going to AGF and propose to IronDuke that he leave you alone, and you should leave him alone. This just looks like it spiraled out of control. --Syrthiss 20:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Deep breath... all right, I'm familiar enough with Wikipedia at this point to see how the above represents a pattern. User A harasses user B (User B being me), user B reacts (in an entirely appropriate way), user A makes a public accusation of harassment (accusing the victim of his own behavior) and editors rush in to "warn" User B to back off. First off: gomi-no-sensei is, I believe, a user who has severely harassed me in the past (and almost been blocked for doing so) and may have multiple sock puppets. But before I get to that - does anyone here believe, for one tenth of a second, that a newbie editor would make his first edit to create someone else's user page? And how would a new user even know that most editors who make lots of edits don't have red usernames unless he was already an editor? Did his mythical "friend" tell him? But that's really the tip of the iceberg. Let's take some of gomi-no-sensei's points one by one.

"I have been the subject of harassment by two Wikipedia users: User:IronDuke and an anonymous editor 69.117.7.84, who may be the same person as IronDuke." I am especially grateful that GNS made this point, as I think it illustrates not only the disingenuousness going on here, but that GNS attempts to smear me with what he is in fact guilty of -- being/using a sockpuppet. The reason that 69.117.7.84 complained on GNS's talk page was that GNS created an unwanted user page for him, too (and that's harassment?). Is GNS implying that, at random, he selected two users for whom to create an unwanted userpage, and that those two users happen to be the same person? What do you suppose the chances of that are? At any rate, I'd be interested to see GNS press that case formally, if he truly believes it.

Moving on: my first edit to GNS's talk page was simply this: "Who are you?" I think this was a perfectly reasonable, neutral thing to ask in response to someone messing with my userpage, neither rude nor polite. I was genuinely curious, thinking it might be a bot, or someone had just made an innocent mistake. I didn't want to bite someone's head off without getting a response. The response I got was having my message simply deleted. Later, when I restored the message, and added another, it was also deleted. Finally, GNS abused the speedy delete function to entirely erase my comments (and bragged about it), when he could have at least (improperly) archived them. Also, just as a for instance, GNS did not "restore" a deleted user page. Mine was never in existence up until his edit.

I've been advised to "move on" and I think that's good advice and would love to. However, I am being harassed/stalked by someone via their sockpuppet (or maybe meatpuppet, but I'm pretty sure sock). I think I'm not out of line in asking for a checkuser run with GNS and several other users who may be socks/puppeteers of GNS.

There is, finally, a tendency here at WP, when two editors are having a dispute, to essentially tell both of them, "Okay kids, play nice, I don't care who hit who first." That's totally understandable and generally sensible, but it's a really bad idea here: this user, I believe, has been stalking me in a really unpleasant and threatening manner. I may be wrong, but it absolutely has to be investigated, and if I am indeed wrong, I will abjectly and grovellingly apologize to all concerned. This is why I began the sockpuppet investigation, to get the ball rolling. I believe that it has been closed prematurely and improperly. I have more evidence, and was not consulted in any way prior to its closing. Please know, I'm not denigrating any admins or casting aspersions. I know the idea here is to try to reduce friction and get on with editing, and believe me, that's what I'd like to do. I didn't seek this out, I was essentially baited by a socktroll (and fell for it), and now am put in the unfortunate position of having to plead my case as a co-aggressor, when an actual investigation of the person tormenting me should be taking place. Please keep an open mind here, I really need this to stop. IronDuke 22:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I recall that Ironduke has been the subject of harassment before. ID, I'm going to continue this discussion with you by e-mail so as to keep it off the website. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I requested a check user and it confirms that User:Gomi-no-sensei and User:Anomicene are operated by the same person, and that someone from that same IP set up User:IronDuck, which was never used, but which appears to have been created to mimic IronDuke. Given that Gomi's first edit was to create a page for IronDuke, and that someone using his IP address created an account mimicking IronDuke, that strongly suggests to me that Gomi may indeed be Gnetwerker, who was previously harassing IronDuke in the form of posting his personal details. However, the check-user evidence on that point is "inconclusive," which I understand means the IP evidence doesn't confirm that Gomi-no-sensei and Anomicene are Gnetwerker, but that it doesn't rule it out either. In the meantime, I've blocked Gomi-no-sensei as an abusive sockpuppet, leaving Anomicene as the main account until further evidence linking them to Gnetwerker is available. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess I have to say something here (actually several somethings):
  • I am not User:Gomi-no-sensei;
  • I am not User:Gnetwerker;
  • I know who both of those users are, and they are not the same people
  • I do sometimes work on the same sub-net as Gomi, so I see how User:SlimVirgin got confused; and
  • Gomi is astonishingly pissed-off that he has no way of responding to his block -- he can't edit anywhere, or send email to admins, apparently.
All of this is beside the point, I guess. I have no beef with User:IronDuke, and it would appear that the ways of Wikipedia admins are far beyond the ken of us normal folk, especially from a brief perusal of Gomi's talk page. What a mess. -- Anomicene 07:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know exactly what the check-user evidence showed, but it was enough to conclude that you are the same person, and in addition you edit the same articles. If you want to e-mail me or any other admin, as Gomi, there is nothing to stop that account from doing so. In addition to the sockpuppetry, the same person set up what looked like an attack account, IronDuck. We've had enough of whatever these shenanigans are. The bottom line is that the person behind these accounts needs to stay away from IronDuke. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I certainly don't want to pick a fight with you, but I think you are confusing IP addresses with people. Does the phrase "Network Address Translation (NAT)" mean anything here? But this is not my fight, so I'll leave it be. -- Anomicene 08:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The CheckUser evidence confirms that Gomi-no-sensei is a sockpuppet of Anomicene, as was the attack account IronDuck. I suppose Gomi-no-sensei could be Anomicene's identical twin who happens to live with him, but Occam's razor teaches that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. Jayjg (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could someone have a serious talk with this editor?

Sorry to bring this here, but I don't know where else it might be more appropriate to mention this. Could someone have a word with User:Kuban kazak, please? Maybe that could help de-escalating a nasty situation without my having to file an RfC. The issue are gross violations of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and the "no threats" policy (what was that shortcut, again?). I don't think things like "you will regret this", calling me a "parasite" or a "nazi" twice, or stating that he "will make my life more miserable" should be tolerated. Banding together with other editors to push a demonstratably false view (on an image copyright tag) also is questionable behavior. Lupo 09:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The root of the problem is the refusal of some (apparently Russian) editors to accept that {{PD-USSR}} is just plain wrong. For the detailed reasoning, see this summary. Note that I didn't invent that reasoning; there are several U.S. experts who say so; and Russian and Ukrainian experts also agree, and I even discussed the issue with Jean-Baptiste Soufron, our very own Wikimedia foundation lawyer specialized on international copyright issues. What I find most annoying is that none of these editors has participated in the discussions about this template during the past months, although they most certainly were aware of the issue.[1] None of them ever brought forward any rational argument why the template should be right; all I ever got were personal attacks. Lupo 09:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: One editor did make an effort to understand the (admittedly confusing) copyright situation of Soviet works, and agreed finally that the tag indeed needed fixing.[2] Thanks, Zscout370! Lupo 09:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Lupo personal attacks is something ths is not nice but that is a mild form considering your abuse of WP:FAITH and for an admin like you that is important. I have started an RfC against you. You used your admin powers to deprecate a tagwithout any mention to the Russian and Ukrainian communities TWICE. First time we were insulted deep enough but now we feel like we have been spat in the face. That is compleate neglect of a whole community of editors, who actually try to IMPROVE wikipedia. --Kuban Cossack 12:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You might want to provide diffs, as Zach has, to support your assertations. Zach has shown diffs of six personal attacks by you on him, and you should probably respond to these before you make your own unsubstantiated assertations. WerdnaTc@bCmLt 17:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is, you cannot find any cases of copyright disputes or court trials on this subject. In the meantime, User:Lupo abused his admin powers by editing a protected page (MediaWiki:Licenses) only because of his own interest. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Editing a protected page as an admin is not forbidden. There is a reason why Admins are given that power. WerdnaTc@bCmLt 17:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Yea... the only thing Lupo has done wrong so far is to not completely allow or follow consensus... I can't say he's right or wrong but the vote and the discussion seems unclear and the action may have been premature. As for the personal attacks by Kuban kazak, he definetely should be blocked. Looking at the block log he seems to not have learned his lesson from before. Therefore, I am giving him a 48 hour block. Sasquatch t|c 19:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Isn't five months of arguing long enough to allow for consensus, especially considering the deafening silence of all those editors who now have stepped forward and who all knew very well (or let's phrase that more carefully: who in some cases knew very well, but in all cases should have known very well) that a discussion was going on? Gimme a break! Lupo 08:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uofakevo's user page

I got a message from Uofakevo stating that he was going to "shoot" on Wikipedia on his user page, namely say that Wikipedia is "whack". I told him as long as no personal attacks were made, then he could say whatever he wanted. I got another message from him today saying he posted his "shoot". I read the complaint on his user page and I feel they are personal attacks towards myself and another user, Feydey. Can someone remove them and warn him of his actions? DGX 20:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

In pertinent part, the "Wikipedia shoot" notes that, ...Wikipedia is run by the biggest gang of geeks to ever walk the face of God's green Earth. Some of the people here (DGX & feydey being the worst offenders) decided to wreck unnecessary havoc and remove a perfectly fine and noteworthy entry and that DGX, feydey, and any of you other tools here: you're on notice. The former, although likely indecorous, isn't, IMHO, a personal attack, inasmuch as the focus is on the (altogether correct) conduct of particular users, rather than on the users themselves; we generally, I think, look with disfavor on user page criticisms of individual editors (here, he could criticize the deletion of his vanity bio without referencing the other editors with whom he clashed), but the former criticisms are not particularly strident or vituperative (similar, in fact, to those many listed on their user pages w/r/to User:Kelly Martin during the Userbox Wars). The latter, though, terms editors as tools, and so is likely a personal attack; even as I have many problems with WP:NPA, I recognize that the policy generally enjoys wide support, so, in view of NPA, I'll remove the offending sentence from Uofakevo's page; I can't imagine that anyone would think further action (e.g., short block) would be appropriate, but surely others may disagree. Joe 20:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
If someone could watch him so he doesn't make anymore personal attacks that would be great. Although I don't particulary liked being called a geek on his user page, it didn't strike my attention as much as the comment that I was a tool (which was removed). Thank you. DGX 20:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I just want to let it be known in advance that I am a proud geek and tool. I haven't looked into this case, but I find having a sense of humor about it really helps when others make themselves look terrible by namecalling or other forms of PA. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: OK, I looked. This newbie doesn't need much help to make himself look terrible so far. No contributions but those related to a clear cut nn-bio vanity page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, nobody looks at my side of the story. Figures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uofakevo (talk • contribs).

If you feel like sharing your side of the story, by all means.. go ahead. DGX 20:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal

Can I appeal to any admins with some spare time to spend it clearing the image dumping categories Category:Images with unknown source and the other categories linked there? While nowhere near as badly backlogged as they used to be, there's still upwards of a thousand images to be speedied.

Additionally, when you've done that, or if you're not an admin, please consider going on new image patrol for a while every couple of days. While OrphanBot picks out most untagged images, it can't deal with the images that have some copyright tag but no source, or which have a fair use tag and aren't in any articles, or which have a completely irrelevant fair use tag.

And when you're bored of that, would you consider taking a look through a random fair use image category, like Category:Fair use magazine covers and doing random fair use audits? A magazine cover can be fairly used in the article about the magazine, but generally not in an article about the person depicted on the front cover.

Now, back to your regular speedying... if you have any time left, that is... Stifle (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I will conceed that this is a fairly effective method of keeping a reasonabley high deletions per month average.Geni 11:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I got lost somewhere

Someone needs to help this clueless newbie... I tried deleting this page and restoring it, but I think I accidentally restored some previously deleted edits. (I think it went from 28 deleted edits down to only the two I wanted to delete.) Is there someway to fix what I did? I'm so disappointed in myself. Please help! I don't know what I may have restored... :-( --Mark Neelstin (Dark Mark) 04:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What page is it? There should be, let me have a look at it. Snoutwood (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
He meant this page, as in the AN. ~MDD4696 04:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Looks O.K... what's the problem? There's a total of two deleted edits, both should be deleted. Am I missing something? Snoutwood (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh... got it. I'd do it, but MDD46 seems to already have the reins. Snoutwood (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm gonna give it a go. Give me a few minutes. ~MDD4696 04:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes... There are only about 20000 versions though. Argh! I'm so mad at myself. I'm done for awhile. See you soon. --Mark Neelstin (Dark Mark) 04:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't do it, and I'm confused how you could, LV. I kept getting the Wikimedia error message (the one with the dark cyan text in multiple languages)... oh well. Anyone else know what they're doing? ~MDD4696 04:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I just deleted the AN, and it nearly crashed my computer. Try e-mailing Brion and see if he can help. Snoutwood (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What happened was that edits which were deleted have now been restored. I'm going to attempt to find them. Ral315 (talk) 08:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • And Voldemort- don't worry, it seems other users have done this as well. Ral315 (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internet slang

How about a permanent semi-protect for this page? It's subject to a lot of IP's vandalising it by adding extremely obscure abbreviations, that sometimes aren't noticed and removed for months. There were a few that a channel in the US made up (yes, literally, it was on Digg) for a news-report. +Hexagon1 (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have died down for now. If it is happening at a high rate please post on WP:AIV. — xaosflux Talk 11:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
OK. +Hexagon1 (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move Rename

A small MediaWiki proposal [3].Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 06:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Probation of Shultz IV (talk • contribs)

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

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

[edit] User:Almost Famous and copyvio tags

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

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

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

Unless the user provides verifiable proof that they have the right to publish the images and release them under GFDL, the tags have to stay, and the user should be blocked if they continue the behavior. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moe Epsilon's Userspace

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

I'm working on the user pages, but I won't delete the the talk page. Someone else might, but it isn't covered under WP:CSD, so I don't feel comfortable doing it. Prodego talk 23:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I did it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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

You still have quite a few pages under your old username. Delete those too? NoSeptember talk 23:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I undeleted the talk page just under the assumption that it had been deleted by an administrator who didn't know that many disapprove of deleting user talk pages. I tried to cancel my deletion but it was too late. I came here to report it, but see there's already a section. I do believe that user talk pages should not be deleted, but will leave it to others to decide—it is not my intention to wheel war. Was I incorrect to do this? — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It states in Right to vanish that I can have my talk page deleted, so It's a matter if you feel it's the right thing to do. There's nothing really important in the talk history, so I don't see a reason that it can't be deleted. To NoSeptember: Yes, everything. ;-) Moe ε 23:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes people want thier talk pages to be deleted to hide evidence of warnings etc. In that sort of case then clearly we should not delete thier talk page in case they return and cause more trouble. This doesn't appear to be the cae here (unless I missed something). If Moe Epsilon wishes to dissapear then we should grant that wish. I too will not will war, but urge other admins to delete the talk page unless there is good reason not to. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
This would be a lot of pages to delete. Prodego talk 23:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but all of these should be deelted too. (SWD316 is my old username). Moe ε 23:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Actually blanking and protecting seems reasonable enough. Moe is there any particular reason that you must have your talk page deleted? I think the idea of a right to vanish comes from meatball wiki. But you can't really vanish since contributions are spread all over the wiki. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Nope, nothing to hide. I figured since I was leaving Wikipedia for good then I would get all my pages deleted. To clarify: I want to have my talk page deleted, but it's ultimatly up to those who have the power to delete/undelete my talk page. If it's restored, I won't hold anything against anyone, it was just my request for it's deletion. Moe ε 00:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Based on this discussion, I will restore the deleted talk page, blank it, and protect it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Babolatace510 and copyvio material at Dansette

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

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

  • FYI, it's back up at Dansettes BigDT 23:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Well darn, you guys do some fast work ;) BigDT 23:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It is back up at Dansette/Temp/Temp/Temp, though. BigDT 23:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual harassment article

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

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

Theresa Knott helped me out after Aine63 made a third reversion. I've just thanked her for that. For reasons that I hope are obvious, I don't want to be the person to block Aine63 but I do note that there is now soon to be a clear 3RR violation by this person and his/her sockpuppets. Not only are the reverts all in a period of a few hours, in each case they delete sources and sourced comment while adding back dubious unsourced material. The user concerned has apparently also filed some kind of request against me somewhere. Metamagician3000 02:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Correction - there have only been three reverts so far. The next one will be a clear breach of 3RR. We'll see what happens. Metamagician3000 02:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
And now a fourth revert. Metamagician3000 04:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Cyde, Kelly Martin and images in signatures.

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

I quote WP:SIG: However, these elements in the signature are discouraged for several reasons:

Discouraged does not mean disallowed or prohibited.

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

This has gone too far and I'm seething.

See: User_talk:Cyde#Excuse_me and User_talk:nathanrdotcom#Images in sigs.

What should have started out as a polite request for me to change my signature has degenerated into incivility and personal attacks. As an admin, Cyde should know better than to engage in such behaviour. Bullying is a violation of WP:CIVIL thus against Wikipedia policy. He is antagonising and provoking a confrontation and I would rather post here than give him what he wants. — nathanrdotcom|talk 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I reproduce here what I wrote on Nathan's talk page:
Nathan, you should remove the images from your signature not because it's "required by policy" but because it's the polite thing to do. Being wilfully impolite, as you are doing, reflects poorly on you as a Wikipedian and will tend to bias people against you. It's your call (for now); I'd strongly suggest that you stop thinking about your "rights" and instead focus on how you can behave in a manner more conducive to maintaining a friendly, productive environment in which to write an encyclopedia.
I'm sorry if Nathan considers this a personal attack. It was intended as friendly advice. In any case, I wilfully submit myself and my conduct in this matter for judgment by my peers. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it was attacking in tone. You could've done so much better. Nathan 05:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any "bullying", personal attacks, or incivility here at all. And no, Cyde should not be blocked. All I see is Nathan being stubborn after he was confronted about his rather—to put it lightly—elaborate signature. This is a supreme overreaction to an exceedingly minor issue.--Sean Black (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

With all due respect, you don't come out of this smelling like a rose either. You attacked repeatedly, there is no excuse for this. Admins are the public face of Wikipedia. You should know better. Nathan 05:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Having reviewed the conversations to which Nathan linked, I must say that I am quite disappointed in Nathan's behavior, and I find neither personal attacks nor uncivil behavior from Kelly Martin nor Cyde Weys. Cyde's first comment to Nathan, as far as I can see, was "Please remove the images in your sig. One is already beyond the bounds of what is expected; three is entirely beyond the bounds of what is expected. See WP:SIG." Nathan responded quite emotionally, implying that even were it policy he would only remove the images is MediaWiki disabled them, and protested perceived blocks and orders. I see no evidence that Cyde or Kelly ever threatened a block, issued an order, or made any other statements besides requests. To me, Nathan's reaction seems quite over the top. If I have missed the incivility or personal attacks, I'd appreciate them being pointed out. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh really? You're disappointed in me, did you? Two admins ganging up on me, throwing around insults, personal attacks and I'm the guilty party? I don't think so. Nathan 05:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if I'm allowed to edit here, since I am not an admin, so if you need to, revert me.
Reply to Knowledge Seeker:
Kelly Martin said, "Being wilfully impolite, as you are doing, reflects poorly on you as a Wikipedian and will tend to bias people against you.". That means that Kelly Martin is calling Nathan "willingfully impolite" or "rude". And Kelly Martin is saying he is not a good wikipedian. So, calling someone rude and a bad wikipedian can be considered a personal attack. Right?. Also, Kelly Martin said, "I'd strongly suggest that you stop thinking about your "rights" and instead focus on how you can behave in a manner more conducive to maintaining a friendly, productive environment in which to write an encyclopedia.". That means that Nathan doesn't have rights, because Kelly Martin quoted them, which is implying that "rights" are a joke. Also, Kelly Martin is saying that Nathan is not friendly or productive. Nathan is very friendy, because he has many friends. Nathan is very productive, because he has over 6100 edits.
Thanks, --GeorgeMoney T·C 03:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
George, you seem to be laboring under at least one misapprehension of the truth: the words you above attribute to Cyde were in fact said by me. I would advise that you retract your comments about Cyde's conduct, given that they are founded in falsehood. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Rights? What rights? You only have two rights on Wikipedia:
  1. To fork.
  2. To leave.

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

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

[edit] Admin harassment block

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

The block has been undone but the conversation on the talk page makes disturbing reading for how an admin should behave. Sophia 10:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thanks Sophia, While I could unblock, I wouldn't, as a matter of principle, since I have raised the issue above. Now Phil Welch has gone ahead and blocked an IP, saying block evasion, an IP from which Aksi_great had contested the block. This is sad because the block on the user itself has been undone by another admin. I request the other admins to view the situation on the talkpages of Aksi_great and Phil Welch and lift the block ASAP. From my limited interaction with Aksi_great, i've found him to be a good user who just completed 2k+ edits. It is very frustrating to be blocked for what is not an offence. Admins should be in a position to take criticism in their stead and maintain civility, not block non-admin users who leave civil messages on the admin's talkpage. --Gurubrahma 10:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict again) In my opinion a totally inappropriate block. I would have removed it myself if it hadn't already been by User:Sundar. I've also give Phil Welch another warning for personal attacks (the ones on his talk page, not the ones here). Petros471 10:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Sending an {{npa}} warning to someone who wrote this is definitely not grounds for a block. Although wheel-warring is discouraged under normal circumstances, on this occasion I congratulate the admin who undid the block. AnnH ♫ 10:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Look, Nathan is a blatant troll, and his posse came to harass me about the blunt manner in which I came to that conclusion and supported Tony's action above. Yes, I should have been more civil about it. But I'll be damned if someone from the troll posse is the one to tell me that. I've accepted Gurubrahma and Petros' recommendations since I actually trust and respect their judgment. People who come to my talk page to stick up for trolls don't get that trust and respect, and I'm sorry it has to be that way. Furthermore—I'm an administrator. I've been here since November 2004. If you're going to come to my talk page to tell me off, have the common decency to do so without a goddamn template. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 10:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
So you regard template warnings as an insult but "mere" users have to accept them as you are an admin - is that it? If you have power and you use it you will be questioned sometimes - deal with it politely and firmly but never rudely as this looks as if you've lost the logic of the argument and are just lashing out. Sophia 11:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I think there's a difference in the amount of respect that should be afforded to people who have been here for almost 2 years vs. brand new account holders. I don't use template warnings myself, and would never use them to warn an established user, although for an anonymous IP or brand new account I might. I don't mind my actions being questioned. I do mind being harassed and condescended to by people with less experience than I have. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 11:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, I love the new sig. Much cleaner, yet still personalized :) — Phil Welch (t) (c) 11:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
You have to learn to live with it. Otherwise we end up in the interesting position where there are a few users who really have been around forever who would be a bit tricky to find someone to critise. Your are a long term admin. Like most you have probably been on the reciving end of every kind of wind up tactic known on the internet. Learn to ignore them. You will be on the reciveing end of plently more.Geni 11:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Since when has being intoxicated been an blockable offence?Geni 12:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I was assuming good faith on that one. THe way he was going off on me, I certainly hoped he wasn't sober at the time. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 12:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the abuse was not enough to justify a block without warning. Phil please consider undoing the block. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
It was a three hour block to give him a cooldown period. If it was 24 hours I would definitely unblock, but a three hour block *is* a warning. Incidentally, I never told anybody to fuck off, and I've taken back calling Nathan a twat. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 13:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
My concern is that you may have been enforcing a cooldown period on him whilst being upset yourself. Who will enforce you to cooldown when tempers get hot? If he needed to cooldown some other admin could have done it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand your concern. But I quite honestly do not believe I would have done differently had the target of his attack been someone else and had my mood been at its best. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 13:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The blocking of Aksi great is completely unwarranted. All Aksi great did was to place one warning template on Phil Welch's talk page & he got blocked for harrasment. In no way does this action constitute as harrasment under Wikipedia:Harassment. Infact Phil Welch has violated WP:NPA several times as shown below;
Here we can see that Phil Welch has violated WP:NPA several times, not to mention abused his powers as admin by blocking Aksi great twice. Also the person you are calling a "clueless newbie", Samir, has infact got over 2300 edits & has been with Wikipedia since July 2005. I suggest that Phil Welch apologize to Nathan, Samir & Aksi great immediately. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 13:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I would prefer not to respond to every delayed reaction on this topic, but in my defense: I never told Samir to fuck off. Not once. Check the diff yourself. I unblocked Aski before you even made that comment. Samir and I have reconciled, as anyone can see by reading my talk page. Finally, I didn't call Nathan a twat, I simply said he was acting like one. There is a distinction, which I've clarified more than once. I do think Aski was acting in a harassing manner towards me for reasons I've already adequately explained. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 14:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] User_talk:Philwelch is an admin?

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

Great, my very own lynch mob. I thought we'd settled this, but apparently you can't let go. Go ahead and file an RfC. In fact, print it out and mail me a copy—I'm running low on toilet paper. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 14:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Your contempt for RfC illustrates the underlying problem.Travb 15:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Considering that I've had to warn Travb about civility and personal attacks before to other users (his response was to blank the warnings), he should put his own fused silica domicile in order before tossing missles composed of crustal material. ;) --Syrthiss 14:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Your right. You warned me about messaging vandals to stop vandalizing and I called them idiots, and I did erase those messages. But aren't we talking about User:Philwelch here, his verbal attacks, his 3RR, his disregard for wikirules? My misbehavior should be punished, I agree. If there is a punishment for my behavior, please do it. All I am asking for is that the rules be applied fairly and equitably, and in this case, the obviously are not. There is one standard for admins, and another standard for everyone else. I have seen so many people get booted for 3RRs, and yet Phil gets off scot free with an weak apology. Travb 15:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
My point was everyone can have a bad day. I didn't keep after you for blanking the warning since I felt you had agreed and would make an effort to improve. The 3rr situation with Phil appears to the outside exactly the same: he agreed you were correct about the 3rr and blocked himself, but since blocks aren't meant to be punitive we can assume he's going to make an effort to avoid that. If he's going to avoid it, there's no reason that he needs to be blocked...and if he happens to go back to the reverted article, then we can deal with that situation at that time. This seems like a lot of energy being expended by editors who could be moving on. Syrthiss 15:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Third Party Opinion

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

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

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

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

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

I feel this is a great example of how a potentially explosive situation was settled very peacefully by a few mutual apologies & reconcilations. I must commend all the parties involved for settling this issue with civility. I feel that I too owe an apology to Phil Welch for posting my comments behind the pace of the ongoing discussions. I had written that section when it was relevant & forgot to hit "save" then later mistakenly posted it. Now let bygones be bygones & as Phil has quoted on the Incidents page "Lets write an encyclopedia". Thanks Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 14:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Russoc4

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

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

[edit] User:204.133.228.253

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

Done. In the future, please take this to WP:AIV. :) RadioKirk talk to me 16:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, and I will. ILovePlankton (T—C—U—L) 16:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Mazankowski page

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

WP:N with 0 Google hits. RadioKirk talk to me 03:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
You can as a user pager! --Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 04:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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

I have done it for you on your user page already! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 05:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It keeps getting deleted because, under WP:N as linked above, the biography does not assert the notability of the subject. One needs either wait until one is notable—and, naturally, best of fortunes—or tell us who you (?) are on your user page, as the user above has done. RadioKirk talk to me 05:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
And please sign your edits with ~~~~ --Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 09:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Guanaco

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

I must respectfully disagree with this block. I was one of the people who saw the potential edit war brewing; Guanaco first placed a comment saying "And practice should reflect consensus, not the demands of bullies." in the talk page of the CSD earlier today. Doc glasgow noticed this comment and left a message on Guanaco's talk page, explaining that the comment could be "interpreted as a personal attack" and urged Guanaco to withdraw it. Guanaco replied on his user talk page, refusing to withdraw it. Following this, Doc glasgow rolled back the edit by Guanaco and left a message, saying that he had reverted (removed) Guanaco's comment "for him". Guanaco then reverted Doc glasgow's rollback and replied on his user talk page, asking Doc glasgow not to delete the comment. At this point, I sensed that I could try and prevent an ugly revert war and calm things down; I left a message for him politely requesting that everyone tone things down. There was no more reverting from this point onward; Guanaco replied to me, saying that "out of respect for your request, I will try being politically correct one more time," a postive response. Doc glasgow also left a message after that. That was at 18:21 UTC; Guanaco had no contributions between then and 19:58, over an hour and a half later, when Tony Sidaway blocked Guanaco for 3 hours and then removed Guanaco's comments from the CSD talk page 10 minutes later. Guanaco only reverted once and had stopped doing so over an hour and a half later; in addition, he had promised, in his reply to me, to tone things down. While I'm not condoning Guanaco's or anyone else's actions, I don't think this block is necessary or proper, given that Guanaco had only reverted once, was actively engaged in discussion, had promised to tone things down, and had not edited for over an hour and a half before his block.
I hope I've outlined the whole situation correctly above; Tony Sidaway, I urge you to reconsider this block. Comments from other people would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
(IANAA) I think Flcelloguy's summary accurately and fairly represents the situation, and I concur in his conclusion that Tony would do well to reconsider the block. Joe 21:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
It may be worth adding that in his response to Flcelloguy, "out of respect for your request..." which Flcellogu describes as a 'a postive response', Guanaco actually unrepentently repeats the very agressive words to which I had initially objected. Rather than debate the issues he snidely and unhelpfully refers again to 'some people' as 'bullies' - and their ideas as 'bullshit'[13]. Repeating the incivility is hardly 'trying to be politically correct' - he is are still attacking people without havin the courage to name them. --Doc ask? 22:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
True; I'm not condoning Guanaco's actions here. I personally feel that he was incivil as well. But I'm disagreeing with the block because Guanaco had only reverted once when his comment containing a borderline (i.e. not clear-cut) personal attack was removed, and had not edited in over an hour and a half prior to his block. Blocks aren't supposed to be punitive, and I don't see a justification when the editor had stopped reverting after he had reverted only once and wasn't even editing. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

I am definitely not condoning Guanaco's actions here; I urged him to not use such terms as well. There is no excuse for personal attacks of any kind. However, a block when he had neither reverted nor edited for over an hour and a half, had only reverted what he perceived as the removal of his valid comment once, and had not reverted since being asked not to, was inappropriate in my view, especially since the comment was not a clear-cut personal attack (i.e. "so and so is a bully or idiot!" versus "And practice should reflect consensus, not the demands of bullies," which while is still incivil, is not as egregious as an outright insult or personal attack). Blocks are not supposed to be punitive. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The "personal insult" was at best/worst indirect and to me at least came across as a criticism of behavior - it is not a personal attack, after all to characterize behavior as bullying, if such a charge can be substantiated. Sidaway, on the other hand, blocked without getting familiar with the specifics, including efforts to mediate and reciprocal efforts to calm down. Unless he actually intended it as a punitive measure, the block was unfounded. --Leifern 02:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] IP Vandalism

Hello WP:AN, I'd like to report User talk:217.33.207.195. As some of you may be aware, this is an IP adress (some school, or group of schools it seems) with many users; including vandals. Has anyone thought about contacting whomever owns and runs this IP adress, and informing them that one of the students is vandalising this site. I'd've thought that a little "scare" from the owners or someone of authority (A headteacher or whatever) should help to sort out the behaviour of any scoundrels (as it did for another ex-Wikipedia-vandal who shares an IP Adress with many others *cough*.) It is a suggestion. --Wonderfool 19:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you want abuse reports :) Petros471 19:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It just so happens this very IP is one of the range being discussed right now at Wikipedia:Abuse reports#Internet for Learning--woggly 11:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A strange log?

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

Hmm, looks like maybe a vulnerablility in the MediaWiki software? --Syrthiss 19:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
[15]. It appears to be when an account is created when you're logged in. Will (E@) T 19:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh I see. Wacky. --Syrthiss 20:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
See? It's something really really weird. I've never seen it before. I'm logged in, but I don't get that. Any other ideas? --HappyCamper 20:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
It worked for me: [16]. And I got promptly blocked! Curps, you are awesome. My first block! Oh, I should also note here that I unblocked myself. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Errm, why did Curps block you and not your sock? Anyway, is there some way of harnessing this feature for serious sockpuppet detection? Petros471 20:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
That would only work if they were logged in when they created the sock. ILovePlankton (T—C—U—L) 20:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, now I understand...I had to read this at least 15 times before I understood this. Basically, if you create a new account while you're logged in, you'll get those entries in the log. Ah! That makes sense now...I had no idea the software kept track of this. --HappyCamper 21:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I had seen it for a little bit, but was a little confused. But there I went and made Lord Voldebot [17]. :-) --Mark Neelstin (Dark Mark) 21:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
[18] I have also created many accounts while logged on. --GeorgeMoney T·C 00:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a good way to make sure that doppleganger accounts are easily intentifable as such and not imposter accounts. Could someone who understands this add instructions and give a brief explanation at WP:DOPP. Thryduulf 07:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Cyde again.

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

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

When are some admins around here going to realise that WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL apply to them as well? You can't break policy just because you feel like it.

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

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

I don't know why you felt it was necessary to post these attack messages on my user talk page today (and attack messages they were, you were accusing me of all manner of things). There was no need for it. You had already said that you felt I was bullying you, and guess what? I was leaving you alone. But for whatever reason you felt like you had to start it up again by posting more of the same personal attacks thinly veiled under allusions to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Frankly I'm starting to think you're looking for a fight. --Cyde Weys 02:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] CAT:CSD

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

It's been pretty much taken care of. Snoutwood (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Back up to over 100 now. --Rory096 07:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for block review of Lulu of the Lotus Eaters

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

[edit] Apparent impersonator blocked

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

[edit] 24.12.158.51 continues vandalism

User 24.12.158.51 seriously needs to be blocked from further editing. He has previously been blocked under his sockpuppet User:Atticus765, and multiple other sock puppets. He continues to delete information from various band articles (including No Doubt, The All-American Rejects, The Used, Weezer, and many more), as well as musical genre articles (Classic rock, Emo (music), List of pop punk bands, etc.), and replaces it with his unfactual perceptions of what genres said artists fall in. He was warned multiple times by multiple users on all of this user talkpages. My last attempt to list him on WP:AIV fell on deaf ears as he was said to "have stopped". His contributions history proves the contrary. --HarryCane 09:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now blocked 24.12.158.51 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) for a week for block evasion (it looks static, so might be appropriate to extent if he returns to using it). I've also placed an indefinite block on Atticus765 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) for repeated block evasion and showing no sign of changing editing habits decide numerous warnings and previous blocks. If people think that this indefinite block is too harsh, I won’t object to it being shortened, so I’m posting this here for review. Petros471 10:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to ban User:KDRGibby under the terms of his General Probation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • I haven't yet reviewed his recent "contributions" in detail (hadn't realized he was back until informed by Tony), but if this sample is anything to go by, he's back to exactly the same stuff that had him on probation, and then blocked for a month, last time. If we're serious about enforcement of such rulings, he must merit at least a longer block this time, and I'd find it hard to argue against a permanent ban. Alai 14:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's what I said in February: It's pretty much a waste of time to put him on any sort of parole -- he knows full well he's under close scrutiny, and continues the same nasty ways. If the max period is one year after five blocks, ok, but it's a foregone conclusion the more drastic remedy will be applied; he's been given plenty of chances. I don't see any change for the better and don't expect any. If there was some chance a one year ban would have some useful effect, I'd recommend that; maybe that would give him time to mature a bit. But I'd back a full ban as well. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support year long ban, failing that permban. - FrancisTyers 15:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Scanning his list of contributions reveals that he is loath to add proper edit summaries; those he does bother to add are often insulting and bad-tempered. A quick sampling of edits reveals that the content of his comments to other editors are often off the same calibre. If this is the behaviour of someone currently on parole, then he needs to be taught a stronger lesson. Endorse ban. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse. —Ruud 18:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support - He will make for an excellent indefinitely banned user. --Cyde Weys 23:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse indef block, as I was the one who talked about it in IRC. KDRGibby had quite a few chances to redeem himself including a prior one month log ban, but as soon as that ban ended, KDRGibby started edit warning and severe personal attacks in his talk page again. Gibby doesn't look willing to learn and already lost most of the communitty paintence. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Error on frontpage

Can someone please fix an error on the frontpage? See Template_talk:In_the_news#Error_on_Hirsi_Ali. Gerrit CUTEDH 20:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Has been fixed by another administrator already. For future reference you may report errors on the main page to WP:ERRORS. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Losing my patience

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

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

[edit] User:Stillstudying

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

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

[edit] Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism - LIST BACKING UP

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

Once again as above - list growing - Glen TC (Stollery) 09:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me, or are CAT:CSD and WP:AIV getting backlogged more and more recently? --Rory096 07:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bug?

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

I tried purging the image (the trick which usually fixes these thumbnail problems), but it didn't solve the issue. You should ask on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), where there's a greater chance someone who knows how to fix it will read about the issue. --cesarb 18:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
In fact, it's already been reported at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Bad thumbnail. I will copy your message to there. --cesarb 19:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Btw I think the purge procedure ruined the good version of 194px too! Check the article now... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 11:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry to be dense...

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

You can find it on the Ipblocklist (off Special pages, along the left rail of monobook) and click on unblock. I'm not sure that this method is any easier, though... · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 21:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
This tool is linked at the top on Special:ipblocklist. As long as the autoblock is long enough ago to have made it past the toolserver replication lag, it makes finding the autoblock easy given the IP or the admin that made the block. --GraemeL (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't actually rely on the toolserver replication at the moment but periodically "scrapes" the logs, so provided its more than say 10 minutes old it'll probably be there, similary if they get unblocked quickly they never show up there. --pgk(talk) 22:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I have also heard that just unblocking the IP (no need to block it before) is enough to clear the autoblock. I never tried to do it that way; I usually go to the Ipblocklist and unblock from there. --cesarb 22:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
It works. I always do it that way. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images on user page

Could someone kindly explain to Tarikochi that images with a fair use copyright are not allowed on his user page. The only place (some of) the images go is his user page and are orphans if they are not linked to an article. I already extensivly covered that these images are not allowed on his page, but he reverts to the previous version stating it's his page. Someone wanna take this one? DGX 01:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Message left. Prodego talk 01:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! DGX 01:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RuneScape/Archive06
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RuneScape_weaponry
http://kbase.runescape.com/lang/en/aff/runescape/viewarticle.ws?article_id=2420
http://kbase.runescape.com/lang/en/aff/runescape/viewarticle.ws?article_id=2422
http://www.runescape.com/lang/en/aff/runescape/terms/terms.ws
The first two links are from the issues that have emerged that caused the gallery and the good faith in its creation, and the next three are information straight from the company that owns the game RuneScape, Jagex, who mentions the "permission in advance" and the ability to use it as long as it does not go against their rules.
I have read what the free-use policies and the what not to include in user pages and according to one of the Jagex articles, the permission was given in advance. As for the free-use, all those images have a purpose as a reference for usage in the RuneScape articles, for those that have a history in editing in those articles.
TarikochiGalleryCriticize 01:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
See [19] Prodego talk 01:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
That link is talking about the site. This issue involves in-game images. TarikochiGalleryCriticize 02:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Just to clarify, I have not removed the images from the userpage without discussion, in fact so far I haven't removed them at all. Prodego talk 02:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I admit, I was overly hasty and apoligize for removing the images speedily from his user page even though I warned him 3 times about it. But to clarify, I still don't agree that there is any room for compromise concerning the usage of it on his user page. DGX 02:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon AfD nominations

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

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

[edit] User 203.134.138.150 blocked...

203.134.138.150 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) was blocked by me for 6 months. If it had been a registered account, I'd have given it an indef...but since it could be reassigned sometime I'd rather it have some time limit. Only contributions were today and consisted of placing afd tags on several articles (ie Xbox 360, which would be WP:SNOW in any case) after freaking out related to an AFD. Syrthiss 13:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My contributions to Wikipedia talk:Fair use continue to be deleted

Hello, I started messaging users on their talk page about the copyright abuse of some admins. I was told to stop, and threatened that I would booted, and to add my comments to Wikipedia talk:Fair use. I stopped immediatly, and added my comments to Wikipedia talk:Fair use. Now users are reverting my edits and removing my material. I know this is like asking help from the fox who guards the hen house, but I have done everything that the admins asked. Please allow my comments to be heard on wikipedia Wikipedia talk:Fair use, regardless of how unpopular they are to some of the administration.Travb 15:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Posting a full copy of a manifesto to a discussion page isn't appropriate, particularly when it includes a number of attacks on other editors. I note that your post was allowed to remain after you trimmed it and toned it down. I think Travb's statement on User:Travb/Misguided and heavy handed tactics of some admins regarding copyright says it all:
PLEASE NOTE: This is not a forum for Wikipedians to cite the reasons why what the admins are doing is correct, these opinions can be expressed elsewhere. This is a forum for like-minded wikipedians to organize effective resistance against untrained wikipedians who have no understanding of the law, but impose draconian and counterproductive measures on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in organizing resistance movements. While you're more than welcome to discuss policy changes in your userspace, please remember that WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:POINT all still apply there. Persistent deliberate violation of the copyright policies on Wikipedia will be met with sanctions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost. User pages that do not get in the way of us being an encyclopedia are not a problem. Jimbo and all his key top functionaries have agreed that pictures with a copyright such that Wikipedia's only right to copy them lies in the fair use doctrine should not and will not be allowed on any nonarticle page. It is a done deal. The decision has been made. Pick another battle. On the issue of Wikipedia being censored by the Wikipedia police check out User:Markaci/Nudity. Fair use at Wikipedia means two very different things. One thing it means is Fair use which is a legal doctrine. A second very different thing it means at Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Fair use which is Wikipedia's guideline for use of materials with a copyright such that Wikipedia's right to copy is covered by the Fair Use doctrine. Wikipedia:Fair use is both more restrictive and more clear cut than Fair use. It is common for organizations to create such useage guidelines because the actual law is changing, subjective, and a matter of balancing conflicting goals. Each organization makes judgements about what it will and won't spend money on in a courtroom. Wikipedia does not wish to waste contributor money on legal fights about Fair use images in user space. WAS 4.250 16:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

We should paste the above somewhere prominent. Jkelly 16:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I second that.--Alabamaboy 16:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creation-evolution controversy

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

FYI, someone posted an unprotect request on this article and I unprotected it earlier today. It appears, judging from the talk page, that pretty much everyone but Ems agrees on compromise language. I don't think the article needs to be protected over one person's disagreement. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 16:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Kate seems properly to adjudge the situation, IMHO; protection seems unnecessary. Joe 17:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have sourced Judaism beliefs to be different to what the article claims even in the apparently "consensused" form. Currently most Jews are busy because of Lag B'omer. The unprotection request was a very sneaky one because they should know that we are away it was even published on the Main Page. Please revert and protect it. I don't not want to break WP:3RR. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 16:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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

If enough other people disagree with you that you are in danger of violating the 3RR, perhaps you should accept that your viewpoint may be in the minority. If you are still dissatisfied, use dispute resolution. An article cannot be protected because one out of many editors working on an article disagrees. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 17:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I was the one who originally protected the article. I have to agree with ems that the timing of the unprotection request is "curious", although I'd be remiss to not also note that ems has been curiously quiet on the article's talk page until today. Having read the discussion on the talk page, my impression is that ems makes some good points but doesn't express them very clearly, nor in a tone generally conducive to dialog, which is unfortunate. The unprotection is, IMHO, "in order", and somewhat overdue. It's too bad the editors involved didn't work harder to inform themselves about the valid issues ems was trying to raise. This is edging on "more appropriate for the article talk page", so I'll leave it at that. Tomertalk 01:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
As I have commented elsewhere, the idea that Lag B'omer somehow would prevent "most Jews" from commenting is ridiculous. The holiday is a very minor holiday with no form of work prohibition whatsoever. Most people who celebrate the holiday do so by going on a hike for a few hours. Furthermore, the claim that somehow the unprotection was timed for a minor holiday (which frankly most non-Jews and probably many non-Orthodox Jews have never heard of) seems to be an awful example of assuming bad faith. JoshuaZ 17:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked Cathytreks (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) for legal threats

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

I agree with this block. I warned the user shortly before ESKog blocked, so I agree with the block totally. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 18:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Hm. Since she immediately rescinded the threat once informed of the policy, I think she should be unblocked, along with a warning that her repeated posting of the same text on Talk:Abraham Lincoln is disruptive behavior that will be cause for blocking. Obviously, I'm involved in the dispute, so I'd rather someone else do whatever. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
LordDeskana has unblocked, but has promised to keep an eye on him. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Task for a bot

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

Can you link to the CFD discussion for the renaming please? Syrthiss 16:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm User:Talrias redirected it on April 2nd, but looking at the discussion on Category talk:UK Wikipedians it appears there isn't consensus to merge so I'll remove the redirect. Arniep 19:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 May 11

Hi, could someone please close the debate about the rotating crucifix for deletion on that page; I would myself, but I am the nominator. Thanks, Kilo-Lima|(talk) 17:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No action to be taken here. The media has been deleted from en:, but remains at Commons. Jkelly 17:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin candidate experiment with vandalism

A few days ago, 216.164.203.90 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) disrupted several pages in which I was involved. The person was blocked to times for vandalism and incivility [20]. Now he posted this notice under the header Coming Clean at the talk page:

I know a load of administrators must be watching this page, so I am going to tell you all this right here:
The recent antics (Nanook Vandalism etc.) preformed by this anonymous user (216.164.203.90) were preformed on purpose, as a part of an experiment. I am currently writing to you from my place of work, located in Boston, Mass, USA. I have chosen to perform this unorthodox experiment from my workplace, in order to avoid negative votes on my possible upcoming election as an administrator, on the Wikipedia username I use from home. The main purpose of this experiment was to know, first hand, what vandalism “feels like,” from the vandals’ point of view. Let me tell you, “I have learned a lot”
I appreciate how you all quickly reverted vandalism and left welcoming warning messages in the beginning. When I continued to vandalize “Wolf” I appreciated how you all “Assumed Good Faith.” However, Kim van der Linde, at times you forgot to stay “As cool as a cucumber.” I especially admired Radio Kirk’s reaction and cool persistence with the block he initiated. His direct quoting of the complaints of others was a smart move. I also liked how you all continually to welcome me to Wikipedia even though I was annoying the ^&%$ out of you.
So, to recap, the recent problems caused by than account were done on purpose, as an experiment by me, in order to find better ways of combating vandalism with my other Wikipedia account. I thank you all for you response and for now I’m signing out. If anyone else uses the ip to access Wikipedia in the future, please regard them as a new user, as I don’t plan on using my work computer to access Wikipedia in the future. Thank you all and have a great day! 216.164.203.90 20:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, this person is never going to be an admin. I would like to know what other think of this. Kim van der Linde at venus 20:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

But do we have any way of knowing who it is? --Golbez 20:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
CU. --Rory096 20:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Probably not, but we could request a checkuser on this when this is deemed serious enough. Kim van der Linde at venus 20:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Might not work (different IPs editing from work/home as described above). Might work if the geographical area was small enough, but I'm not sure permission would be given to checkuser all admin candidates. Petros471 20:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I would like to know in the first place whehther people think this is ok for a potential admin to do or not. Kim van der Linde at venus 21:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys, dont take this the wrong way. I have never vandalized before and will never again. I just preformed the expirement to find better ways to combat vandalism. Thanks! 216.164.203.90 21:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Except you're clearly not familiar with WP:POINT, and so you will not be an admin in the near future. --Rory096 21:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not here fighting vandalism for people who want to experiment. As someone who wants to become an admin, I think this is very poor judgement and a solid sign why you should not be an admin. Kim van der Linde at venus 21:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In response to the second last post, I am familiar with WP:POINT, thats why I refered to the expirement as "Unorthadox," why I will never be doint it again, and why I used my work computer. 216.164.203.90 21:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

So using a work computer to avoid the (perfectly justified) flood of oppose votes that your RFA would get if we knew who your are is alright?! To quote "I am not here fighting vandalism for people who want to experiment. As someone who wants to become an admin, I think this is very poor judgement and a solid sign why you should not be an admin.". Petros471 21:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I'm Sorry. I am now thinking about resigning my ballot for admin because I fear I may be hurting others outcomes. But on the otherhand, this was nothing too extreme, we all deal with much worse vandalism everyday and I really want to be an admin. 216.164.203.90 21:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one that's not convinced by this? This could just as easily be some vandal familiar with WP:RfA trying to get us all wound up. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 21:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Could be, if so, this IP needs a permanent ban. Kim van der Linde at venus 21:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
It depends on what you call extreme. I can deal with pretty much everything people could call me. User page vandalism, no big deal. Scolding, just assume it is their normal language, and it glids down. 50 e-mails, kill file does the job (if the spam filter has not got it before that)
Why I think this is a big deal is the experimentation and the deliberate covering of the tracks by using the work computer while normally doing stuff from home so that we can not trace it. The reason to be angry is the underlying motivation to experiment, but to be sure it is not jepardizing his admin request. And if it had been just a few things to see how fast it would have been reverted, nuisance and it would probably not have been a big deal. What does not go well is the deliberate personal attacks for an experiment [21]. Or this. Sorry for the msitakes, but I am dyslectic and a non-native speaker, so I make spelling mistakes.
Sure, it could be a vandal who knows the WP:RFA system. In that case, he is a good one, but I did not consider his posts here at this page disruption. Kim van der Linde at venus 23:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion? Tell us who you are, posting as such on your user talk page, then spend the next several months regaining our trust. RadioKirk talk to me 21:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I was just a little naughty just before my request for adminship too. <innocent look>.

Adminship is a golden cage, and this is the dudes' last chance to misbehave, before everyone starts to watch his every move move under a microscope.

Comparable to a bachelors last fling, perhaps? ;-P <ducks> Kim Bruning 21:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC) I too, would like to know this persons' username. (s)he is fairly creative and resourceful, and probably deserves adminship more than most.

I do not think you have called someone a FUCKER when you did that? That maybe makes it somewhat different. Anyway, I just ran trough the current admin candidates, seems there are not that many potemtial names to link to this IP. Kim van der Linde at venus 21:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kim! (I don't get to say that often. ;-) ) Hmmm, I agree, that wasn't very nice. Kim Bruning 21:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kim! Me neither :-) Kim van der Linde at venus 21:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I know what I’ll do. Instead of putting my admin ballot in right now I wait a few weeks so current candidates aren’t affected. However, I’m not going to reveal my true identity in fear of a permeate "Black Mark." 216.164.203.90 21:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case you are not following WP:FAITH or being accountable for your actions. Paul Cyr 21:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

KimvdLinde, I'm really sorry for the rude comments! I hope we can get along better! 216.164.203.90 21:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Given 216.*'s previous lies about the child etc. I'm not even sure we should believe the claim that this vandal is a current admin candidate. It may just be a vandal finding a new way to stir up trouble. JoshuaZ 21:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
That's what I said before... and I agree with it. I think it is just someone trying to wind us up. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 21:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Could be! Kim Bruning 21:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The lies about the "kid" were part of the expiriment. As soon as the expirement ended (when I was unblocked for the second time) the lies, bad talk, and vandalism stopped. I'm not trying to stir up trouble. Please dont let this affect the current canidated elections. I hope we can use what I learned to find better ways to combat vandalism. 216.164.203.90 21:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe a word you're saying. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 21:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to relate a story (an analogy, I guess) I first heard some time ago and has been used several times. Let's say that a certain city has cracked down on litter; policemen, code enforcement, and volunteers diligently clean up trash and remove litter from the streets and parks of the town. In due time, due to the hard work of these people, the city is sparkling clean. In amazement, you come to the town to observe. Would you willingly dump a bag of trash to see if the city cleans it up? No. In the same fashion, vandalizing Wikipedia to see if the process works is also inappropriate. The fact is that vandalism, no matter what the intent, harms the integrity of the encyclopedia and the integrity of the entire project. Back to our analogy: if you wished to study how quickly the trash was picked up, you would carefully observe existing trash and also look at past data. You wouldn't dump more trash. Similarly, if you wish to observe vandalism and how it is reverted, look at current vandalism instead of creating more. Vandalism is, quite simply, inappropriate. Also, a reminder to assume good faith to the greatest extent to all people, even our friend who started this thread. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

LordDeskana, I understand if you don't, Im just asking you to. 216.164.203.90 21:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to be WP:BOLD since WP:AGF is not suicide pact and this anon had exhausted any good faith assumption that it deserved. Pursuant to the lack of useful edits from this IP address,I'm am going to give it a 1 week block for disruption, if the user wants to be unblocked he can email me from his supposed normal account. I would be highly surprised if this were an actual admin candidate given among other elements a complete lack of edit summaries. JoshuaZ 21:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Don't feed this user as if they were a troll; block them as if they were a vandal. Wikipedia would be better off if we don't feed these sociopathic trolls with a WP:POINT agenda. If they don't have respect for wikipedia, we don't have any respect for them. I'd bet anyone here forty dollars and a round-trip ticket to Vegas that 216.164.203.90 is enjoying every critical response they get out of us. Wikipedia is not a place to treat one another as lab mice in a behavioral experiment.--The ikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve) 22:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no reason, at the moment, to believe that this is anything more than a troll wasting our time. Mackensen (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It may be a troll or vandal trying to (as Deskana put it) wind us up. But I have a few questions; firstly, why do you need to know what vandalism feels like? In some cases, yes, you need to know your enemy, but not here. The most interaction you'll get with a vandal is blocking them. Also, its not like vandalising will give you a better understanding of vandalism, as you're not vandalising for the sake of it, but to see what happens. Which messes up your (alleged) experiment. Lastly, what have you found out about vandalism? I mean, what have you discovered that isn't covered in WP:VAND? Mopper Speak! 22:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The user has been blocked for a week, so he can not respond here at the moment. Kim van der Linde at venus 22:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, maybe it's because I'm new at this admin business, but I see an utterly astounding lack of WP:AGF here. I'm hardly saying this user should be completely forgiven—I, for one, intend to keep a very short leash—but the throw-out-the-user-with-the-bathwater attitude is disheartenening. Sure, it's all too possible this person is a troll wasting our time; it's also quite possible that this person genuinely made an astoundingly stupid mistake (which even the most intelligent person can do). I still believe the user should come clean, accept the fact that several admins will be watching, and—if indeed that is this user's intention—spend the next several months regaining our trust. There is no incentive to do that given the comments I'm reading here... RadioKirk talk to me 22:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There can be no good faith here. This guy is an openly admitted vandal who wasted the time of Wikipedians for a personal conceit. It's highly likely that he'll be spotted if ever he appears as an admin candidate (there are methods). --Tony Sidaway 23:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

But what harm does assuming good faith to the greatest extent do? If a user has a story, has ceased vandalism, and is not disrupting Wikipedia (I wouldn't call this thread a disruption at all), we should respect him and assume good faith. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
How can we assume that he has ceased vandalism, or that one word that he writes is true? He even refuses to divulge his username, which would at least have created the possibility that his experiment, if it was such, could be seen in the context of an otherwise productive history of cooperative editing. --Tony Sidaway 23:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
That's not an assumption, that's a fact: the user ceased vandalism after a certain period of time, corroborating his story here, and unless he resumes vandalism, I will assume good faith that he is keeping his word. (Well, now that the IP is blocked, there's really not much choice, anyways.) I'm not saying that we should either believe his story or pay him any attention, but to extend good faith as much as possible. Good faith doesn't mean condoning his actions, it doesn't mean agreeing with his actions, and it certainly doesn't mean that you (or anyone else) have to pay him any attention. Remember our duty as Wikipedians is to respect everyone and assume good faith toward everyone as well. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
"There can be no good faith here." I disagree with that assessment with all the force of my existence—there is not nearly the history of bad faith that would allow me even to consider that possibility in this case. That could still happen someday; it has not yet. RadioKirk talk to me 23:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Go and find a new project,then. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not indulge in emotional campaigning. He's a self-admitted vandal. And could you do something about that wretchedly huge and silly signature? You entire comment is about 270 characters, including the quotation. Your signature is more than 370 characters, not including the timestamp. --Tony Sidaway 23:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're certainly right about one thing: I'm wasting my time with you... RadioKirk talk to me 23:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
There's a difference between "emotional campaigning" and assuming good faith, Tony. There's also the responsibility and duty of us - as Wikipedians, as authors and keepers of the encyclopedia - to treat everyone with the utmost civility, respect, and good faith. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Flcelloguy and Radio Kirk are, IMHO, altogether correct here. Joe 03:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Is what he did so bad? He didn't add significantly to the amount of vandalism, but he did add significantly to the amount of knowledge we have about our own processes. And from what he's reported, we've acquitted ourselves well. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 00:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move on ...

Guys, let's just move on. Maybe this is a troll, maybe this is slightly more creative vandal than usual, maybe it was a geniune admin-to-be trying out the dark side. Block the IP to mildly reduce future risk and move on. The total amount of stress, vexed feelings, and bad karma displayed in this thread far exceed whatever was generated by the vandalism. If this is a person aiming to be an admin (in my view possible though unlikely), he/she would certainly be silly to "confess" now, and the total disruption he/she has caused is significantly less than that caused by some of our more vocal and nonstandardly-behaving admins. Martinp 00:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem images

Could someone or several someones head over to Category:Universal Century images and check through them? Many of the images there are used under fairly tenuous fair use claims or permission/noncommercial license, and more are lacking any source, just some link to some website who gave permission for some images, without specifying what images, to be used. Stifle (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decision not to have a fellow admin blocked

Jareth decided to have a fellow admin, User_talk:Philwelch not blocked for a three revert rule which User_talk:Philwelch admitted to. User_talk:Philwelch blocked himself, then after two minutes, unblocked himself. After User_talk:Philwelch incredibly uncivil behavior, he realized that he was guilty of 3RR and to avoid getting booted, he apologized. The bottom line is that User_talk:Philwelch broke the 3RR rule and should be blocked. It is not fair to have different standards for different people, and after what User_talk:Philwelch did to me today, starting a revert war, ignoring my inuse tag, and ignoring my admonishions to please stop, he should be booted for 24 hours, just like everyone else.

Supporting info: [22] [23] Travb 14:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As Jareth says, blocks are preventive, not punitive. Philwelch can be trusted not to continue reverting the article in question. This is a good thing, not something to get upset about. HenryFlower 14:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
What happens when he reverts again, will you personally boot him? He already broke the 3RR rule once.Travb 15:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Phil Welch didn't unblock himself. Jareth unblocked him 5 minutes after Phil blocked himself. --Syrthiss 14:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
My complete block log reiterates Syrthiss's remark. I'd also like to mention that Special:Contributions/Travb shows that Travb's most recent edits have shown an inability to let go of this dispute and an unhealthy obsession with me. Nonetheless, I still hold out hope that I can work constructively with this editor. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 14:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
All I am asking for is that the rules be applied fairly and equitably, and in this case, they obviously are not. There is one standard for admins, and another standard for everyone else. I have seen so many people get booted for 3RRs, and yet Phil gets off scot free with an weak apology. Travb 15:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I was mistaken about Phil unblocking himself, for that I apologize.
Correction: See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Travb&diff=prev&oldid=53310941 User:Philwelch message: (→Apology - change mind) Phil clearly "changed his mind" 6 minutes later. Travb 17:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that Phil initiated this entire episode. He started the revert war, he ignored my inuse tags, he ignored my plea to stop reverting, and he had uncivil behavior. What was the reaction: the admins gave him a free pass. As shown above with other users, this is not the first time Phil has abused his powers as an admin, nor is it his last.
Phil instigated a Personal attack on the intervention board, and yet he is the only one being abusive, he has called me a tempermental child, has said that he would use my RfC as toilet paper, and now he says that I have an "unhealthy obsession". Above he said: "Who the fuck asked you to come to my talk page? I really like being lectured by clueless newbies. Go find yourself a better hobby".
If I said, for example, that his picture is insulting every time I go to his wikipage because he is not very good looking, that he needs to buy accutane, and that he is obviously an immature loser who is obssesed with his insignifgant power, what would happen to me? Would the admins simply let it go if I apologized as User_talk:Philwelch did, and forget the whole thing happened? Well, now we can find out.Travb 15:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
"I was mistaken about Phil unblocking himself, for that I apologize". Then why do you repeat this falsehood (which is now a lie) on your talk page, which in addition to being an attack page is now in willful violation of Wikipedia fair use policies? — Phil Welch (t) (c) 16:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If Phil Welch apologised, there was no need to block. Blocks are never punitive. --Tony Sidaway 18:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful. In that case Tony, when do you think I may be allowed to make good faith edits to pages Slim Virgin also edits? Mccready 16:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Why don't you ask her when she intends to unprotect it, or make your suggestions for improving the page on her talk page? --Tony Sidaway 16:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spambot at work creating "invisible" edits

Take a look at the source of the following (deleted) revisions:

Both of these edits were made by User:1147858215, and add a bunch of spamlinks to Wikipedia. What is new about these attacks is that they hide their spamlinks from view by using the CSS display:none attribute, and are thus completely invisible unless you view the source. In addition, they use whitespace padding to try to push their text off the bottom of the edit window to prevent their edits from being seen.

Finally, they both contain the curious message "[We are delicate. We do not delete your content.]", which can be taken either as an apologia or as a veiled threat.

Questions:

  • can we prevent the use of display:none by spammers?
  • how many other edits like this have gone undetected?

-- The Anome 09:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: some more edits by the spambot:

  • 10:01, May 17, 2006 (hist) (diff) Wilhelm Sulpiz Kurz
  • 10:00, May 17, 2006 (hist) (diff) Walton Prison
  • 09:59, May 17, 2006 (hist) (diff) James Hudson

-- The Anome 09:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: Here's a Google search that finds a few more.

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:wikipedia.org&q=%22we+are+delicate%22

http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glen_Matlock&diff=3299635&oldid=3260989 shows an edit by IP 24.196.252.52 (talk • contribs) on the Polish Wikipedia with the same characterstics.

See also this post to Mediawiki-l. This Google search http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22we+are+delicate%22 also shows that this problem is not limited to a single occurrence on Wikipedia, and appears to be a systematic bot attack on many sites.

-- The Anome 09:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The sites they are spamming would likely be candidates for the m:Spam blacklist if you hadn't already pursued that angle. Besides blocking the users or IP's that are doing this, do you see another solution? Perhaps talk to some of the users that work on vandalism reversion bots, they should be able to flag some of this activity pretty easily. - Taxman 14:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Added Taxman's name, which wasn't posted along with the date for some reason. -- Kjkolb 11:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
According to the mailing list post mentioned above, the Spam blacklist doesn't work for this. HenryFlower 11:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick reminder: Warn before blocks!

I've seen two or so cases coming by recently where people were complaining they weren't appropriately warned before being blocked.

Please remember to always warn clearly, sharply and politely, and only block if behaviour continues. Please ensure that at least one person has indeed issued a clear warning, and that the warned user has had time to respond or react.

(this message posted after talking with User:IZAK)

Kim Bruning 11:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What kind of blocks do you have in mind, Kim? Vandalism? 3RR? Personal attacks? Surely it would depend on the context — for example, whether or not it's a particularly bad offence, whether or not it's a repeat offender, whether or not the person was already aware of the rule (for example, if an editor reports another editor for 3RR in February, and makes seven reverts within two hours in March). For obvious cases of banned users coming back from IPs or as sockpuppets, I don't give warning. For vandalism, I warn IPs, but I don't warn newly-created usernames. When patrolling WP:AIV, I check that the vandalism continued after warnings were issued. I think it really depends on the situation. AnnH ♫ 11:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The two cases I saw pop up recently said for personal attacks, and for having a fairly wonky signature, respectively. Kim Bruning 11:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
There are cases where blocks without warnings are ok. For instance, if someone blanks the FA with the text "Wikipedis is communism", are you going to wait to give them a test series? The person obviously is familiar with vandalism and Wikipedia, and a block on sight is fine. However, if someone blanks a page with "Hey hows it going", even if it's the FA, they should be properly warned. --lightdarkness (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, plenty of times when it might be appropriate to block first and ask questions later, but try to be as conservative with that as possible. It's not much extra trouble to put on extra test-templates (for the REALLY REALLY lazy), or actually talk with people politely for a minute, after all.

People also commented on that at the recent Request For Comments on Tony Sidaway, for instance. Kim Bruning 14:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Nathanrdotcom had had ample warning about his behavior. He responded to the polite requests by asking for one party to be blocked and another warned [24]. The suggestion that he was blocked without warning is a canard. He was, at most, blocked without an explicit warning that he would be blocked. I cannot see what good such a warning would have done, given that he already regarded relatively polite approaches as blockable offence. --Tony Sidaway 14:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh I'm not disputing that. Just that judging from comments, it looks like it's happened in the past that people sometimes got blocked without warning, by other admins perhaps. Kim Bruning 14:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting on any specific case, I'd like to echo what Kim said. Sure, there might be certain exceptional circumstances, but in general we should warn before block- I doubt anyone disagrees with that, right? Also, I very strongly feel that an explanation for the block should be given on the user's talk page. This explanation should contain enough information (use diffs, people) that anyone coming along can see why the block was done, without having to do detective work or have an extended conversation with the blocker. There have been many times where a probably-justified block was given, but without adequate explanation, and it's turned into a big disagreement. There's no reason for this. Justify your blocks. If it's because of a pattern of disruptive behavior, explain this- it's only takes a minute. If you don't have time to explain, you don't have time to block. Friday (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we're seeing some absolutely needless breast-beating here over imagined lapses of good practice. For instance, in the Nathanrdotcom case the blocked party had been given ample notice, and the block was recorded on WP:AN below the section in which Nathanrdotcom and other parties had described the situation. If there were parties who did not understand the circumstances of the block, those parties had only to read the notice on WP:AN, those immediately above it, and corresponding discussions on Nathan's talk page. We should not leap around shouting about "administrator abuse" simply because we haven't taken the trouble to read about the case.--Tony Sidaway 14:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah nonono, maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that case. :-/ It's just a quick reminder to stick to practice for folks. There was this other case where two admins simultaniously reached for the block button without first warning, I gather. ^^;;; Kim Bruning 14:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
As I said, I'm not commenting on the Nathanrdotcom case. It sure does look like there was discussion of that. I wasn't trying to say anyone did anything wrong in some particular case at all- just agreeing with what Kim said as a general practice. Friday (talk)

I sometimes feel highly perturbed to notice that all rules apply to those who are building the Project, and those who are un-building the Project generally get the benefit of doubt. --Bhadani 15:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a rule for that: Ignore All Rules ;-). Of course, there's a vocal minority who oppose it. Kim Bruning 19:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jacrosse

This arbitration case has been closed.

Jacrosse (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) is banned for one year from articles which concern politics, and placed indefinitely on Personal attack parole (may be blocked for up to a week for repeated personal attacks), Probation (can be banned from articles or talk pages he disrupts) and General Probation (can be banned from Wikipedia).

Full details are on the case page at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 14:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enabling rel="nofollow" outside the main namespace

I have posted a proposal for this at Wikipedia talk:Spam#Proposal: Enable rel="nofollow" outside the main namespace. Please comment there. Sorry for the spam (ironic, eh?), but I figured the vandal-fighters here might want to contribute. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-written material under fair use

Someone refresh my memory. Image:SynaMax - Reverb! excerpt.ogg was just uploaded by a person claiming to be the copyright holder, but tagged as {{music sample}}. Do we allow people to upload stuff they made/wrote themselves under fair use (only)? Stifle (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The last bullet under policy #2 on the upload file page reads: "If you upload a file here to which you hold the copyright, you must license it under a free license or release it into the public domain." There's never been any dispute of that policy. So, no. Chick Bowen 15:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/d/m/Wikipedia%7EAdministrators%27_noticeboard_Archive40_6717.html"