Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive137

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Review of User:WordBomb ban. 2 Continual copyrighted uploads by User:Tasos90 3 Lupin recent changes filter 4 Another set of eyes please 5 Franz, Duke of Bavaria 6 69.126.55.132 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) 7 Delete my images..! (Please) 8 {{UAA}} 9 Searching problem 10 Bot generated links 11 ElisaEXPLOSiON 11.1 Blocked as a sockpuppeteer 12 Call for help 13 WP:SSP - a suggestion 14 Incivility and threats by a user 15 Weird IP attack 16 Second opinion at CAT:EP 17 Image:Circumsized11.jpg 18 CAT:CSD 19 User:Fredrick day returns 20 Ron nizamov96 (talk · contribs) and citing forums 21 "Cabal" Policy 22 Ban a biased user 23 Snowball clause in sock-case? 24 WP:IFD 25 AWB 26 User:Electrobe 27 Talk pages for indef users 28 Does this userbox violate WP:SOAPBOX? 29 Topic ban on User:Wikiaddict8962 29.1 Ban on me 30 IP Talk Pages, yet again 31 Views of Lyndon LaRouche 32 AfD listing anomaly 33 Following around 34 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2 35 Help expediting redirect deletion for page move 36 Implementing "approved versions" for Evolution 36.1 Concrete proposal 36.2 Reversion by User:MZMcBride 37 Notice - Please update a protected item 38 Why is Wikipedia degenerating so badly, full of unethical behaviour? 39 Repeated and extensive harassment 40 A procedural question 41 Robert Latimer 42 Template:Unreferenced 43 Notice 44 User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's recent actions 45 User:Fwooper and Kikiyaon 46 User:Yamla is abusing power 47 Bot policy change proposals 48 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories 49 Generation2 50 Mystery category 51 A few fully protected double redirects 52 Re-do AfD close 53 Business Continuity Maturity Model 54 User:Ionas68224 / User:Iambus requesting review of his ban 55 Someone missing a sock? 56 Before I Go 57 Needs the knife 58 Forced to Delete Text 59 Portal:Kentucky/On this day.../April 9 protected? 60 Copying user pages? 61 block log and rename user 62 Community ban proposal on Fredrick day 62.1 Arbitrary section break 1

[edit] Review of User:WordBomb ban.

This discussion started at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland ban discussion/Part 2#User:WordBomb but really needs a wider audience.

WordBomb has said, off-site, that he would like a second chance and is willing to refrain from engaging in the sort of "IP harvesting", etc tactics that he was originally banned for. Is the community willing to give him a second chance? —Random832 (contribs) 21:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion, and would in that case be up for allowing a second chance. Caveat's: I'm less and less involved and paying attention to en.wikipedia, I'm not an olde tyme valued contributor/admin (so my opinion carries negative weight). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What are his stated reasons for wanting to return? My inclination would be to say that if anybody's earned an unreviewable ban, it's been him, but if we really believe this "preventative, not punitive" thing, we should at least take a look at it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Another question: as he ever before promised to refrain from such tactics, been taken up on it, and then betrayed the community's trust? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

to my limited knowledge, he's never so much as hinted that he'd be up for anything other than dancing on the graves of wikipedia's ruling cabal. Other than, or course his day one request of sv on how to properly raise his concerns about the coi of another editor. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• No chance. After what he put on antisocialmedia, plus all the socking, he wants us to let him back so he can continue to pursue his agenda? I am absolutely astounded that anybody in their right mind would even contemplate such a thing. He was banned for good cause, and his actions after he was banned proved beyond doubt that he is precisely the kind of person Wikipedia can do without. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban per Guy. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• As I said previously, I don't care for either party to the furore over Naked Short Selling to be contributing. I also am aware that WordBomb has said offsite that they hold certain information that could embarrass Wikipedia - which is not the sort of potential blackmail I feel the project needs if there were any problem with the editors contributions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC) ps. I agree with Guy as regards to socking - isn't it a shame that not all sockmasters are treated with such severity?
  • He's said a lot of things, and I think people have also said a fair number of things about him. Possibly he should be limited to article space for a long term, and as Random832 said, certainly he'd have to agree to discontinue any attempts to investigate editors' IPs, etc. For that matter, a 6 month or longer limitation to article space might be a fair chance to show his good faith if he likes. It would have to be a bit novel, but if it resolved the conflict it could be worth the effort. Mackan79 (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• While recognizing some potential problems involved, I support an unblock with editing restrictions similar as were applied in the Mantanmoreland arbitration. My first thought is to say he should be allowed to return only under a new account, but I think this raises the question of whether it's worthwhile to try to hide what is happening. On some consideration, I think the better option is probably to acknowledge that old disputes have to be resolved at some point. This wouldn't say that anything he's done has been right or wrong, but would start to treat him in a more normal fashion. One first step could be to unprotect his talk page and ask him to explain whether he's willing to contribute under editing restrictions, but if he is, then I think an unblock would be reasonable. Mackan79 (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• The way WordBomb has been demonized is beyond all reason. While it's questionable whether at this point he has any interest in participating in developing this encyclopedia, rather than simply trying to prove a point of some sort by getting unbanned, it's also unclear what purpose is served in maintaining the punitive ban. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The following is not a rhetorical question, so anyone who has an answer to it should please provide it: what harm could WordBomb do as an unblocked user that he can't do right now? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What, other than biasing content and pursuing his vendetta against SV and others you mean? Or are you suggesting that people who sockpuppet and engage in off-wiki attacks should be allowed back because they can't do much worse here? Guy (Help!) 07:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting nothing (hence my emphasis that it wasn't a rhetorical question); I'm trying to establish some context for my own benefit. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Evidence of reform would be good. A simple desire to come back should not be sufficient. How about letting him try to be productive on another Wikimedia project for a while? It is reasonable to have the length of a ban be related to total extent of disruption, and from what I have heard, that would justify a very long ban. Bans are not punitive but past disruption is our only predictor of future results, if there is no evidence of reform being entered here at all. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• The original block itself was made in bad faith. WordBomb, a new user unfamiliar with the rules, had agreed to abide by rules once they were pointed out to him [1] but, the block was given anyway [2] and then the blocking admin protected his uerspage so he couldn't ask about it [3]. He has promised to obey the rules and the original block was inappropriate. So, unblock. Cla68 (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• This ban has been upheld by the community for a period of months. I find your accusation of bad faith on the part of the admin who blocked here to be quite unwarranted, and uncivil, in fact. Dmcdevit·t 03:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's only recently been understood the extent WordBomb attempted to follow the site's processes, by requesting a mediation, agreeing not to post further, and contacting multiple admins and arbitrators all before doing anything that would have justified a ban. Unfortunately, all of the explanations since then have given an incomplete view of these events. This is largely what I think warrants another look, whether or not we think the initial block itself was justified. Mackan79 (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• (Note, I also find it funny that JzG is using the use of sockpuppets as a reason not to unblock. In case anyone doesn't know, JzG has admitted that he has several socks himself). Cla68 (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Have any of them been used disruptively as defined by WP:SOCK? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not that I know of. Cla68 (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Okay. I'm undecided on whether or not I favour giving WordBomb another chance, but it seems a little silly to suggest that Guy lacks the authority to criticize the use of ban-evading socks. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn ban, there is potential there to have a good editor and should that not be the case there is nothing to stop the ban being reimposed. Viridae^Talk 03:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• No. Even if the message WordBomb was trying to get across was largely right, the extremely disruptive way he conducted himself in doing so suggests that the chance of him becoming a productive member of the community seems pretty much nil. krimpet✽ 03:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Sometimes you've got to be a bit disruptive to accomplish a desirable end in the face of entrenched opposition. Or maybe Rosa Parks should have gone meekly to the back of the bus. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • WordBomb == Rosa Parks has got to be one of the wilder analogies I've ever seen here. o_O Seriously though, some of the tactics he's used have been rather shockingly underhanded (tricking folks into hitting his site-trackers, etc.), and his slew of sockpuppets has caused as much disruption to the project as the sockpuppeteer he was trying to expose. I don't foresee letting him back on the project ending well at all, especially once he runs into his first content dispute. Please, let's just put the chapter of the dueling short-selling warriors behind us, and get back to business. krimpet✽ 08:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      • We may like simply to leave WordBomb blocked and forget about it, but I think the way this dispute has gone on should show why this is misguided. As long as WordBomb is banned, we're making him an enemy of the project. He can still say, correctly, that he was blocked inappropriately by involved editors, and that he's been mistreated ever since. Of course we can respond that he did things since then that justify his block, but since we're doing our own thing rather than engaging with critics, it doesn't seem to work very well. What's the other option? Give him a chance and see if he's actually able to edit. If he's not, then no harm done, and in fact we can block him this time for a legitimate reason. If he does edit productively, then all the better, and Wikipedia has one more contributor and one less critic. It's one of many reasons why a presumption in favor of letting people edit makes sense, particularly in cases where Wikipedia has itself clearly dropped the ball. Mackan79 (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Um, no, I think the original block was perfectly valid actually. Piling straight in with reports against an external opponent? Very clear evidence of an external battle brought to Wikipedia, an unambiguous "no thanks". The chances of WordBomb causing anything other then massive disruption are pretty remote; his actions while blocked reveal a character fundamentally unsuited to any collaborative environment. He'd be fine on Usenet, though. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure how you and Tony continue to talk as if the battle was one sided. You're assuming he couldn't edit productively, but it's an assumption, based on an intense and obvious dislike (not that you'd deny it). I think we all know WordBomb may edit productively, or he may not. My point is that we shouldn't presume, after a year and a half. Or if there are other conditions for returning, we should state them. I think Wikipedia would look better than it does under the current approach. Mackan79 (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• I think the block and ban should be reviewed independently by people who were not in any way involved in the controversy. Perhaps it would be a good idea for Wordbomb to email the Arbitration Committee to request a review. It is rather odd that a user was banned after a single block; however, I do not know the content of the edits that had to be oversighted. Sock puppetry is not uncommon when an inexperienced editor gets blocked. That issue is a red herring in my opinion. The question is, were the oversighted edits so egregious that this editor cannot be allowed to return? Jehochman ^Talk 04:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think the case for continued banning rests less in the content of the oversighted edits - which I believe consisted of attempts to out Wikipedia users editing the affected articles, although I could be mistaken - and more in WordBombs despicable conduct since the ban, which included pseudonymously e-mailing various editors links to dummy websites that he controlled in an effort to mine their IPs. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I see. Perhaps Wordbomb was engaged in a misguided effort to gather evidence to prove that his content opponents were engaged in rampant COI editing, as now appears to have been the case. I think the situation requires a de novo review by impartial arbitrators. Our goal here is to clear the stink, not necessarily to ban or unban somebody. Jehochman ^Talk 04:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• There are users who have been banned for the wrong reasons. This is not one of them. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Per his talk page, User:Rlevse already emailed a request to Arbcom. Leave it to them. Given the amount of socking over the long period of time, and the need to oversight his comments, I'll trust the people who have probably are the most fully informed of the situation. If Arbcom rejects his application, then he can try here again, but we shouldn't encourage forum-shopping. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• You know, quite apart from the off-wiki attacks, if you look at the contributions of the WordBomb account it was obviously registered solely to further an off-wiki agenda. It is asserted above that this could be a good user. I disagree, and I certainly don't see any evidence to support the idea. This is an agenda-driven individual who is unscrupulous in how he pursues his agenda, including trying to blackmail an administrator, and deliberately violating the privacy of editors. I just don't see how any of WordBomb's observed behaviour, in any known venue, indicates someone who would be anything other than trouble. Guy (Help!) 07:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• No way in hell. After all the crap he's pulled, he's a poster-child for indefinite banning. Raul654 (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• I think WordBomb's initial block was unjust. His subsequent behavior violated the standards of the site, but it must be considered in light of the behavior of his rival, who was much more insidiously manipulating our content and decision-making processes. Furthermore, it must be conceded that, had WB not violated our standards in his pursuit of his rival, we would not have corrected the Mantanmoreland problem, at least not until the damage had gone on for significantly longer. We're in a difficult position: WB was right and he went about it the wrong way, but he was never even given a chance to do things the right way; furthermore, had he not taken this wrong course, Wikipedia would be likely be left with the wrong outcome. Let's take the blame collectively: as a project, we massively failed to handle this whole conflict in anything remotely approaching an intelligent or productive manner (until quite recently). Let WordBomb edit if he wants to edit; the logic that Mantanmoreland will unable to cause further disruption due to all the eyes that are watching him works just as well when applied to WordBomb. Everyking (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Actually I think that is the precise opposite of the real situation. WordBomb was so self-evidently abusive, and so obviously pursuing an external agenda in the most vicious and aggressive way possible, that his bringing the dispute here actively impeded any proper investigation of the other accounts. Had WordBomb never arrived, it is more than likely we'd have diagnosed and corrected any problem with other editors, and with massively less drama into the bargain. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• You know, Mantanmoreland's first edit was to Naked short selling, to revert an edit that he mislabeled as "vandalism." Perhaps it's possible to be surprised what someone will do if they're not permanently blocked on their first day editing. Mackan79 (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You mean this revert? The material removed was indeed unsuitable for Wikipedia, if not actual vandalism. "It is difficult to argue with a straight face that there are benefits for the market to be had by defrauding investors" is not suitable for Wikipedia and as that content had been added many times I think it's reasonable to describe it as vandalism. There purpose was to damage Wikipedia by inserting the most slanted propaganda. Mantanmoreland correctly removed it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • Right, and you can read the version of the lead at that time and tell me if it was any better than what the IP added ("However, the extent to which this practice takes place has been widely exaggerated, and allegations of naked short-selling have historically been used as a scapegoat by pump-and-dump scam operators wishing to shift blame for the inevitable decline in manipulated stocks."). The point in any case is that Mantanmoreland said he was reverting vandalism, which it wasn't, and even that is shortly before he brought in two additional accounts to support his actions. If you're going to talk about early agenda pushing in this context, I think it's something you have to acknowledge. Mackan79 (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I notice that you're not really addressing my point that your characterization of Mantanmoreland's first edit was far from accurate, but simply reiterating your claim. Mantanmoreland did not write the words you quote. However it's broadly in line with the SEC's own statements on the matter [4]. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 05:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think you've forgotten what I originally said, which you agreed was correct. If you want to disagree on substance, you'll have to say that Mantanmoreland did not push an agenda in his early days of editing, as for instance when he created the Tomstoner and Lastexit accounts. The question, anyway, is if someone who pushes an agenda in early edits is capable of becoming a reasonable editor, and unless we're playing games I think we all know this is the case. Mackan79 (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Regardless of circumstances of his initial block, WordBomb's later behaviour says it all. No hope for his rebirth. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• No. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 09:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• I'm torn here. I don't think either Mantanmoreland or WorldBomb should be editing. I don't see a relevant difference between the two accounts. But we clearly were unable as a community to reach consensus to show Mantanmoreland the door. I continue to believe that either both should be allowed to edit, or neither should be allowed to edit. I'd rather see neither editing than both. But the community won't go for the neither option, so I'm believing that we should allow both to edit under the same restrictions. GRBerry 14:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  I agree with GRBerry in what he says regarding Mantanmoreland. but I don't think we are likely to get any consensus here. George The Dragon (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• The circumstances around his initial ban are questionable enough that, if we ignored his subsequent behavior, a good case could be made for reviewing his ban. But his behavior since then has positioned him as an antagonist toward Wikipedia and its editors. He has chosen to war against those whom he deems to have done him (or his employer) wrong, turning Wikipedia and related sites into a battleground. A review of WordBomb's ban must take this into account. I don't think his ban should be reversed until he does a few things: publicly commit to taking a collaborative and not adversarial approach to editing here; voluntarily accept the same editing restrictions as those that Arbcom imposed on Mantanmoreland; publicly acknowledge and apologize for his specific actions since his ban that have disrupted Wikipedia; and publicly apologize to individual editors whom he has attacked or whose personal information he has sought to discover by deceptive means. He needs to persuade the community not that the original ban was unjust, but that a ban reversal will not lead to the same bad behavior as before. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Uhhh, no. Some bans are meant to stick, and when one uses socks to cause disruption after their ban, that is a good indication it is that type. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• In principle, forgiveness is a great virtue and bans & blocks are preventative, not punitive. But no case has been made to not expect further disruption of the kind already extensively engaged in. Until such a case is made, I'm unsure how one could justify this. WilyD 16:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• How could that case be made? I find it hard to see how someone would be expected to show their ability to edit productively when they were blocked in less than a day. At the same time, his early agreement to stop posting on the topic, his attempt to pursue mediation, and his efforts to contact other administrators when he felt he was being treated unfairly would suggest that he could be a productive editor if he'd been given the chance. Mackan79 (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no consensus that the original block and ban were at all unreasonable. Far from it. People who come to Wikipedia to defame others are not welcome. He did that and he admitted that doing so was his intent. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Well, I can't imagine anywhere else a non-editor pointing out that someone was editing their own bio would be treated as cause for a permanent ban. These kinds of things concern the public, and should be taken as our responsibility to address. Of course, they also concern real life rivals in prominent disputes that have already been brought on Wikipedia. The problem here was that someone was blocked for raising this, even after agreeing not to, and with several hours passing in between. We're saying he didn't show that he could learn, but in fact he did, and then was blocked anyway. That's the problem. People still don't want to acknowledge this, but at some point I think it would smart just to do so and thereby sever ties with the whole affair. Mackan79 (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • You know the facts. This fellow had come to Wikipedia to make wild claims and defame a journalist. The ban was absolutely spot on. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 05:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• There are a couple of issues raised here which are being conflated. First, WordBomb's claims about Mantanmoreland appear likely to have been correct. Second, many believe, quite reasonably, that Mantanmoreland should have drawn a harsher penalty in the ArbCom case. However, these issues have little bearing on the question of whether WordBomb should be un-banned. The sole criterion for making that decision is whether an unban is likely to help or harm the encyclopedia. I have yet to see an editor come to Wikipedia for the express purpose of importing an external dispute or agenda and turn into a net plus to the encyclopedia, while I've seen countless examples of the damage such editors cause. Our goal here is not to fairly adjudicate an imported dispute involving WordBomb and Mantanmoreland, but to build a useful encyclopedia. I don't see an unblock contributing to that goal. MastCell ^Talk 18:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Interestingly, several in the community decided to ban Mantanmoreland. A single (though there were more) dissenting editor was enough to determine "no consensus, ban overturned, no wheel war". I'd love to see the reaction that applying a similar principle in this case would get. Several comments above have said "the community has decided. consensus. enough.", but apparently not - at least not by the same principles as applied to Mantanmoreland. We wouldn't want differing standards, would we? Achromatic (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps because Mantanmoreland didn't abuse Wikipedia to pursue an external agenda, attack Wikipedia editors in good standing, try to blackmail an administrator, violate the privacy of others and so on. Just guessing here. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, actually he did some of those things. Relata refero (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's simply incorrect to say that "a single dissenting editor" would have been enough to anull the proposed ban of Mantanmoreland. Crucially, moreover, he has made many good edits and worked well with other editors for a period of some years now. If he's some kind of menace to Wikipedia, he's doing a good job of concealing it. WordBomb, on the other hand... --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 07:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think Mantanmoreland should be banned, but I'm not sure WP:OTHERSTUFFISUNBANNED is a good unban rationale for WordBomb. I think at this point I'm against an unban, although I reserve the right to change my mind if WordBomb actually explains why he wants to be unbanned and what useful work he expects to accomplish. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not...never, no way. He can always create another account anyway...anyone can. This is pointy nonsense sponsored yet again by the WR gangsters.--MONGO 05:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If people want to say he can return under another account, that's fine with me. I think we should be more specific, though, and say the new account should not edit any of the articles restricted to Mantanmoreland. If this kind of thing worked out over time (or didn't), then it's also something we could reexamine in the future. Mackan79 (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think GRBerry best expressed my own opinion: either ban both WordBomb and Mantanmoreland, or none. And much as I dislike Wordbombs actions post blocking, let us take into account that A: He was possibly blocked unfairly (so much has been oversighted that it is really impossible to tell). B: he was blocked by an admin who, it has been claimed[5], had "massive COI". Also, I must say this in favour of WordBomb: he is now quite open about his sock-pupettering and other tactics. After reading the massive evidence in the Mantanmorland arb. com. case, I cannot say I feel I quite trust that Matanmorland has showed the same honesty. Regards, Huldra (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's indeed impossible to tell all of what happened, but here's what I've been able to find in terms of WordBomb's perspective of the early events: i.) He was blocked five hours after first agreeing not to post his claim further, and two hours after making the same concession again. No evidence has been presented that he went against this agreement. ii.) The two accounts who warned him before he was blocked were both operated by Mantanmoreland, as WordBomb was aware. iii.) He was blocked by an admin who'd been editing with Mantanmoreland on another article that day, and who said that his claim about Mantanmoreland was incorrect while protecting his talk page. iv.) WB next attempted to email two other admins (one arb) for assistance, telling them about another account he created to learn more about sockpuppetry protocol and presumably to pursue the mediation case he had started. v.) Only because those admins alerted SV and she blocked this new account did any communication with her continue. I agree, as I've said, that it's regrettable he then attempted to discern whether SV was reviewing the evidence that he sent her, but in context, I also don't think it is exactly surprising or supportive of the way some people have viewed his actions. Mackan79 (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

When did WB attempt to "email two other admins (one arb) for assistance"? What evidence do you have that he e-mailed an arb? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WordBomb said on his blog, if not elsewhere, that he emailed Humus sapiens and you, before SV arrived to block his new account IPFrehley.[6] Is this contested? I can't see what IPFrehley posted or didn't since presumably it has been deleted or oversighted, but WB seemed to believe his emails were how SV became aware of the account. Mackan79 (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Another comment on the invalidity of WordBomb's original block. After researching the policies and the COI Noticeboard and other pages, it's very evident that the outing of editors is allowed in order to prove COI. This is what WordBomb was trying to do. If you'll check the COI Noticeboard, both the current page and the archives, you'll see a lot of outing going on. Again, WordBomb's original block was invalid and made in bad faith. Cla68 (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd correct this in that it's been made clear that WordBomb initially inserted something into the article itself saying that Weiss was editing his own bio, which is of course against policy. The question is how far this really goes for a new user, when he then agreed twice not to post further on the subject well before he was blocked. The bad faith in all of it was most clearly Mantanmoreland's, who first used a sockpuppet to warm WordBomb,[7] and then came an hour after WB had already agreed to Mantanmoreland[8] and his sockpuppet[9] not to post further on the matter to request on trumped up claims that WordBomb be indefinitely blocked.[10] I think the interaction with SV at that point suffered from several problems, but clearly these actions from Mantanmoreland were the major issue. That said, I hope others will offer further thoughts on how to resolve this, whether it requires another thread or some other discussion. Mackan79 (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

feh. we like our double standards, and that's really all there is to it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

People can listen to todays NotTheWikipediaWeekly ( the third bit of the sixth NotTheWikipediaWeekly), where "Wordbomb chats about the events surrounding his involvement in the wiki". Regards, Huldra (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment from someone who has been a fly on the wall throughout this whole issue. I'm not going to say which way I'm swaying but I do have an idea that could help. What about some sort of editor rehabilitation program? If an editor has been controversially banned and still wants to edit he/she could, if approved, do some, let's say, menial editing for around 500 edits. The editor could do minor fixes for a while like "wikignome" work and not edit any talk pages, policy pages, or any significant mainspace edits. This would be in line with the good faith culture of wikipedia and would truly gauge if an editor really wants to contribute to building an encylopedia which seems to be the main criterion for what can get an editor off the ban list. MrMurph101 (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continual copyrighted uploads by User:Tasos90

Folks,

I'm not sure if this is the correct place but Tasos90 (talk · contribs) is not listening to talk page messages regarding this issue. As far as I can tell, not seeing the deleted edits, all of his uploads are copyvios and all but the last few have been deleted. He's had a final warning, is still repeating upload of the same image and has not responded to any messages. I think a copyright violation block is warranted here - Peripitus (Talk) 02:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've given the user a final warning. Editor appears to have done nothing in the past 18 hours, so a block isn't warranted at this time but any further uploads of copyrighted images should result in a block.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is this such a bad thing? He's trying to help make things pretty around here and everyone is working to stop him. We should be encouraging new editors, not biting them away. See my discussion below for another admin who has similar bite problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.43.31 (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lupin recent changes filter

Hi. Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but I was wondering if there are any users other than User:Lupin who make changes to Lupin's RC filter. I use it for reverting vandalism and I've noticed a few problems with it. For example, when using the rollback function, if the non-admin rollback isn't enabled, the rollback sometimes doesn't work even if a user has been granted the "admin" rollback (such as I). Also, when using the non admin rollback, the "save changes" button used to automatically be clicked, but currently I have to click it manually in order to save changes to the page. I've added these notices to Lupin's talk page, but he seems to be inactive, so I'd like to know if there's anyone else who can take care of these problems. Thanks.--Urban Rose 20:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Lupin, although returning to edit on rare occasions, does take long breaks from Wikipedia it seems now. I also don't see many people who now use Lupin's tool, having instead turned to things like Huggle and the admin rollback, which can now be granted to anyone, albeit only on request. If you find that Lupin's tool is corrupting, and Lupin is more inactive than active, why not try a new tool? There is now plenty to choose from. Lradrama 08:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Get acquainted with pgkbot and his pals at #cvn-wp-en? It's Lupin's tool on steroids. - KrakatoaKatie 01:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another set of eyes please

Pedro's had his sanity check, and it's best to move along.

I think I need a sanity check, as I'm not sure what I've done but I seem to have upset a couple of users.

• Colonel Warden (talk · contribs)
• Firefly322 (talk · contribs)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ealing Broadway Platform 9

The potted history. Ealing Broadway Platform 9, whilst at WP:AFD was tagged with {{db-author}}. On checking the history, only the author had made edits, with the exception of one reversion and some categorisation. Accordingly I deleted it under WP:CSD#G7 and closed the AFD. [11]. User:Colonel Warden approached me to advise a G7 was inappropriate [12] and I advised him why it had been G7'd [13]. To help out I userfied it, and advised the original author, so they could work on it [14]. Note the AFD consensus at that time was pretty much delete and this seemed a good move. The original author then recreated the article back in the main space [15] and so User:Wangi reopened the AFD [16]. I made a couple of comments as the AFD had been re-opened 1) Apologising to the new editor who created it, and questioning Colonel Wardens Keep logic [17] and 2) Questioning User:Firefly322s notability criteria [18].

Alas, it now goes down hill. User:Firefly322 promptly replied with an edit summary of "administrator abuse" [19]. I asked him to reconsider his suggestions on his talk page and at the AFD. This resulted in more inappropriate edit summaries [20] [21] for which I warned him (non-templated) [22]. Alas this then generated the following thread : User_talk:Colonel_Warden#Question_about_Administrator_Abuse which has now lead, after my statement in that thread that they should proove what "abuse" has taken place to User_talk:Pedro#Carrot_vs_Onion - the external link is basically an allegation of bullying. Now WP:RBI is not appropriate here, certainly not the B part. I need to know where exactly this moved from debate to attacks. I seem to have got two reasonably established editors wound up, over an AFD I have no interest in. Seriously, someone give me some pointers on where I went wrong here as it's a bit deflating, to say the least. Pedro :  Chat  14:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have done nothing 'wrong'. No suggestions other than to say, it's just Wikipedia. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c with Wassup) I'm sure I don't really qualify as neutral in the eyes of your two detractors, but Pedro, for your own info, I've looked through the dustup, and can't find one single thing you did wrong. As (I think) you told me once, not doing anything wrong is no guarantee that people aren't going to get mad at you. Some of the "delete" comments at the AfD were somewhat unkind (as seems to be the nature of Afd, and one reason I seldom go there), but none of them were made by you. --barneca (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A valuable reminder Barneca! thankyou! It's water of the proverbial ducks back, I'd happily just rollback the last edit to my talk, but if I've actually made a mistake I'd sooner know about it for next time. Pedro :  Chat  15:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm more amused than upset by the drama, as I said already. The moral of the little story that I sent you, was supposed to be that "everything's got a place in The Stew!". So, whether we see ourselves as carrots, onions or whatever, we should be relaxed about our differences. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The issues, my friend, is where you see yourself. Not me. Will you apologise for linking to an external site where the first lines are about bullying, with it's non-to-subtle implication?Pedro :  Chat  15:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read the AfD, I've read the talk comments at Pedro, Colonel's talkpages, and Firefly's talk history (things were removed by him, perfectly acceptable). I see no wrongdoing or admin abuse of any kind. I also read the external link of Colonel Warden's differently than you Pedro. I don't believe it was meant as an "allegation of bullying", but more towards what Colonel has said here, a simple allegory. It's akin to the story about the 4 blind men describing an elephant. I'll find a link if you don't know that story. Basic point really is that sometimes we don't see eye to eye. When one of the editors is perceived to be abusive, it doesn't mean he/she is. Colonel told Firefly that. You have not been abusive. You have followed Wiki-guidelines perfectly. Abusive behavior would be more akin to blocking Firefly, which of course you've done nothing of that sort. You are entitled to comment at any AfD. Firefly knows this now. Firefly also knows that you cannot close any AfD that you've commented in. (And I'll recuse myself also for commenting here, as well because of a previous "run-in" with Firefly over an AfD that I did close that he disagreed with). I'm recommending a "let's all move along here" attitude. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Even better than an external link! We actually have an article about the blind men and the elephant...who knew? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I don’t seen any evidence of wrongdoing on Pedro’s part, either. —Travis^talk 15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

okay, sanity check done. Thanks all, particularly Keeper's perspective. Marking resolved. Pedro :  Chat  15:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Let me share some further thoughts on the issue after reading this thread. Pedro may well be within the letter of wikipedia "law". Nevertheless, I believe the majority of reasonable editors would agree that using administator tools on an article and then subsequently joining in that article's AfD can easily create the appearance of something untoward. I can now see that all along I have really been taking issue with the appearance of power of which Pedro and his friends (see Pedro's talk page where a friend states that he should be a beauraucrat) seeminly imbue his role. For the Administator role is supposed to be, according to guidelines, Wikipedia:Administrators#No big deal. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  I would say that "most reasonable editors" would actually disagree with that assertion that Pedro did something inappropriate, either as an editor or as an admin. I, and many admins, regularly contribute to AfDs that have been previously deleted, protected, or otherwise administratively affected. The only guideline for admins in this sense is to not close the debate, Firefly, which Pedro clearly and precisely stated, in more than one place, that he would not do. Time to let it go. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  Certainly Pedro and/or his fans have in fact been cultivating an appearance of power as administator. There's evidence for that. And that seems to go against the guideline: Wikipedia:Administrators#No big deal. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  You're absolutely right, Firefly. Being an admin is no big deal. Misusing admin tools is a big deal though, and accusing an admin wrongfully of misusing them is, traditionally a big deal too. You've mislabelled Pedro. He did nothing wrong, either as an admin or as an editor. Any editor can tag something for speedy deletion. Any admin can delete once tagged if merited. Pedro did. Then he undeleted. Then he contributed to the AfD. No big deal. He has not abused any admin tool, and the fact that you are trying to make a mountain out of this, against good advice from Pedro, myself, and Colonel Warden (on his talkpage), is quite telling. Please let it go. You are the only one trying to make a big deal out of this, and it's quite tiring. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  Outside press coverage says that the rise of the deletionists is threatening the hitherto peaceful growth of the world's most popular information source.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ealing Broadway Platform 9 is an excellent example of deletionist activity. Given the existence of outside press coverage, a deletionist debate like Ealing Broadway Platform 9 is quite objectively a big deal. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Firefly, now you're just deflecting. If you'd like to have a meta-conversation about deletionism/inclusionism, there are much better forums. Try village pump. I'm done with this here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Why? BEcause he's got you beat? Are you another deletionist who needs to be removed? Give me some time and you'll have a complaint here as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.43.31 (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not that this deserves a response, but I'm not a deletionist. I've tried on more than one occasion to help Firefly. Complain away. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Franz, Duke of Bavaria

This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
In Franz, Duke of Bavaria I have taken the time to look into the matter. The fact is that the article person is named "Prinz" but styled "Herzog". I provided a reference/source for that, which user Charles undid with the edit remark: "Noel is acquainted with The Duke; I imagine he knows what is or isn't right. Wikipedia isn't a source, whether it's German or not. German Wikipedia is notorious for incorrect royal titles and names." As far as I know, we rely on sources on Wikipedia and not our trust or distrust in the knowledge of users. However, I am certainly open for help in understanding the rules better. --Law Lord (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Law Lord used another Wikipedia article as a source initially (which itself doesn't substantiate why it chooses "Prinz von Bayern" as The Duke's surname) and then a source from 1971. I quoted an author of books on royalty who had information from The Duke himself that his surname was legally changed in 1997. I find the user's comments on my talk page and here (Exactly what is the problem here with my remarks?) about my edit summaries to be wholly and thoroughly ridiculous. Charles 19:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Well, for instance the fact that you referred to somebody called "Noel", which I have no way of knowing who is. As for your comments, I would not at all call them "wholly and thoroughly ridiculous". Merely offensive and rude. --Law Lord (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Noel McFerran, aka User:Mcferran. You can think they are rude all they want by this is certainly not an AN/I matter. Explain though, if you want, things like de:Charles Mountbatten-Windsor, Prince of Wales and de:Eugenie Mountbatten-Windsor, Princess of York, among others, then tell me German Wikipedia is good as a source for names. Charles 19:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC) My source was a book, which is the source at deWiki. Your source is a post on Usenet. Wonder which is the most reliable. Certainly, if this is your reaction to fellow users telling you that they consider your writings offensive, I foresee no change in your behavior. --Law Lord (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC) <-Either way, a content dispute, not an item of interest to administrators. To Talk:Franz, Duke of Bavaria or other similar venues with both of you (he says, carefully not taking sides). ➨ REDVEЯS knows it's gonna happen someday 19:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC) I was not posting because of the disputed content but because of the incivility of the user. Since he obviously has no intention of being civil, I agree that nothing more can be done. --Law Lord (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC) I don't see any incivility. I just see someone disagreeing with you. And no matter what people here would like to think, disagreeing, even strongly disagreeing, even loudly and clearly strongly disagreeing, is not and can never be incivility. Discuss the issue at hand somewhere more appropriate or stop editing on the subject entirely. Those are the two options. Administrators cannot help you here. ➨ REDVEЯS knows it's gonna happen someday 19:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC) I agree, thank you for closing this. Charles 19:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Hilarious! You'd know for sure if I wasn't being civil ;) Then wasn't one of those times. Charles 19:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC) The user in question thought discussion should be done by offensive revision remarks. Sad really. --Law Lord (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 69.126.55.132 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

This user has been caught inserting false information into article so all of it's contribs should be inspected thoroughly. I've already reported it to WP:AIV and am considering filing an abuse report.--Urban Rose 22:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Only one of its edits can still be rolled back. Enigma ^msg 22:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted all of it's edits that appeared to be false info, but I'm afraid that some of its edits may have appeared legitimate and editors may have edited since them and not reverted them.--Urban Rose 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Gladys j cortez claims that this IP is used by a "date change" vandal that targets Arthur (TV series) and other articles.--Urban Rose 23:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm reasonably certain (just going by the tone of its quacks) that this is yetanother incarnation of my beloved vandal, who goes around changing dates, funding info, numbers and other subtle info. Strikethru b/c I'm a little concerned, now that I've had the chance to run my favorite ip2location tool [23], that this might be a copycat and not the real deal. (For the thinking behind those suspicions, see [24] this; doesn't geolocate to any of my usual suspects, and it's a different ISP. Which is not to say that the vandal in question might not be visiting Auntie Beulah in NYC, or something--it's just different.) So...this may be an instance of two separate ducks with highly similar quacking. Regardless, changing info is Just Not On, and we need to prevent it whenever possible by blocking those who have shown a propensity for it. Gladys J Cortez 00:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delete my images..! (Please)

Hello could someone please delete the following two images as they were uploaded by me when I first began here and should have been uploaded to Commons, or more likely not at all:

• Image:Jeremy and giraffe.JPG
• Image:DSC07339.JPG

Kind regards, ZoofanNZ (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Tagged G7, author requests deletion. Tan | 39 01:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. :) SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 01:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{UAA}}

Just so you all know, I've created a new template, {{UAA}}, along the same line as {{AIV}}. As it's probably not quite comprehensive yet, please feel free to tweak it as needed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thank you! Herostratus (talk) 05:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That's really helpful. This will help immensely in dealing with the many situations on UAA where neither blocking nor ignoring are the right idea. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Searching problem

I don't know where to get this to the attention of a developer, but someone here will surely know how.

When a red link is made, eg. Arbitrary page name, with spaces in it, and it is clicked, the page editing screen comes up. When the search button is clicked, it will search "Arbitrary_page_name" (with underscores) instead of just "Arbitrary page name", which is disruptive to the search results. Give it a try for yourself. -Oreo Priest ^talk 09:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No it searches for Arbitrary page name, with no uderscores, underscores are just there in the URL, as spaces cna't be. What would be great is a search that searches for each word induvidually, rather than the phrase as a whole.--Phoenix-wiki 10:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, actually, it really does search with the underscores. When you remove them from the search box and search again, the mediawiki search results alone are much more useful. When you change the search engine to Google for example, you get NO results until you manually remove the underscores. Seriously, try it yourself. -Oreo Priest ^talk 10:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Comparison links: Underscores / No underscores. If you feel there's a problem here, file a bug report. MER-C 11:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Reported. -Oreo Priest ^talk 12:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot generated links

Tam Dalyell has a number of bot generated links. To my mind the bot should generate {{:cite web}} links rather than http://www links. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ElisaEXPLOSiON

• ElisaEXPLOSiON (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

• Total edits: 1395
• Mainspace: 163 (~10%)
• Talk: 43
• User: 617 (~45%)
• User talk: 548 (~40%)
• Wikipedia: 13

This user seems to have a massive problem with contributing constructive content to the encyclopedia. The last 50 edits to the mainspace for this user date back over a month, yet the user made a total of 600 edits in this period. Most of this users' edits is designing userpages for similar-minded individuals, creating guest books and secret page mazes, and other like behaviour. Such behaviour also includes these kind of comments to administrators.

From the precedent sent with Blow of Light and Gp75motorsports, I propose the following restriction:

ElisaEXPLOSiON is banned from editing the user space of any user, for a period of six months. Furthermore, ElisaEXPLOSiON is cautioned to keep the majority of correspondance on user talk pages directly related to improving encyclopedic content. Users are prohibited from posting material on behalf of this user, where it would breach the aforementioned conditions. These restrictions are enforcable by blocks, starting at 24 hours and proceeding upwards at administrators' discretion. This restriction applies to the person, not the account.

I feel that otherwise this will never be resolved. In my opinion, such a restriction is better for improving the encyclopedia by channeling this users' enthusiasm towards the right places, than the alternatives of letting userspace-only editing continue or blocking this user completely.

Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we have much more important things to worry about. Bstone (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would endorse that restriction. Where this could develop to, we don't know, what else could happen, we don't know, but the outcome of this restriction, we do know. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a personal connection network and with that, in addition to the other precedents, I don't see a reason why not to. Rudget (review) 10:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

To ban from editing userspace is a bit strong but I support at least a partial restriction. --Tone 11:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: One of the reasons my talk page edit is so high (as I have explained on several different occasions) is because several other editors were engaged in an edit war for a lengthy period of time, and I was trying to somewhat mediate. In addition, the example used against me about the comment to User:Orderinchaos was completely justified, as seen by the evidence on his talk page and contribs. I understand that I need to make more edits to the mainspace; I'm sorry, and will try to hold up the Wikipedia standards. But seeing as I have not even had a warning, I believe I should be given a second chance. I also have reason to believe that User:Daniel is issuing a personal attack, based on evidence here. Why would he have even taken notice of me had I not reverted his edit? I may be wrong, it's just that I have never come in contact with this editor before, and all of a sudden he proposes to block me for six months. I understand the situation, as aformentioned, and I will to my best to work on the articles. Cheers, elisa^talk. 12:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

She was one of the main participants in the edit war itself, if that is mediating then OK. She is referring to the genre argument on Flyleaf Talk take a look and you will see she has done everything but mediate. I don't have an opinion about this matter, but she is lying about mediating. I do know she spends the vast majority of her time on Wikipedia using it as a social network. I would post the diffs but it is much easier to just look at her contributions, almost all of her edits are related to socializing. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon. I was involved in that argument, yes, but I do seem to remember User:GlassCobra warning you about the same thing. I was also commended by him for being able to switch my stance and be the bigger man, shown here. And I have been mediating, go to Talk:Flyleaf for evidence. elisa^talk. 16:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that what she is doing is not "mediation", as she is hardly an independant third party. Daniel (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. 6 months is too long. I'm not going to get involved with this unless I have to, but I think the restriction should be more like 1 month, and if the problem still persists then it should escalate. The lack of warnings also justifies a shorter ban at the very least if not a second chance. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I could support one month as well, just because this user seems to fail to recognise what we're here to do and a correction of some form is required. It's also alarming to see this user is continuing the bad faithed accusations. Daniel (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Bad faith is demonstrated here, sir. I don't know if you have something against me or not, but including people who aren't even a part of this argument is unnecessary, to say the least. That user is a newcomer, constituting WP:BITE. That in itself is unacceptable. You accuse me of bad faith? Also, I was indeed part of the edit war, but was also recently commended by an admin, User:GlassCobra for my ability to overcome and try to settle differences, seen here. In addition, Dwrayosrfour, I believe I spent a great deal of time helping you understand Wikipedia, if I'm not mistaken. elisa^talk. 16:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In a general respect, I support this proposal, per the evidence submitted: the privilege of editors to edit their own userspace (and, by extension, that of others) is rather obviously not being used by Elisa appropriately here, and restrictions to prevent further non-constructive contributions are very much in order here. I'm somewhat in the middle ground with regards to the time span of the userspace ban proposed here—whilst I don't think 6 months is overly strict, I would not have any serious qualms with it being cut short. I do, however, think 1 month is rather short: ~30 days goes by quite quickly, and is probably not sufficient for any sort of rehabilitation to take place—rehabilitation which is necessary if disruption is to stop. To that end, I am leaning towards some figure more-or-less in between the two current proposals of 6 and 1 month(s), and thus I'd be happier with 4 months. Consensus on specifics is, however, less important than consensus on the issue (in this case, the proposal) itself. To reiterate that, I support this proposal. Anthøny 16:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly support a 1-month topic ban from userspace. This user contributes little content to either the mainspace or Wikispace. Perhaps if forced to look at these pieces of the project by a topic ban, she'll realize there are more constructive ways to spend her time than playing userspace games with her buddies. This isn't Facebook or Myspace. And if she keeps up with the bad-faith assumptions, I'd support a short block to stop those as well. Bellwether ^B_C 16:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I would like just to make one observation related to Elisa's post on Orderinchaos' talk page. It was made following an incident when a user was canvassing multiple talk pages, and Orderinchaos removed the canvassed notes. If that section of his talk page is viewed, other comments similar to Elisa's can be seen. FusionMix 17:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • For the record (as a hitherto uninvolved user in this) I saw Elisa's response to my action on my talk page as fair comment - I disagreed with it, but it was in good faith, and I did take note of it when a future situation came up and avoided her talk page. Orderinchaos 02:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose and topic bans or such. We have much more important things to be focusing our time on. Bstone (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• If kids are playing around in user space, please do not tell them to go running amok in article space instead. They may not be very competent. Delete the userspace crap if you feel it's excessive, and deal with any behavioral issues that come up, by all means. But trying to force them into article space will only lead to incompetent edits to pages that we actually care about. Please, think of the articles. Friday (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • We're surely better to at least try and coerce this user into mainspace hoping that she will be constructive, and then block if that turns out to be a complete disaster? cf. Blow of Light, it has worked in the past. Daniel (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• We're not supposed to say this, but Friday is very likely correct. Moreschi (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• From what I've seen at Talk:Flyleaf, Elisa is a reasonable editor, who uses talk pages before making edits. I'm not enthused about this ban, I think it would be preferable to use suggest-a-bot to give some ideas about articles she could improve. PhilKnight (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. Sure, we are allowed to have fun, a sense of community always helps; but the massive concentration of edits to the userspace is excessive and detract from the purpose of this website. Wikipedia should not be a social network, its main aim is to provide information, not to have fun. Although it may be enjoyable to talk to your friends and make a nice looking userpage, this does not help Wikipedia in any way whatsoever. I strongly suggest that Elisa focus more of her time doing other stuff (reverting vandalism etc.) and to refrain from editing userspace. If this cannot be achieved, I will support a topic ban. We have high tolerance of users who edit purely on the userpage, but that tolerance is disintegrating. You've been on Wikipedia for 2 or 3 months; that's more than enough time to start contributing. There's two long-term choices in this: you can go and leave, or you can stay and contribute to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not your personal chat room. —Dark ^talk 22:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Did I not just say I was going to start contributing to the mainspace...? elisa^talk. 22:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I will believe it when I see it. —Dark ^talk 22:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I have a request. Instead of you guys blocking her indef, could you let me adopt Elisa? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 00:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

User:ElisaEXPLOSiON has accepted User:RC-0722's adoption offer. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 14:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose a six month ban. That is way to long for something as minor as what she did ... a six month ban would almost guarantee that she wouldn't come back. Let's just assume good faith on this and look for improvement in the future now that RC-0722 has adopted the user. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 14:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose any long-term block - I prefer Malinaccier's approach elaborated above. This user does have their own issues and they need to be dealt with (I totally agree with Darkfalls's comments above), and the immediate matter regarding abusive socks does merit a block, but I would much rather see monitoring and escalating warnings than an outright block. A mitigating factor in my view is the relative youth of the user - people grow and change quickly at that age and I for one am more amenable to granting second chances to such users, unless they exhaust a series of them. However, the bad faith accusations, the attacks and the abuse of userspace have to stop. Orderinchaos 02:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked as a sockpuppeteer

Checkuser Confirmed sockpuppeteers of ElisaEXPLOSiON:

• MIGHTYJD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• CRAZYmofo123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• BLUEballsBOY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

This takes userspace abuse to a whole new level, and the deception caused by using four accounts to interact with each other and others is an abuse of trust which is not compatable with editing here. The sockpuppets were also used for making gross personal attacks, and one was blocked for making threats. I have indefinitely blocked the one currently-unblocked sockpuppet (one was already blocked for this; not good, not good at all, and the other one for a usernameblock although it probably should have been a troll/NPA block per this and this) and blocked the main account for two months. I still support a topic ban (seen above) provided consensus here isn't to extend the main account's block to indefinite, something I'd also support.

Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking these over and it looks like it was actually her brother using these accounts, which is also what she said on her talk page. It would be ridiculous to block her for six months just because of what her brother did on her IP address. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 14:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

She's blocked for two months, and brothers a) don't make physical threats against users who their siblings are in disputes with, unless they've been told to by said sibling, which is just as bad as doing it herself, but I don't believe it was her "brother" anyways; b) don't call their sisters "sexy"; c) edit identical user talk pages to their siblings in a near-identical fashion using similar English and no edit summaries except for the title of the thread; d) know about the Five Pillars on their second edit. Daniel (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that whether it was herself or a user working in tandem is irrelevant per WP:MEAT - they're treated as basically the same situation. Daniel also makes some good points, although I'd argue (d) is possible as some people read for a long time before ever finding a reason to post. Orderinchaos 02:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Call for help

If you are good at image-related "stuff" and especially if you are active on Commons, OTRS could probably do with your help in the Permissions queue, which is perennially backlogged. I am told it's really simple, but I am not good on that stuff myself. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm good with image stuff, but I've never done OTRS before. I am willing to confirm my identity to the Foundation (or any other admin) if that matters. Try pinging Carcharoth (talk · contribs) as he seems to know his stuff. MBisanz ^talk 03:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SSP - a suggestion

WP:SSP is almost permanently backlogged, and some of the older cases down the bottom of the list have been languishing there for weeks. Although it's a relatively ignored backwater, there's a limit to what non-admins can do, as deleted contributions and blocks are frequently involved.

I suggest that we change the running order. At present new cases are added to the top of the list - I suspect that this means that as admins look down the list, they tend to find ones they can knock on the head quite quickly, rather than going for the more difficult cases. The net result is that the more difficult cases get ignored, then pushed further and further down the page where they're even more likely to be even more ignored.

It's but the work of a few moments to change the order, and the instructions, but I thought I'd see if anyone had any views? The backlog is so large most of the time that's it can be pretty daunting to see how many outstanding cases there are. If we can clear off the backlog once and for all, with a bit of luck we should be able to keep it down to a manageable length in future. _GB^T/C 12:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems logical. It also can't harm if it doesn't work. I say go for it. ➨ REDVEЯS knows it's gonna happen someday 12:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

As somebody who works there frequently, I feel this proposal is not resolving the problem. I know to look at the old cases at the bottom. The solution to have more admins actually work on cases. Jehochman ^Talk 13:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And a simple re-ordering would mean less eyes on it? Or the same number or more? If the latter, it's worth doing. Saying (in effect) "don't change this ignored page, but more people should work on it" will achieve nothing. ➨ REDVEЯS knows it's gonna happen someday 13:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I posted on the SSP talk page, I agree with the proposal and I think more admins are needed at SSP. I posted a few times recently regarding the backlog, to no avail. Enigma ^msg 16:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I go there often, I once had it down to zero. This change will not solve the problem. The problem is too few admins interested in that topic. I wonder what many admins do--I rarely see them involved anywhere, we have well over 1000 of them. Only half a dozen or so patrol SSP. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The amount of truly active admins is lower than you might think (there are hundreds of admins that are either inactive or hardly active), and the active ones tend to focus on other areas, like AIV. Maybe they're more interesting than SSP. Some SSP cases involve a lot of work too, and maybe people don't feel like sitting down and spending a half hour on a case. Understandable. Enigma ^msg 16:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It would also help if people didn't take screamingly obvious sockpuppetry cases to SSP. Those should go to ANI for quick blocks. SSP should be for more complex cases - for instance when checkuser, for one reason or another, doesn't help, or decide whether a RFCU is justifed. Moreschi (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's a big deal. I went through the obvious ones myself. Those aren't time-consuming and it's not like their presence is going to prevent an admin from handling SSP cases. Enigma ^msg 17:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on a complex set of possible socks right now, and I must say that the permanent backlog is seriously disheartening. When an average editor sees something odd and looks through that list, he or she shouldn't get the sense that the dossier they present will have to look extra special or something in order to get attention from one of the couple of overworked admins there.

I think one solution is to make it perhaps a more structured process. No !voting, but perhaps some sort of time-bound discussion period. I don't like the thought much, I admit, but if the editors getting through RfA just aren't interested in that side of things, what choice do we have?

(Incidentally, I'd also like to say that between 0500 and 1100 UTC the response rate at AN3 is also really slow. Many days recently there's just been User:Stifle beavering away at it. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to do my best in the next week to prod admins that I know to work on this. SSP isn't my favorite place to work, but it's work that no one wants to do. If I ever do become an admin, I'm going to make it a focus simply because of the lack of attention it is paid. Enigma ^msg 03:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

At least now I see the backlog isn't quite as bad. 23 cases listed. Enigma ^msg 03:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility and threats by a user

A user is threatening me and being incivil and has been incivil to others in the past. I thought this was a legal threat. Some people say only threatening to sue is a legal threat. Ok, but rather than do nothing, please talk with that person and inform them that threats are very anti-WP behavior.

From Barack Obama talk page.

As I'm sure you know, the user who insisted on the police union edit was banned because he was abusing Wikipedia with multiple sock puppets. As he has continued to do - but don't worry, he will be stopped again. Tvoz |talk 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

See, Tvoz is falsely accusing me of being a sock and is issuing a legal threat to ban me. I am KVS. I am a citizen of India. Tvoz accused some American, Dirk Benedict, of being a sock. I am not American. I am NPOV and not for or against Obama. Here's proof of my citizenship. 122.164.134.73 (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's just say that I am a sock. Then the other socks have advocated NPOV positions and they have been banned. Eventually enough people supported the NPOV, such as listing Obama's name as "Jr.". You see, Tvoz is POV pushing and threatening people with banning. Better yet, I am a citizen of India (see my IP). I suspect there are few people in my village that write about Barack Obama so where are the socks????? I am Kumar. I am user KVS.

The real story is that Tvoz is threatening anyone who writes neutral (and not just positive info) on the man. This needs to stop. Why not use your administrative clout and advise Tvoz that "please work together and do not threaten to ban a user or accuse them of being a sock. Making accusations because you don't agree with an edit may be a sign of bullying. Thank you." You can help make WP better buy asking someone to stop threatening. Don't say "dispute resolution" because that just fans the fire. A polite reminder is what is needed. 122.164.121.238 (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC) I am KVS. KVSTamilNadu (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC) The above is my IP.

This is beginning to appear as bordering upon harassment; Tvoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a long time contributor to the encyclopedia, with whom you appear to be having a content dispute on Barak Obama. There are other avenues of dispute resolution, of which the administrators noticeboard is not one. There is nothing that admins can do - unless you can provide specific examples of policy violation - and it appears nothing admins want to do. Please pursue the appropriate course of dispute resolution, and not keep bringing this matter to WP:AN LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this IS harrassment. Tvoz is harrassing me by threatening to ban me because Tvoz doesn't agree with my NPOV edit. I thought it was a legal threat but some disagreed so I revised it to it being a threat. Read Tvoz's message. It is a threat. Please bring civility to Tvoz. I am KVS. As proof I am not a sock, here is my IP. There are few people here who know about WP as far as I know. 122.164.121.238 (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Also note that I have no content dispute with Tvoz as LessHeardVanU states. I don't even know what Tvoz has edited. Tvoz just attacked me out of the blue sky. I am KVS. I am a citizen of India and neutral in American politics. 122.164.121.238 (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is utter nonsense. Tvoz |talk 00:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Tvoz is a long term, good faith contributor - also seconding LHvU's comments above. Orderinchaos 04:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weird IP attack

Take a look at the history of WT:FICT for the last 30 minutes (approx 12:00 to 12:30 on April 5) (I just happened to be logged in to catch it). About 7 completely different IPs came in and made a bunch of nonsense edits (reverting the page to an archive page, or worse), and that's all those IPs have done in the last several minutes. I semi'd the page for a day because it is presently a very active discussion page, but I've never seen a coordinated "attack" before, particularly on a talk page. Any idea what may have happened? --MASEM 12:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess sockpuppets that are experienced at editing/vandalizing wikipedia judging by the redirect. Malinaccier (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second opinion at CAT:EP

Can someone take a look at Talk:Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche#Request_for_edit_by_an_administrator? It's a complete mess and I'm tempted just to delete the whole section and ask them to rewrite it from scratch, but I thought I'd ask for a second opinion. Happy‑melon 17:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you do, in fact do that.

Are those articles ever coming off protection? Permanent protection is a disgrace. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Less of a disgrace than the years-long POV-pushing by LaRouche advocates, I suspect. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, but if we can't deal with POV-pushers pushing LaRouche views how will we deal with the really organised guys pushing less batshit crazy POVs? Topic ban 'em all, friends and foes, and start afresh. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Circumsized11.jpg

Image:Circumsized11.jpg - orphaned penis image with copyright problems. I recommend deleting the image or at least adding it to MediaWiki:Bad image list.--Urban Rose 18:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely orphaned (as in, not attached to any mainspace page), but I don't see the copyright problems. Could be deleted, I suppose, as unused? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd add it to the Bad image list. There's plenty more waiting for it. Rudget (review) 18:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll clarify. I have no problem with it being added to the bad image list. It's a bad image. It was released to public domain though, that's all I meant by "copyright issues". I endorse it being sent to bad images...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...there seems to be a different uploader and name in the description field. Rudget (review) 18:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Shy1520 (talk · contribs), instead of being renamed, seems to have created a new account, DanArmiger (talk · contribs) (check Shy's contribs). That explains the dual names. (Nevermind, the account was renamed from "Shy1520" to "DanArmiger", which still explains the dual names.) As for copyright issues, I'm not sure myself what they are, but the user who removed this image from Penis said there were some.--Urban Rose 19:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, I've added it to MediaWiki:Bad image list for the time being. - auburnpilot talk 19:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Commons has hundreds of images of penises and various other body parts. Let's please keep the bad image list to things that are actually abused. Mr.Z-man 20:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"for the time being" was the key part of my addition of the image to the list. I agree with your comment, but this discussion was an advertisement for an available penis shot. - auburnpilot talk 01:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Unused, unencylopaedic random dick image. I have improved the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CAT:CSD

Can anyone tell me why Nuremburger_parteitag_des_nsdap and a similarly named page are turning up in CAT:CSD? Can't work it out... _GB^T/C 19:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a redirect. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 19:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Aaah. I think I've just been blinded by that flash of the obvious. How did I miss that exactly?! _GB^T/C 19:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

S.E.P. Field? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fredrick day returns

Given [25], it appears that 87.114.140.101 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Fredrick day (talk · contribs), per the editing tendencies described at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/April 2008#User:Fredrick_day Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Also 193.35.133.150 (talk · contribs) at [26]. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ron nizamov96 (talk · contribs) and citing forums

I have just reverted a few of Ron nizamov96 (talk · contribs)'s edits, because [s]he was inserting links to a forum as a reference- something that another user warned them for in the past. Could someone else please look into this? It bothers me a little, but I really don't want to get involved in something like that right now. J Milburn (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Cabal" Policy

Hi. This is a cross-posted courtesy notice to ask for opinions regarding User:Master of Puppets/Cabal policy. This is in response to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Great Cabal Debate and the discussion at WP:Requests for comment/Cabals. Your input would be appreciated to come to a consensus in a reasonably efficient manner. Thank you. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 06:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ban a biased user

I demand that User:Ricky81682 be banned immediately. He refuses to listen when people have legitimate complaints at User_talk:Ricky81682#Something_to_think_about and User_talk:Ricky81682#Following_on_your_comments and on and on. Instead, he blocks users like User:Svetovid who have done nothing wrong (other than asking legitimate questions at User_talk:Svetovid#Blocked) and lets User:Nmate continue editing and insulting people freely.

Wikipedia should not continue to allow editors to respond for legitimate help by ignoring and threatening to block them, which he repeats again and again. Besides, all he seems to do all day is try to get images deleted. People are putting serious time and effort into helping this site and people like that should not be allowed to destroy it. We should NOT be allowing editors like him to focus on the destroying the encyclopedia while people like Svetovid are being driven off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.43.31 (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you lost me at I demand that User:Ricky81682 be banned immediately. Please don't demand anything (human beings here, not automatons) and don't demand bannings - a very very serious step we do not lightly take. If you have an issue with this user, dispute resolution is third on the left down the hall. In that room, you will find plenty of options, none of which is "banning" a user on your say so. ➨ REDVEЯS knows it's gonna happen someday 19:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

<tumbleweed blows across empty stage> LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Calling this resolved, because well, what else would we call it? Still waiting for the thread called "keeper". Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, there is no way Ricky should be blocked, admins like any other user are voluntary editors and they can't be forced to attend all of the concerns presented to them, particular those concerning how the organize the conversations on their talk page, as a matter of fact I sense a bit of harrassment in your persistence. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Oh, how I wish someone had informed me about this. Either way, I guess I'm doing something right to create that sort of vitriol. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Snowball clause in sock-case?

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Joshwest1

This seems such an open-and-shut case, it's absurd to go through the whole rigmarole. Is there a way around it? —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not absurd - it's snowballed, but not the way you hoped. There's been no breach of policy, in my opinion, as there's no overlap or co-ordination between the accounts, and two accounts in and of itself is not against policy. I have concluded the same and archived the case accordingly. _GB^T/C 13:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I see - so I'm allowed to go register another account, blatantly the same as me, not acknowledge it, and perform crap edits with both of them? Surely common sense tells you that it's in the interests of Wikipedia not to allow this. —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You can, if you like, but if the edits that you make with your new account are vandalism, disruptive, or sockpuppetry, you'll be blocked. If they're not, then you won't. In this instance the new account has made some crap edits, but was blocked for them. They're off the block now, and aren't making crap edits. The old account seems to not be editing, so it's most likely that they've simply moved from on to the other. There's no real reason for a block, plain and simple - the WP:SSP case can only ascertain whether they're the same user or not - in this instance they clearly are, but as there hasn't been any action that merits a block, there's no further action to be taken. _GB^T/C 13:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nor is it in the interests of Wikipedia to block someone who has been blocked for an offense, come back off that block and hasn't carried out any blockable behaviour since. That's pretty much guaranteed to turn them against Wikipedia, in my view. _GB^T/C 13:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

They've both been blocked; Number 5 hasn't been back since the block, actually. Number 1 stopped editing as soon as he was blocked, then registered Number 5 and carried on doing exactly the same stuff. So, same user, blocked, registers another account, carries on (despite being warned as both accounts: [27], [28], [29]). He's not helping the project; why let him remain here? —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Number 1 was blocked for 3 hours on 20th March. Number 5 wasn't created until 10 days later and had a 31 hour block on 4 April. _GB^T/C 13:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Let's just pretend for a second that they're the same user; there's only one account. There's a block in March. Then, he carries on. Then there's another block, a few days ago; he's just not edited since then. The fact that, after one block, he carried on, demonstrates poor faith, and I guarantee you that tomorrow or the next day, when he returns after his VERY RECENT second block, he'll carry on again. —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that if he did, then any block would need to take into account the previous blocks from both accounts. A warning, therefore, would be a potentially suitable next step...to point out that we know the same person is clearly behind both accounts, and to flag it for any admins looking to block in the future. Your thoughts? 193.109.81.203 (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There's not much point me giving my thoughts, I'm not an admin. —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that earlier IP was me. Why is there no point in you giving your views? You didn't like my original decisions, so I'm suggesting a middle way, and would welcome your views on that proposal. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 14:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You can do; I've given my views which is that neither account has drawn a connection between themselves as they ought to (just basic courtesy), heeded warnings or contributed anything of any value; I'm flummoxed as to why they're still here. That's all I have to say on the matter. Tag or warn or note or log all you want. —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:IFD

The uniformative image Image:Invasion_of_the_Bane.jpg was proposed for deletion as it didn't convey anything that could not be adequetly described with text, failing nfc#1, the image was deleted, the debate closed and the image reuploaded in a matter of hours LOG, this process seems slightly irregualar, is it a Wikipedia:CSD#G4, WP:IFD or Wikipedia:Deletion review? Fasach Nua (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's totally decorative (even I agree!); just IfD it again. I'll do so now. —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AWB

Could someone run over to the AWB requests? There are requests there over 24 hours old. Thanks. ^_^ Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You're in :D ! I cleared the list, apart from one who needs to cough up some more information. Happy‑melon 16:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Electrobe

User:Electrobe has been going around changing many templates to suit his personal preference he has been asked to discuss these changed before he makes them but [30] and has had a Wikiquette raid against him due to his behaviour towards other users WP:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Electrobe, I undid his changes to the Template:Scottish First Ministers because he insterted the arms of the British government arms that are not used at all by the Scottish Government of which the First Minister is head or even by the British government in Scotland for that matter as they have different version, I tried discussing it on the talk page but he just wont accept that he is wrong --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 16:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find that is a current on going discussion and so is all ready being dealth with. If any administrators feel complelled to join in the Wikietiquitte discussion please feel free to do so. regards. Electrobe (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a major failure in communication and in understanding of the BRD cycle. I've filed for page protection and warned Electrobe, who seems to be fairly clearly "in the wrong" as far as one can say such things. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages for indef users

I was under the impression we didn't delete the talk pages of indef blocked users, at least when their block is unrelated to vandalism or trolling. Blanking seems to be preferred, for some reason, but the page history often contains comments from other users, and more importantly, the reason why the user was blocked (such information should be available to all users, not just admins, nor is it ever guaranteed that deleted pages will be available for undeletion). Yet admins are constantly deleting these talk pages. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am under the impression that both the user and talk pages should remain intact for indef blocked registered users, especially if it is likely they will be able to return at some point from the block. Bstone (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I never delete indef pages/Talk pages. They may request an unblock and be granted. Also, it is important for other editors to see the reason for the block, as said above. -- Alexf⁴² 09:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

These should be undeleted, they are an important record. Some editors improperly tag talk pages with {{temporary userpage}}, which lists them for deletion (and not even just the talk pages of indefinitely blocked users). Not sure if that is where some of the deletions are occurring or not though.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 10:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The user and user talk pages of indef-blocked and/or inactive users are deleted all of the time, both as a general housekeeping measure and -- in the case of those with spammy/Google-bombing names -- to remove them from search-engine results; since they have no real value whatsoever, keeping them around is pointless in the extreme. So no, no one is "improperly" tagging dead user-talk pages, they're engaging in general housekeeping. --Calton | Talk 14:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A few weeks ago, I deleted quite a few which were in the Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, as per what was apparently a consensus for dealing with them that way, but I stopped after a few days because I was growing increasingly uneasy about it for the very reasons stated above by Ned Scott, Bstone, Alexf, and Doug. I support not deleting them. — Athaenara ✉ 14:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Postscript: There are certainly exceptions; many can be seen here (March 1) from User talk: Giantscrotum through User talk: ASharkAteYourMom. — Athaenara ✉ 15:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Unless the name is someone in itself a clear serious violation of policy itself (User:GeorgeBushIsAFlamingFaggot might be one such example) I think it would make sense to keep the user pages and user talk pages, so that in the event of a request for unblocking in the future all interested parties can easily find out the reasons for the block. In examples like the one above, I think just seeing the name on the page that has been deleted would probably be enough for an admin or anyone else to know why the page was deleted. John Carter (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

They are deleted after at least one month of no activity to save space, along with to remove them from search-engine results and are not (at least they should not be) deleted if they have a sock tag on them, or have been to topic of an arbcom investigation and so on... the ones that get deleted are just your run of the mill vandalism-only accounts that serve no purpose remaining in userspace. Tiptoety ^talk 18:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How does deleting these pages "save space"? —David Levy 18:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It may not be a lot of space, but the pages probably eventually get removed from the system memory. Also, in the event it is a name which is potentially reusable, it would save a new editor the effort of creating a generally longer name for the same purpose. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

1. To what "system memory" are you referring?

2. I don't understand your second point. Are you referring to usernames? Deleting a user's talk page doesn't enable the re-registration of the associated account name. —David Levy 18:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I recently had a case where the username itself was quite serious defamation of a living 15-year-old. I think in such cases it's a judgement call - if it's clearly a throwaway sockpuppet (one of many) of a user I think WP:DENY applies to some extent. In common or garden user blocked (ESPECIALLY if the user is long term or has some other significant history here) in a fashion which happens to be indefinite, they may mend their ways, come back in a year and decide they can be helpful - we have to allow for that possibility. Orderinchaos 19:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we're really talking about indef blocked accounts that are indef blocked because of the name. We're talking about users tagging indef blocked users and some non-indef blocked users with {{temporary userpage}} and whether the talk pages should be deleted. Related, but I don't think anyone is really questioning the deletion of pages in the kind of cases Orderinchaos is talking about, those seem like clear cases.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I have to agree with David, there is no benefit to deleting the talk page. The deletion after a month is for Userpages not User talkpages. No memory is recovered unless the developers actually decide to purge deleted pages, although theoretically possible, it just doesn't happen. Besides, Don't worry about performance! That's User:Tim Starling's problem, not ours.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no benefit to KEEPING the pages -- I've heard none other than vague handwringing -- deleting them is at least performing housekeeping. So what's the beef here? It's the established practice: if they get deleted, nothing wrong whatsoever with tagging them. Don't like it? Take it up with those actually doing the deleting. --Calton | Talk 22:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There are various benefits in keeping the user and talk pages of indefinitely blocked users. For one, there have been a number of instances in which indefinitely blocked users have returned, sometimes due to false positives and bad blocks. Moreover, keeping the page's edit history intact provides a public reference of the blocked user's contribs as well as of anyone else who commented on that page. It is frustrating for those of us who are not admins when we cannot see all the contribs of say a candidate running for adminship. Who's to say deleted contribs not being seen might sway voters one way or the other. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If they return, it is very easy to restore the page. I don't believe most people come back, after being indefinitely blocked for 30+ days when their user/utalk pages are deleted. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It happens more often than you think. I've helped such users in the past. Also, having them deleted prevents the community from reviewing the past comments, often from being able to read their own comments, as well as learning why the user was even blocked in the first place. Blocking is a last resort, especially indef blocking. That means being extra careful when doing so, even if only a small minority come back. I've found multiple editors who've been indef blocked incorrectly, and were unblocked and apologized too. -- Ned Scott 02:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I see value in being able to see as much of all of our contribs as possible. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I can say what seems to be common practice. Pages of indef blocked users are placed in CAT:TEMP. These pages are deleted after 30 days of inactivity on the page. Pages are entered into CAT:TEMP with various templates, including {{indefblocked}}. Pages relating to, or even mentioning sockpuppeteering are not, and should not be deleted, for obvious reasons. Again, there is no established process for this that I know of, but it seems to be the common practice. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So maybe the talk pages should go, I guess I'm not so sure now, though I can't say I understand why. But some pages are definitely being placed in that cat that are not indef blocked.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We had a problem before with a welcome template (I believe) that was placing pages in the category, but that has been resolved. Do you have a couple examples of which pages are in, but shouldn't be, that way we can get it fixed? - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, no offense Calton, but I know you commonly tag userpages as spam and then add {{temporary userpage}} to their talk pages. Several admins have addressed this issue with you before, including me, but we apparently have a clear difference of opinion over the proper usage of {{temporary userpage}}. (See User_talk:Calton#Temporary_userpage.3F, User_talk:Calton#Template:temporary_userpage, User_talk:Calton#Tagging_user_pages_of_unblocked_users, User_talk:Calton#Template:temporary_userpage_2). If I notice these I review them. Some of these are in fact indef blocked and don't have an indef block tag, so the {{temporary userpage}} tag is valid. Others have never been blocked, let alone indef blocked. If you look at CAT:TEMP you'll probably find that many, if not most, usertalkpages are due to {{temporary userpage}} on the talk page - though I'm not saying they're all there due to Calton - I have no idea. Alternatively, [31] will give a good starting place if you go through the ones tagged as spam in particular (Calton puts the template in the edit summary so this is pretty easy). --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I liked to think people didn't inappropriately tag userpages into CAT:TEMP. I'd ask Calton to explain why he's placing the users into the category. If he said why in one of the above links, and I missed it, I apologize. This however seems to be a separate issue, that should be addressed to ensure that pages of not indef-blocked users are not added to the category. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it isn't the same issue that was raised above regarding deletion of blocked user's talk pages, though I initially thought they were the same as I understood that we deleted blocked user's user pages. Now that I see we do delete the talk pages as well this is clearly a separate matter. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see why not to delete them. If they have a sockpuppet tag, they should be kept for categorization, but otherwise they just clutter up search results while providing no benefit. "Perhaps the user might want to request unblock." - The pages are not deleted immediately, the usual wait time is a month, after that, the pages aren't protected, they can still recreate them and request unblocking, or request on the mailing list. "How will the community discuss the unblocking?" - It takes an admin to unblock and I can't imagine that there would be that many non-admins who monitor CAT:RFU. Presumably the person who asks for community review could undelete it, or ask in the review request. "How will we learn why they were blocked in the first place?" - The block log entry and the user's contributions should explain it. Mr.Z-man 03:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The cluttering concern is really a non-issue. The reasons have been stated several times for why we shouldn't delete them. Talk pages of other users don't just contain their comments, but the comments from other users. This is why we say people don't WP:OWN their talk pages (while they are still free to manage them how they wish, so long as the edit history is in tact). Deleting them also prevents non-admins from being able to review these situations, which is a big red flag to why this is a bad idea. The situation that caught my attention had no reasonable explanation in the block log, and that is something that is very common. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you only read the first 2 sentences I wrote? "Deleting them also prevents non-admins from being able to review these situations, which is a big red flag to why this is a bad idea" - Only if you don't trust admins at all, in which case your problem can't be solved by keeping a bunch of pages around forever. Also, "'The cluttering concern is really a non-issue" - maybe according to you, to me it is an issue. "The situation that caught my attention had no reasonable explanation in the block log" - So instead of asking someone, you want to create a new policy? Mr.Z-man 17:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Z-man, I think the problem Ned is alluding to, at least in part, is that we do have a policy, or at least a guideline, that says that we don't delete talk pages - it gives only one exception, right to vanish, it doesn't say anything about indef blocks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering that talk pages of indef blocked users is not a CSD, and that people are only doing it based on an assumption that doesn't have consensus, I would like to formalize our policy to specifically prevent these kinds of deletions (with the exception to "trophy" pages, etc). However, I'm not sure which policy would be the best to make this proposal. Any suggestions? -- Ned Scott 06:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete them all, they flood users contribs, page lists, What links here (including images) and have no value, and don't do the Wikipedia servers and bandwidth any favours. WP:DENY also applies. The only talk pages which need keeping are pages with significant history. Really, what is the chance of a 2 year old account that was just used for a spree of childish vandalism from returning? 0. But a guideline would be helpful.--Otterathome (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone start Wikipedia:Temporary Wikipedian userpages or a similar page please.--Otterathome (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Flood users contribs? Only for the users who've participated on those talk pages, and it normally makes things harder when those contribs are gone. They are of value, and load on the servers is painfully small. WP:DENY is an essay, and the logic there should only apply to trolls and vandals, not every indef blocked user. There's a very large number of indef blocked users who are not using their talk pages as trophy pages or to make a scene, but for one unfortunate reason or another, are not able to get along with the community. Those are the talk pages that we are most concerned about, and should not be deleted. -- Ned Scott 00:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I recently started deleting user talk pages (about 2 days ago, see my deletions) that were in the Temporary Userpages category. Some are easily distinguishable to delete (for example unnecessarily created user pages with just {{indef}} on them) and I delete them accordingly. Otherwise, I usually wait three weeks or more, before I delete a talk page. I don't see why they would want to return, if they haven't done so after 21 days or more, after all most of these indef blocked users might have created new accounts anyway. I don't see why they can't be deleted, they are easy to recreate and if the user asks for an unblock, the reviewing administrator can always view the older page to see why that user in particular was blocked. I never delete userpages tagged with sockpuppet notices or that are necessary to linking etc.) Rudget (review) 12:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Admins are not the only ones who should be able to review blocks and the related discussions. They are the only ones who can unblock, but normal editors are free to do leg work and then present their findings to a place like ANI for discussion. The discussions themselves are often of value (at least to those who participated in them), and while there could be some disagreement to their value, it's not the role of a single admin to make that judgement call (it's one of the reasons we have MFD). -- Ned Scott 00:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Another frequently used template that categorises users in the temporary Wikipedian userpages category is Template:Uw-block3. The pages I have tagged with that template have had no significant history, but the template could be misused to delete user talk pages with significant history. Perhaps the temporary Wikipedian userpages category should be removed from that template? Graham87 12:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should it be removed? That tag is used for indef blocked users. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and what stops indef-blocked users who wish to come back from creating their usertalk page again? Tiptoety ^talk 21:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing, but incase you weren't paying attention, that's not the concern. -- Ned Scott 00:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Starting proposal discussion at WT:CSD#Proposal for U4. -- Ned Scott 22:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal moved to WT:USERPAGE#Proposal to not delete talk pages for all indef users. -- Ned Scott 05:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does this userbox violate WP:SOAPBOX?

While I'm not a big fan of Bush, I'm not sure that this is appropriate content for userspace. I've seen at least two users who have a box similar to this in their userspace, but the code was substituted both times so I'm not sure of where this box comes from. P.S. How do you like that, four WP:AN posts in a row? :)--Urban Rose 23:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it qualifies as free expression, and we have lots of similar userboxes as well regarding Europe, the UN, and various other political entities. If it said, "This user supports his assassination" or anything stronger than it does, I'd at least consider blocking the user whose page it's on, probably indefinitely. But this is a comparatively harmless expression of a rather common political belief, and really not that big a deal. John Carter (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say it looked blockable, but then I realized I was misreading "prosecution" as "execution". As is, you could politely request the people who have it to take it down because of the risk of offending people, but unless we have evidence of it being actually disruptive, we probably shouldn't mess with their user pages. --erachima talk 23:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think it qualifies as divisive and inflammatory, and that despite the fact that I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed in said box. Guy (Help!) 01:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I disagree with the sentiments expressed but think it permissable, for whatever that might tell you. There was a previous debate regarding a similar potentially divisive userbox at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prester John/Userbox/Free Matt which was withdrawn, and there are several other similar userboxes which have been MfD and kept as I remember, but I haven't checked so I might be wrong. There are several other userboxes at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics which could be questioned "This user is a fascist," "This user wants the UN to be dissolved", "This user thinks President Bush should be impeached", which isn't that different, really, and a few others which might fall in the same group. I think some have been proposed for deletion before, and that might work here too, but the two additional words aren't I think that big an issue. John Carter (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's permissible - it's a political statement with no particular import. "This user believes he should be hung, drawn and quartered" or "This user believes all supporters of George W Bush are quacks" (provided for hyperbole and most definitely not my opinion on either count) would be examples of what would not be permissible. Just my opinion for what it's worth. Orderinchaos 03:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's only divisive if George Bush is editing Wikipedia? If it talked about opposing Bush's supporters then it would be a definite no-no, but as it is it's an opinion about a generalized worldwide political issue, and I think that's okay. --Masamage ♫ 03:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not that I do not agree with the content of that userbox ... but is indeed a violation of WP:NOT#SOAP. The user can keep these expressions for his blog. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with jossi here.... SQL^{Query me!} 05:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely goes against WP:SOAP. Jmlk17 07:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If that's soapboxing, so, it seems, are many other userboxes. Though WP:USERBOX has broadly interpreted content restrictions, what some people view as divisive and inflammatory may be uniting and refreshing to others -- and remember, this is user space, which seems to be held to a lower standard than article or talk space. Also, WP:SOAPBOX specifically links to "Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics, for political statements." Editors ready to suppress the above userbox as too inflammatory may want to read carefully through the user boxes on that latter page first. My reading of WP:USERBOX suggests that by suppressing the userbox, we would be suppressing the editor from expressing that same opinion elsewhere on their user page. I don't support moves in that direction except in extreme cases, such as where the view might be illegal to express in the US (where Wikipedia is hosted), or otherwise very extreme. Blackworm (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think userboxes need to be taken that seriously, they are only a bit of fun to make the userpage look nice. Only a minority are relevant to Wikipedia, while the rest can be the most random userboxes ever. If this userbox inparticular warrants looking at, then there must be literally over a hundred others of similar nature that also need investigation. Is it worth bothering with? Most established users decrease the nummber of userboxes on their userpages to only the ones that're relevant anyway, so its not a big issue. Lradrama 08:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see the "This user is a fascist" box is back. Wikipedia political userboxes are supremely silly exercises in vacuous posturing. They're useful in identifying potential POV-pushers and editors under the age of 21. They should really be amalgamated into a single box saying "This user thinks in T-shirt slogans". --Folantin (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• If anyone really has a problem with it send it to MfD, but I can just about guaranty it will be kept. We had a very long and never really resolved RFC on this a few months back because of userboxes that stated support for those in Iraq who are fighting against the American's and those affiliated with the Americans, whom I will not even attempt to characterize beyond that. ;-) --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

My thought is that I don't agree with that userbox, and I don't like the sentiment, but don't see any need to delete it (basically John Carter's position). I don't want to scream "Systemic bias!" here, but I suspect that a part of the issue is that we have a preponderance of Americans here (I am one), and perceptions of political userboxes tend to be shaped by whether it is personally relevant to that American plurality – it's easy for one not to be offended by something, if one will never confront it in any case. It's more difficult to dismiss such things when they are precieved as personally relevant. However, the wiki benefits somewhat from having editors disclose their biases – the userbox in question definitely discloses a bias – and very little from the drama that accompanies attempts to delete userboxes, so it's best to keep a narrow standard for deleting such things. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least whoever created it understands that impeachment is not the same as removal from office. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm an avid userbox user myself, to be honest. I have over 80 of them. I find them a nifty way of expressing myself. If a person wants a userbox to express a certain political idea that doesn't violate any laws of that person's area of residence or laws at the location of Wikipedia's servers, then there isn't really any problem with the userbox as long as it stays on the user page or subpage, and nowhere else. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Topic ban on User:Wikiaddict8962

Could we please put a topic ban against User:Wikiaddict8962 editing the article space about things to do with black loyalists until he discusses his opinion with the wikiprojects? He may or may not have a valid case, I don't know tonnes about the topic, but he seems to be going against a widely held position in academics, and has been warned about this in the past. I don't want to outright block him because I think he has the potential of contributing to a useful discussion outside of the article space. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You are going to explain where this is coming from in more detail. Notified him but a basic question, tried dispute resolution yet? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the background as I understand it; I only just noticed these events, but it looks like it has been going on and off for a few months. The user is attempting to remove all uses of the term "Black Loyalist" from articles and categories. As far as I can tell, the current Wikipedia consensus is that "Black Loyalist" is the term used almost university by academics of the topic and thus should be used here. The user feels that other terms, usually "African American" are more appropriate, but many users seem to feel that there are some logical fallacies in those terms. I had reverted several of the user's edits based on the consensus, though I don't really have an opinion on it myself as I'm no expert on it. I don't know whether he has a legitimate argument or not, but in either case I have told him that he should bring his views to the wikiprojects rather than maying the changes to so many articles. Thus far he has not talked to any of the projects, though he has only made a couple edits removing the term since I warned him. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 08:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: Wikiaddict8962 now says that he will not edit the articles unless "there is something false". Hopefuly this is now resolved. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ban on me

I will stop editing Wikipedia's black loyalist articles. I think that the section on black loyalist deserves some evalution. There is no proof that Boston King or David George were ever loyal to the British. They mention seeking refuge with but never mention loyalty to the Brits. Thomas Peters, Cato Perkins and Isaac Anderson mention loyalty but it is interesting to note they were the same revolutionaries who denounced the British. No one can definitively say all enslaved African Americans who escaped to the British were "loyal" to them. Thomas Jefferson referred to these blacks as fugitives. The United States was founded in 1776 and recognized by Britain in 1783. The majority of these blacks left after the Declaration of Independence was signed; so in reality they were still American property. Carleton and Birch themselves knew that the Americans were correct on wanting the return of their slaves in 1783.

If the majority of historians endorse a lie does that make it true? Most people use the word Black Loyalist without knowing what it even means.

I have made my case I will not edit Black Loyalist pages. I will edit if there is something false put on. If people disagree I can stop editing completely these articles. I would like to say however the 1,192 settlers of Sierra Leone never called themselves Black Loyalists. They called themselves the Nova Scotians or Settlers. Only once did Cato Perkins and Isaac Anderson (who did not represent all the views of the settlers) refer to "loyalty" and the "King" and his "majesty". It is interesting to note David George, Boston King, and Moses Wilkinson made no such claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs)

Sounds like another case of WP:V vs. WP:TRUTH. Anyone know any more about this? Guy (Help!) 19:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the confusion is just in differing terminology. Wikiaddict8962 is talking about small-l loyalty, whereas he is removing references to big-L Loyalists. I don't know much about the Black Loyalists in Nova Scotia, but I do know that among the Ontario Loyalist immigration there was a mix of people who were loyal to the crown and people who just didn't like the Americans (including a lot of people who weren't even British). Among academics of history, however, the group that immigrated to Canada during that time are collectively called big-L Loyalists, regardless of where their small-l loyalty was. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully it makes more sense now I've moved it? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, mate. One more dispute than I want, right now, so I'll be moving on. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP Talk Pages, yet again

Would someone be kind enough to point me to the discussion on whether or not anonymous IP editors are allowed to blank talk pages? I remember the general consensus was no, since as anon editors they do not own their pages (as registered editors do). I know it's been debated and discussed several times, but I cannot find the link. Thanks in advance! Redrocket (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they can. And no one, including registered users owns their talk page, we simply have wide latitude over our own. Prodego ^talk 20:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

But the talk pages of IP addresses may not be "their" talk pages, like if the IP is a dynamic one. x42bn6 Talk Mess 20:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

per User:x42bn6. Even though it is extremely unlikely that any editor will ever be re-assigned a particular ip, messages left at the page should be available to any subsequent editor - including those who are not yet familiar with checking page histories. Registered accounts "ownership" of a user(talk)page allows blanking, but it does not appear to be the same for non registered accounts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

it does not appear to be the same What section of what guideline or policy are you basing this on? Because on the contrary, it very much appears to be the same, because numerous past discussions have shown that it is the same. The most recent attempt to change this consensus was by Hu12 here at village pump, a post which grew out of an ANI thread a few days ago.86.44.26.69 (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen a policy against allowing IPs to blank their talk pages, and if there is one than I am going to see if I can get it changed. Warnings function to try to get an editor to stop vandalizing, period. They are not, nor should they be relied upon as, an accurate representation of an IPs history. Anyone can add a warning to anyone's talkpage at any time, and anyone can remove them. Combine that with the tendency for IPs to be dynamic, and I can't see any reason at all to forbid IPs from blanking their talk pages. Contribs, and nothing else, are a reliable indicator of what an IP has done. And, quite frankly, if you don't know how to access an IPs talk page history then you shouldn't be anywhere near antivandal work. If an IP removes a warning, then obviously they have seen it. Thus it has fulfilled its purpose. Really, I have seen entirely too many IPs pop up wondering why they have been accused of vandalism when they have never edited before for me to endorse any kind of ban against IPs blanking their talk page. Talk pages are a means for communication; clogging them up with ancient and probably irrelevant warnings for no purpose does nothing to facilitate this.--Dycedarg ж 05:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Views of Lyndon LaRouche

I seem to have opened a can of worms here with this page, which I realise has been involved in some of the most complicated edit wars ever seen on Wikipedia; but the fact remains that it's been fully protected for six months now, with less than a dozen edits in that time. It has always struck me that indefinite full protection for articles grates horribly with our most fundamental principles, however bad the disruption may be. The previous discussion at ANI is not completely clear so I thought I'd open this up for discussion again. I've reprotected the article so we can have a leisurely debate as to which is more important, maintaining Wikipedia's right to call itself the "free encyclopedia", or keeping this edit war under wraps. Happy‑melon 21:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What's most important is to have a quality reference. There is currently a plan to semi-protect all BLPs, so the answer as to whether unrestricted editing is paramount has already been answered. I don't see any specific reason to undo the community's previous decision, and I'd say that the protection has worked well. It is supported by users on different sides of the debate.[32] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is a problem of simple sock vandalism, might I recommend the approach outlined above. This has been very effective in dealing with a long-term serial vandal. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that there is absolutely no justification for permanent protection of a set of articles. If its a case of long-term POV-pushing, fine. Take it to ArbCom, or have the community decide on topic bans, but this is so far removed from what we're supposed to be as a project that it is unsustainable. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You think. Me, I think there are definitely cases for indefinite full protection. I have seen the emails. Guy (Help!) 07:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy, Guy. Are we talking about emails about this set of articles, or are we suddenly talking about WP:OFFICE cases? --Relata refero (disp.) 12:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You're talking in absolutes. If I've learned nothing else from Wikipedia it's that absolutes are rarely absolute. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if there is a problem with a small set of identified editors mediation would probably be the best approach. Of course that may have been tried already, although article probation might also be useful (similar to homeopathy). Tim Vickers (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What, what? There is currently a plan to semi-protect all BLPs? There is? Where is this being discussed? Corvus cornix_talk 23:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Link please, if there is. Something like that would be totally wrong without an extremely wide, public, and advertised in the watchlist notice discussion/vote/poll/something. Fascinatingly intriguing idea. Lawrence § t/e 23:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Semi-protecting_all_BLPs. How'd I miss that? Lawrence § t/e 23:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a plan, its just some loose talk. Regarding the article, Lyndon LaRouche is possibly the single person in the world most likely to attract bad craziness to his articles. At any rate he's in the top ten. We don't have to shoot ourselves over principle. There are probably a score or so of BLP's of which it is to everyone's benefit that they stay protected basically forever. Herostratus (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche is possibly the single person in the world most likely to attract bad craziness to his articles. Are you sure you know this for a fact? Have you dropped by the fringe theory noticeboard at any point? I don't see anything argued on the LaRouche talkpages that approaches a fraction of the craziness of 90% of what turns up there.

And this is one occasion when a series of articles on a living person have been permanently protected to keep negative information and self-published sources at above a minimum rather than below a maximum level. It is not at all like other BLP situations, and we would all do well to stop pretending it is. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD listing anomaly

Hello. I would like an admin to check the AfD listing I created here. I've nominated before with no troubles, but this time encountered some weird results on the discussion page. I don't know what happened, but I seem to have fixed it. I just want to make sure everything is proper. Can someone check this out for me? Thanks. Nick Graves (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks A-OK to me. Jfire (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The previous versions were messed up, but it's fixed now. Must have been some sort of typo. Malinaccier (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Following around

Some time back I mediated a matter between 2 users. Later one of those users was indef blocked by another admin for personal acts, disruption, etc. Since then they've been following me to other wikis, (meta, etc), badgering me for an unblock. They've used socks on en-wiki to avoid the block, and have of course been re-blocked. I've given them the unblock email and arbcom email, but I'm wondering if there should be some way for Meta to be able to hand down a universal block. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. No formal enforcement measures are being proposed at this time, in light of the hope that editors will act of their own volition and take with them a more in-depth understanding of the issues, principles, and the disputes themselves, for future benefit and to avoid the need for more formal responses; in particular, all members of WikiProject U.S. Roads are advised that when asserting the existence of a prior consensus, it is necessary to refer to prior discussions or debates on Wikipedia where that consensus has been established.

— Coren ^(talk) for the Arbitration Committee, 03:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help expediting redirect deletion for page move

[edit] Implementing "approved versions" for Evolution

This article has been under attack from a long-term vandal for many months now. The article was indefinitely semi-protected, but due to User:Tile join this seems no longer to be a viable option. Since I don't like the idea of simply indefinitely full-protecting the page and screening edits from the talkpage, I have created Talk:Evolution/draft article and would like people to watchlist this and transfer constructive edits to the main article. I realise this is a little unconventional, but I honestly think this is the best option at this stage. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm very interested to see how this works out, and how it's received - you're probably aware that it's a kind of implementation of 'stable revisions' which is almost ready to go - presumably consensus at the draft page would determine if a change 'stuck'? - Privatemusings (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this could be a good test case. It would be useful to see how well and how often constructive changes to the draft were implemented on the main article. Everyking (talk) 03:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, if these socks are an issue, why not checkuser the lot?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's been done multiple times. Hut 8.5 06:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• This is not the page to implement a test of a major and controversial policy change. DGG (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You should do this for global warming, IPCC and related articles too. 71.174.111.245 (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DGG and I think the IP's comments show why- if we allow it for evolution, why not every other controversial article? Suddenly, BAM, we're not free for anyone to edit. J Milburn (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We have been using checkuser, Ryūlóng, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tile join and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tile join. This is pretty much the last resort, since this vandal seems now to be hopping across a broad range of IP addresses. Our options here appear to be either constantly switching from full to semi-protection and blocking a new batch of socks and the associated IP every 2-3 days (see the last 2 months of the evolution article's protection log), or experimenting with full-protection of the main article and a completely unprotected page to make requested edits. Other ideas would be very welcome. I am willing to continue with the semi/full protection cycle if there is a consensus that this is the best option, but this has become a serious waste of time for everybody involved. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a form of "full protection", since anyone can edit, even random IPs. What it could do is stop vandalism from presenting itself to readers. Voice-of-All 17:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I've clarified that above. A point to raise is that with the present full-protect/semi-protect cycle, editing is restricted to admins only for about half the time, and autoconfirmed editors for the remainder. This proposal is intended as an improvement on what we are currently doing and as a way to open editing up to a wider range of contributors. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

J Milburn, you misunderstood why I specifically mentioned global warming and IPCC. Scibaby's socks have attacked these articles assiduously since December 2007. I documented more than 50 Scibaby sockpuppets until March 16, and more have caused mayhem since then. It is beyond ridiculous that Wikipedia administrators allow this disruption to continue unabated.

I still have not forgiven a group of experienced users and administrators for supporting the indefinite block of an innocent editor.

I will not participate in a community where innocent users are banned. If you think that allowing sockpuppets to vandalize articles with impunity is the best way to manage this website, you are wrong. If you think that the current system encourages legitimate users to contribute to controversial articles, you are even more wrong.

TimVickers' idea for reform is long overdue. It's time to prevent sockpuppets from disrupting high-profile articles. The failed strategy of "Revert, block, ignore" does nothing to stop the vandal from finding a new IP and starting over as many times as he wants. Full-protecting the main article and directing edits to a draft page will ensure that sockpuppets no longer have the ability to disrupt high-profile artilces in real time.

I applaud TimVickers for trying to solve a real problem. I express my dismay that some other users refuse to acknowledge the disastrous extent of this problem.

You can add my username to the Missing Wikipedians list. I am not the first person who has departed the community because of frustration with the intolerable tolerance for vandalism and sockpuppetry. If the current policies remain in place, I will not be the last. 71.174.111.245 (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To get a very clear idea of why this is necessary, look at the revision history of the draft article. The vandal is using a new IP for each edit. At least this approach is keeping the resulting disruption away from the readers of the main article. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concrete proposal

I've been thinking about how we might run this experiment, and what it could tell us. What do people think about using this two-page system until April, when the current test of "Stable Versions" on meta will be complete?

Running this experiment will do two things. Firstly, it will resolve a long-term vandalism problem and make it easier for non-administrators to change the evolution article. Secondly, it will provide data on how one form of "Stable versions" works in practice and provide a real-life case for the community to consider. I therefore propose that we try this novel arrangement until April, and then consider how well it has worked as part of the decision-making process on the stable versions software. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this sounds like a perfectly reasonable experiment. — Scientizzle 23:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Support. Article protection mechanisms should only be used when needed. But when an article is under very strong attack and the usual mechanisms are failing, we should be willing to consider unusual ideas. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I support this, both on its individual merits, and because I think we generally need to be more willing to experiment with new ideas, to see if they work, and see how they can be tweaked to work better. Instead, it seems we often resist changing anything because it might not work. So, I mostly support this because I'm curious if it will work or not, and I think that's a reasonable reason. -barneca (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it has certainly worked to stop the vandalism, as shown in the draft article history the vandal blanked the page a few times and then got bored attacking a sub-page that few people would be reading. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Since people seem OK with this as an experiment, I've moved the draft article into mainspace at Evolution/draft article. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion by User:MZMcBride

Although I thought this had a good level of support, it has been reverted by MZMcBride with the edit summary of "vandals can be blocked", which seems to me to miss the main point of the above discussion. I obviously don't want to wheel-war over this, but would like to get a clearer idea of what the community thinks of this idea. What do people suggest I do? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. I hadn't seen the discussion here. As some have commented above, the revisions on the /draft page are (for the most part) vandalism and reversions of that vandalism. Obviously, I didn't intend to wheel war, but using a subpage like this is simply absurd for such a high-profile topic. If bots and other tools are needed, we can employ those. But, as I said to another admin earlier today, I've seen far worse cases of vandalism. While the edit history isn't admirable, it certainly isn't phenomenal. If there are vandals, let's take care of them. Fully-protecting articles indefinitely should be done as rarely as humanly possible. Imagine if we did this for articles like George W. Bush... --MZMcBride (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How would you go about dealing with a vandal who hops IPs like this and uses each IP to create this level of sockpuppets? Blocking individual accounts is essentially useless with this level of socking, and the broad range of IPs makes rangeblocks impossible. Even adding a special heuristic to ClueBot didn't really help. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOTREQ. All that's needed is a fairly simple bot to auto-revert this kind of vandalism. We used to have some bots dedicated to this specialty -- not sure if they're still active. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that might help as well and we have tried it. See the bot request that resulted in the ClueBot modification. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Cobi set the bot to report the vandalism in an IRC channel. Ideally, a bot would auto-revert and then report in a channel with a direct link to block the user. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

He told me that the bot is set to revert and warn. It hasn't been a great deal of help, as you can see from the history. As you can now appreciate, this wasn't something I did lightly but an action of last resort. Do you know that about 5,000 to 9,000 people read this article every day? link. Having the text replaced by the bible for just 5 mins every day mean we have given that version to about thirty readers. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I've now explained the background of this action, would you be OK with me reverting back to full-protection and allowing the experiment to proceed? Tim Vickers (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please notice that sockpuppet accounts started the normal page blanking vandalism just 20 hours after the article was shifted back to semi-protection. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I really dont like these kind of socking vandals. Here is a suggestion. Full protect the main article and create a sandbox subpage where edits can be made and then transefered to the main article when needed. that is a minor version of FlaggedRevs that could be very useful and effective for stopping the sock wars. β^{_{command 2}} 22:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That is indeed the idea we are discussing, you might have missed the section above where I outlined the proposal. If nobody else objects today, I'll re-instate the protection of the main page. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and if the vandals continue to harass the subpage impliment the cplot method (/16 range blocks that are annon only, with account creation disabled, and point those who want accounts to unblock-en-l). β^{_{command 2}} 23:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I don't really care if the vandal continues to attack the subpage, since that will not inconvenience our readers. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The vandal hit the page a few times today and then stopped. Each case was reverted very quickly, and the entire set of incidents lasted no more than 20 minutes. I see no reason to return to full protection. And I don't see any consensus here or the talk page to do so. This experiment has only shown that if locked out of the main article, the vandal will attack the alternate page. I don't see a level of vandalism that suggests that this article is in incapable of semi-protected editing. This is not a BLP; it's about a scientific topic, so there isn't as much concern as there might be about vandalism. I think exploring the bot option is the best choice. I'm still hunting around for a bot op willing to set up an auto-revert and report system. Unless this page is reaching levels of vandalism that are un-containable, full protection is not warranted. Twenty minutes in the middle of the day is manageable. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think switching the vandalism to the subpage is an excellent result, since that means that we are not displaying a vandalised version of the article to hundreds of readers. If you do find a bot to auto-revert vandalism better than the current efforts from Cluebot and VoABot, both of which catch the standard edit in their filters, but do not revert all the cases this happens, then we might consider switching back to semi-protection. Until then I think I'll go with the consensus on this page and on the evolution talkpage and reinstate full protection. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be very much information floating around on the details of how FlaggedRevs is going to be implemented here (except that it's been six months away since forever!), from what I've gathered, I'm not sure how much use it's going to be. If 'reviewer' is given to autoconfirmed users, then we're just going to see the attacks shifted back to as if the page were semi-protected: after realising that their vandalism doesn't show to anons any more, Tile join will start creating autoconfirmed socks and then tag-team vandalise-and-review the article to get the attack visible. But if we don't issue 'reviewer' to autoconfirmed, we won't have nearly enough reviewers to go around. What's probably needed is the ability to 'protect' individual pages from autoconfirmed review, allowing only sysops to "sight" the pages. Does that make any sense? Happy‑melon 15:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally think, on this page specifically, the benefits of Tim's proposal outweigh the costs. — Scientizzle 02:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose implementing this proposal; the vandalism to Evolution is pretty mild and easily containable and I don't believe that it warrants long-term full protection under the current protection policy. When a broader proposal for flagged revisions finds consensus, then it can be implemented, but such major changes to the model shouldn't be introduced on a page-by-page basis under normal conditions. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you do not understand the situation or you think that chronic vandalism is normal. We are talking about a sockmaster who creates a massive amount of socks and then lets them mature to the point that they can edit these articles. Then he proceeds to vandalize them. This is not a recent trend, it has been going on for quite a long time. This is the only way, as of right now, to protect this particular article. Last time I checked, we held FA's up to a higher standard, since they represent the best work from the entire project. Why would we NOT want to protect them from an endless stream of vandalism? I don't understand where some of you are coming from with regards to this issue. Why is a chronic vandal given an opportunity to continue to ply his trade? Tim, pull the trigger on this one. Worst case, it doesn't work and we can find something else. Baegis (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's quite easy to understand the situation from looking at the edit history: when the article is semi-protected, it is vandalized for perhaps 5 minutes a day. This is about 0.35% of the time. It is a very minor inconvenience, and dealing with this particular minor inconvenience is part and parcel of Wikipedia's operating model ("anyone can edit"). The vandal is easy reverted, blocked, and otherwise ignored, as such vandals are throughout the rest of Wikipedia: it is unclear to me why the persistent vandalism of this particular article has people in such a commotion. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you are absolutely right. It is just a minor inconvenience. 335 confirmed sock puppets with 49 more suspected socks, all carrying out the exact same vandalism. On one of our best articles no less. Totally a minor problem. This isn't just regular vandalism. It isn't someone putting in "George Bush is teh suck!" on his article. We are talking about vandalism that fundamentally harms the article. Maybe you don't understand the whole controversy behind evolution and creationism, but if we ever want to follow through on the goal of being better than Britannica, we need to stop this problem. Replacing the article with the entirety of Genesis, if but even for a dozen page views, is harmful to WP's good name. There are only two editors who are against this proposal and neither of them have ever even edited the article in question, to the best of my knowledge. Why don't we listen to those who, you know, work on the article? Instead of placing little corks in the leaks from the dam, maybe it's time we actually repaired it. Baegis (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notice - Please update a protected item

I'm new to this site and wanted to advise someone who can make changes to an 'article'/page on here where it lists information about Telamonia dimidiata and the email hoax of 2002 & 1999. Please note that the email hoax is being sent out again in 2008. I recently received one and came to this site for more information only to find that the email was indeed a hoax. I have the email still in my inbox if you need me to send it to you please let me know. This should be updated so people know that its happening again. I never knew about this until I got it and I'm sure other people would like to know that there is an update to it and that way they will not freak out over using a toilet. Thank you, Preciousmi (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you give us a clue which article might be involved? It's a little difficult with nothing to grab a hold of. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The user said s/he was new. So probably can't find an article. Your best bet would be to check be to go to the following articles and travel through the various links E-mail_spam, Mail_fraud. This isn't the right place by the way. WP:HELP should give you a hand in answering questions. Hope I helped out. From there you can add it to the appropriate area. Remember WP:Reliable. If it is protected and you find the article please tell me on my user talk page.Rgoodermote  02:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As the OP said (but failed to link), the article she's referring to is Telamonia dimidiata. It already contains a section about the e-mail hoax, and I doubt that it needs to be updated, since such things are propagated eternally once they get started. Deor (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I really didn't know sorry. I thought that was the name of the computer email hoax. Not the name of a spider. Rgoodermote  17:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is Wikipedia degenerating so badly, full of unethical behaviour?

Deny recognition
The following is a discussion that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
Consumed Crustacean (my spelling is bad) just did what I think is an increasingly common and bad practice. If you don't like something, just call it trolling. Once in a while, Jimbo Wales writes (not often). Why don't you just blank it out and call it trolling. I don't want to get involved but a friend told me "watch out for my post and see if WP is going to act badly like I think they will". Sure enough, they proved him right and proved me wrong. I don't want to get involved so I'm not going to argue the case. It has to do with some admin just banning someone for kicks (no bad edits or IP relationship). When the person complained, he is met with excuses like trolling and blanking out requests. He is then banned on the excuse that you are a sock of a banned user. Well, if someone looked at the original ban, it was just for kicks done by an admin who doesn't follow rules. Again, I don't want to be involved anymore so I won't mention who the other person is. And please don't try to ban me. That wouldn't be nice. Durova did something like that to an established user and she lost her throne. I am an established user who doesn't want to get involved anymore other than checking on my friend's predicament.Uninvolved (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC) For blocks you feel are improper, try unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org or arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org WilyD 13:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I'm using my work computer so I can't be here too long. This original post describes a situation that is terrible. More over, I've seen requests at unblock. Lots of shoddy treatment there too and usually frequented by many who seem to want to deny request. This is too bad. Differentuninvolved (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC) If something's been done improperly by an administrator, I'd be interested and want to check. (Problematically there aren't enough hours in the day but I'll have a go if I can; that was an interest of mine before arbcom too.) There should be clear lines when a block is reasonable and a clear line when it obviously isn't. If a user has had an improper block and the block was then unreasonably reviewed, I'd be interested. Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Indeed, we can't unfortunately look further into it if you don't tell us which block you are talking about, but if you feel that a block is unfair, and that the unblock was denied for specious reasons, don't hesitate to send an email to a member of the arbitration committee and I'm sure they will look closely into it (one way or an other). -- lucasbfr talk 13:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Trolling by the person calling himself Harry59b (talk · contribs) and Harry59c (talk · contribs), a user from Singapore who is supposedly protesting the unfair block of Harry59 (talk · contribs) as a Dereks1x sockpuppet. Harry59b has been trolling in various places including RFAR. At first I thought it might be Dereks1x/Archtransit trolling from open proxies, but Differentuninvolved (talk · contribs) (who is clearly the same person as Uninvolved (talk · contribs) if it wasn't obvious) is editing from a Singaporean place of business that is likely to be pretty secure. So either Archtransit has taken a holiday and/or a new job, or this is just a troll with too much time on his hand. RBI either way. Thatcher 13:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Not a surprise ;). Thanks for the prompt checkuser. -- lucasbfr talk 13:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.

[edit] Repeated and extensive harassment

In the end of March, the user Marc KJH was blocked one week for harassing several editors who disagreed with his opinions. [33] I was one of those reporting him, and obviously he is back with a vengeance. Today, he has been harassing repeatedly in a very dishonest and disruptive way

• He started out by accusing me of the same thing he was blocked for [34]. He didn't care to provide any reason for this very strong warning and for his accusation against me, calling me all sorts of things. The problem is that somebody might actually believe him, undefined accusations are hard to refute and for that reason so much more deceitful
• The main problem is that he has started a whole RfC against me. [35]. He has every right to do so, just like anyone else, but his conduct shows that the whole purpose is to attack me. Despite making 15(!) edits to his own report, he has not yet provided a single diff of any offense he thinks I've committed. In my response to him, I have repeatedly asked him to provide diffs and to specify what I have done [36], [37], [38]. Instead, he has just accused me of more and more things, [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44] there's hardly a single policy on Wikipedia he doesn't claim I've violated. [45].
  

Let me make it clear that I find this deceitful, dishonest and highly disruptive. The basis of any functional justice is that the accused has the right to know the precise accusations so as to be able to defend himself. I've edited Wikipedia for more than two years, I've never been blocked and I most certainly don't know when Marc KHJ thinks I have committed all these offences. It is very easy to make all sorts of vile accusations as long as one is not obliged to prove that the accusations are true. As my calls for diffs to be provided have gone unanswered, and all that has happened is that list of loose accusations have increased, I can only conclude that the sole intention of Marc's actions is to throw dirt at me. I consider all of this a very strong personal attack and with more than 20 edits within 10 hours by Marc KHJ directed straight at me, I hold this to be a severe form of harassment. Needless to say, I find the whole RfC-process highly disruptive as he hasn't even tried to found it on anything except very vague accusations. This is the same kind of behaviour the user was blocked for earlier, and he seems to have learned nothing. I have been in conflicts on Wikipedia before, but never on this scale. No user, neither I nor anyone else, should have to spend up to an hour in a single day just to defend himself against relentless and deceitful attacks of this kind. JdeJ (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know any of the context of this, my apologies JdeJ, but I will say as far as an RfC goes, that particular one will be closed if he (Marc) doesn't get a co-certifier within 48 hours of opening the RfC. An RfC also requires that both certifiers have attempted to resolve the dispute somewhere else prior to going to RfC. I would recommend not commenting there any further(although you have every right to defend yourself) until if/when it has more contributions beyond his own. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. No, Marc and I haven't attempted to "resolve" anything :) With the other editors on the contested article, Central Europe, some progress has been made (and lost) at times. Some of us have one view on why and the other camp has an other. The important thing is that though I disagree strongly with some of them, even consider their practice of deleting tags they don't like as close to vandalism, nobody in either "camp" is making personal attacks on the other like Marc did before and has returned to doing once his block expired. And while I know, rationally, that I perhaps shouldn't comment, it's hard to sit quiet when somebody is doing everything he can to drag you through the mud. I have no worries as such for the RfC, I know what I've done and don't mind anyone going through my edits. But I would want some actions taken against Marc KHJ as he is a particularly agressive harasser. JdeJ (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I bet you guys a fiver Marc KJH is User:Bonaparte. If not, he's somebody else's sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

He has been engaging in yet more typical Bonaparte-style disruption, including page move warring etc. I've blocked him for a week, for now, until we figure out if we should consider him a proven Bonnie sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I made this [46] edit thinking I was reverting a case of minor vandalism. Having read this, I believe it was Marc KJH fumbling an attempt to open an RFC on JdeJ. I didn't leave a message for Marc KJH; I suppose I should go do that. qitaana (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A procedural question

What should I do in the following semi-hypothetical scenario? In the course of looking at my watchlist, I notice vandalism that happened earlier in the day from an IP user. It's already been reverted, by this point, but I'm still curious, so I go to the user's talk page and find it full of warnings, mostly several days old but a couple from earlier the same day. None of them are necessarily last-and-final warnings; just a garden of level-2, level-3, the occasional level-4. I move on, checking the user's contributions list, and discover that none of the user's edits, in about a month and a half of editing, has been allowed to stand--they're all reverted vandalism, or user-page abuse. Nothing constructive can be traced to the user, and the pattern suggests a static IP (or a long-term assignment, at least). There's nothing recent enough for AIV (though in the situation that inspired this question, I tried it--no action was taken.) So--what IS the best move in a situation like this? Where's the best place to raise the issue? (I realize that this is sort of a newbie question, but it seems that different admins have different thresholds of what constitutes actionable behavior/timeframe/etc, and I'd really like to pin down the best course of action to take.) Thanks for your time...Gladys J Cortez 04:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Best report it here, I'd guess. Looking it up using WHOIS will usually give a clue as to whether it's a static IP (or) assigned to a particular institution. WP:AIV is usually for short-term heavy vandalism. Longer-term abuse needs a little more investigation. HTH. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Echoing Rodhullandemy; here. The other point to look for is consistency in the vandalism, do they share the same language/interests (the same persons name, the same typo's, the same method of vandalism?) If it is a consistent (for example) "Barry sux dogs, lol!" then there is no need to investigate further, it is likely the same individual. Different types of vandalism over differing articles may suggest that it is just an unfortunate coincidence for that ip - and we are likely to slap a block on it just as the one legit user of the ip decides to usefully contribute. For that reason it is best to bring it here, so experienced admins can share the blame make those judgments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Also watchlist it of course and maybe check contribs every day or so to see if the IP comes back soon with more vandalism. Of course, if it's every month or two that the vandalism occurs now, that won't do much good but if he or she is on everyday recently you might just catch the IP in the act.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; thanks for the thoughtful answers! Gladys J Cortez 02:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Latimer

I am getting to my wit's end at this article, and would like to ask for some help or at the very least some advice.

• S. T. Webb,
• S.T. Webb
• IP 70.66.167.200 and currently
• IP 70.66.167.249

all one and the same user, I believe, have for over a year now being editing tendentiously about this Canadian BLP to push a particularly POV.[47] S/he inserts unsourced or inappropriately sourced OR POV material/phrasing,e.g. [48][49] [50] (see talkpage for full details of why), is uncivil to other editors e.g. [51][52] and deletes sourced material,[53] and today's edits, see below). Editors have tried the patient, teaching approach, e.g. [54][55] and a request for comment about the article [56] but in the 14 months since this started very limited progress has been made in terms of this editor understanding policies and guidelines. Today I rewrote part of the article to remove an unreliable source based on advice given at the RSN by two other editors,[57] and even included new material that supports his/her pro-Latimer position. This [58] and this [59] have been the result. Any suggestions for dealing with an IP editor who edits like this over such a long period of time? --Slp1 (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Interestingly, he said the same about you (OTRS ticket 2008040710001366). Perhaps it's time for a third opinion? Guy (Help!) 21:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what it is the 'same' exactly, but thanks for the suggestion, and I will ask for one. --Slp1 (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Unreferenced

Should the wording be changed to "sufficient references or sources" instead of "any references or sources? I have seen it on articles that have some sources, just not sufficient sources apparently. I would change the wording myself but the template is protected.--Urban Rose 23:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That template is only for articles that have exactly 0 sources. There are other templates for articles that have some sources but, in your opinion, not enough. This change is proposed relatively often, but it is very unlikely the unreferenced template will be changed in this way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Should be replaced by {{refimprove}} if there is at least one source cited (but not nearly enough). If there are only a few unsourced statements, these can be marked individually with {{fact}} rather than adding a banner at the top. — CharlotteWebb 00:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

The last archive of this page was sent to /dev/null because vandal 87.89.168.221 changed the archive header. Since I saw it immediately, I was able to restore all the lost messages easily.

This is likely a bug in the archive bot, as it is not supposed to be possible for an unprivileged user to send archives anywhere other than the standard place. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have done the archiving myself, and informed the bot's operator. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The link to the messup: [60]. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a bug - expected behavior. People should be allowed to discard their messages without a hassle of a magic key. Миша13 09:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Then limit that ability to user talk pages (where at least if someone else edits the archive tag the user will get "You have new messages!" for the edit) --Random832 (contribs) 16:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Pity, if it was WP:ANI it would be a public service. Guy (Help!) 00:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not have a bot just check the heading like at WP:SANDBOX and adjust just that if it's messed with? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And how exactly do you propose it knows whether the template's been "messed with" or simply adjusted to different settings? Миша13 07:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Can it be placed on a fully protected page (with cascade off) and transcluded here? MBisanz ^talk 07:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No. That would require the bot to scan all pages transcluded onto here (quite a lot of them) merely to find its configuration data. Миша13 11:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmn, not sure what's the best way to handle this. Does the bot view the wikitext or the raw/HTML output? If the latter, you could have {{User:MiszaBot/config}} wrap the necessary info in span ids and pick it up from the rendered output; but that's a significant change which shouldn't be forced just because of one vandal. I'd much rather you spent the time allowing the config template not to have linebreaks in it ([61]) - in fact, given that it's pywiki, I don't see how you managed to make that not possible :D !! Happy‑melon 16:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What about Random832's idea of allowing non-archiving removal only on user talk pages? This is a clearly distinguished subset of the bot-archived pages, the purpose of the option is specifically for them, and in case of vandalism the user will probably find out. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's recent actions

I consider User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's intervention on Balti Steppe article recently as unproductive namely in supporting blatant original research and simply not letting me to explain my viewpoint on the talk page (by unjustified topic ban). I think this user did not take the necessary time to study and understand the problem, moreover, the above mentioned user expressed unproven accusations and further insulted me. Please see from here [62] till the end of my talk page. I would like to ask some neutral administrators who have not been involved in the dispute to give a true appreciation to the actions of this user. Thank you very much in advance.--Moldopodo (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see the problem and you did not provide any diff of you being insulted. Closing the Afd was not controversial and was explained well, and you had the opportunity to make many comments on the talk page. This is not a statement on which version is the right one, I'm not competent to make that call. All I can say is that based on the diffs you have provided, I don't see any wrongdoing by Fut.Perf. JdeJ (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The diffs:[63] (archived talk page of the above mentioned user) - proof of absence any desire to contribute constructively to Wikipedia: "About "POV", "sources", "consensus" and whatnot, no, I absolutely don't know what it's all about, and I don't want to know", unjustifid harrasment: hope I won't see any further disruptive editing about this topic on your part, because the next time I will get you topic-banned from all articles related to Balti (no diff given with disruptive editing). This very same user closed the whole discussion on the nomination for deletion page in couple of minutes the deletion log, harrassing me with allegations of POV, disruptive editing and threatening to "be wise" generally. No diff was presented for POV. Personally I do not appreciate this kind of approach, moreover, the renaming problems were discussed in 2007 in detail and I do not see why that user comes back with these insinuations. I was not editing anything on the article proper and would like to see what you and other users will say. For further reference:[64]. Further, as for insults, I insist, do thouroughly check the diff I provided initially, where the user says: I can't really see how you are currently in the right frame of mind for contributing constructively to a collaborative discussion. Come off it, man. The costume rental guys have called they want that dress back, it's overdue, and the people in the plenary below you are getting uneasy too, also furter intimidation and harrasments followed You have further ignored my warnings above, broken the above restrictions twice and added yet more aggressive attacks to the discussion here again, without any proof for this insulting statement, nor for statement of disruptive editing from my side, nor for POV from my side.--Moldopodo (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fwooper and Kikiyaon

User:Fwooper may be a persistent vandal. I recently recreated a page that had been deleted several times as original research, about a kikiyaon monster, after being convinced that this was indeed a genuine bit of folklore. This user changed the page to one of the prior, deleted versions, and put "typo" as his edit summary. [65] Several vandalism warnings appear on his talk page.

User claims to be 13 years old on his user page. I sent another warning. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted this edit at Sten Bergman. Using the summary of "I was linking articles" while wikifying every single noun seems to indicate more but I'll just AGF for right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I slapped a lot of those speedy tags on kikiyaon and Sten Bergman, and was initially convinced it was vandalism. I then had a burst of spontaneous good faith and decided there was a chance (since he claims to be 13) he might just not understand. So I re-wrote Sten Bergman for him as an example of how to include stuff from sources without cutting and pasting. He thanked me very politely. For what it's worth, his subsequent edit to Kikiyaon wasn't a direct copy and paste; he had made some attempt to re-write the source material. Maybe I'm just being naive, but at the moment I'm not sure either way. Eve (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Yamla is abusing power

I genuinely think that User:Yamla is abusing his/her power as an administrator and should be desysopped/warned for abuse of powers as the user is acting against Wikipedia's admin policy. It is noted that the user has been only interested in simply deleting images that has proper descriptions, summary & source details. The latest evidence of his abuse power is Mammootty (I think it is one of his target article Mammootty). I therefore request to take immediate action against this disruptive admin who is acting as an Inspector. The rationale for deleting the image was given in my talk page is Please read WP:IUP and WP:FUC. Wikipedia simply does not permit the use of fair-use images solely to depict living people. Even if the image is published elsewhere. I couldn't find these WP guidelines are giving any message about publishing living people images are against our policy, does it?. I think that it is a blind justification. It wasn’t a single incident. Additionally see the users talk page also (see the last hidden archive pages) to understand more about his rude behavior & blind justifications. Thank you. --Crazyguy2050 (talk) 05:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Under non-free content policy use point # 1, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." The language is also repeated at Template:Non-free promotional ("Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project.") if you want to see it. For Image:Mammootty.jpg, other editors can confirm but it was User:Rodhullandemu who actually chose to delete the image. Yamla simply notified you of the policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just to clarify- I undeleted it to check it out, then re-deleted it. Yamla made the decision (correctly, in my opinion). --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  This complaint is very frivolous, Yamla deleted a fair use image wich was intended to illustrate the appearance of a living person, this means that the image is replaceable and will remain as such until the article's subject dies, thus the image's deletion is justified by its nature, our policies are quite clear ("Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing" are prohibited) on such use for fair use images. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  See the WP:FAIR#Unacceptable_use guideline, specifically Images point #12. That's what Yamla is referring to. The Wikipedia project is behind free content. WP policy excludes images requiring fair use claims when a free replacement could reasonably still be made. Gimmetrow 05:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  First of all let me tell, it is not a frivolous complaint. It is very serious in its nature. Coz, User:Yamla is a targeted kind admin who is not willing to listen others. He is not interested in others description of image summary. As User:Rodhullandemu commented it was User:Yamla’s decision. It wasn’t fair use category (please restore & see the description I’d given). The image was taken (scanned) from a newly published booklet called ‘Kauthukakeralam’ a non-notable book. I therefore have chosen Book cover category & uploaded it which means it is a free content from a non-notable, no-copyright mentioned book that is running in test basis. --Crazyguy2050 (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(←) This part of your comment "The image was taken (scanned) from a newly published booklet called ‘Kauthukakeralam’" basically prevents the image's free use, unless you can prove that the book isn't copyrighted we can't use it as "free". As a matter of fact that would only make it speedy material since its copyright status is unknown. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am ready to prove it. If you genuinely want it I can send a scanned copy of this nn-book to your email id. Please clarify. One more thing is that, by assuming good faith, my friend who gave me this book said me that it is a new venture. They do not have a web url to prove their status. It is not a regd publishing co. --Crazyguy2050 (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Caribbean H.Q. beat me to it, if you've scanned it from something, it's not fair use. Whether the book is notable or not, it's still a copyvio. If you didn't take the picture or we don't have permission from the person who did, it's non-free. I don't see any problem with the admin's actions. Redrocket (talk) 06:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I scanned it from a non-notable-book that doesn’t have any copyright mentioned. It is not a regd publishing company. It is a new venture by a group of graduates. --Crazyguy2050 (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The presumption here is that there is a copyright until it is expressly given otherwise. You would need to get the graduates to email indicating that they have released the copyright. This is all a huge waste of time. If you really want, Crazy, the two images in the Mammootty link to a guy's Flickr page where he has plenty of pictures of Mammootty all Creative Commons licensed. Any of those will be satisfactory. Jumping through these hoops seems pointless. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I should have probably explained myself better, if the book is copyrighted or not is irrelevant, the fact that its copyright can't be verified does, why? because we can't prove if one of the graduates took the photo or found it somewhere else. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Coz, it is a temporary book. It would soon be disappeared. Take it as a students published temp book. --Crazyguy2050 (talk) 07:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Then the students would have to upload it to wikipedia. Whoever took the picture has to sign off on it, otherwise it's a copyright violation. Redrocket (talk) 07:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to expand on the above. It is commonly, and entirely incorrectly assumed, that under U.S. copyright law, copyright only exists if it is expressly claimed (that is, the material contains some notification of who owns the copyright, with the little "circle C" and stuff). This is actually 180 degrees wrong... Under U.S. law, copyright exists from the moment of creation in a reproducable form. Thus, for a photo, once the photo is taken, copyright exists from that moment, and unless otherwise noted, is owned by the person who took the photo. If that person wishes to release the photo into the public domain, or otherwise wishes to liscence it under an alternate liscence, such as GFDL, they may expressly do so. However, if no such statement is made by the material's creator, the conservative legal view is that they still retain the copyright. Moral of the story: If you didn't take the picture, you don't own the copyright and someone else does. Don't upload it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot policy change proposals

In light of the concerns expressed by the community regarding the current handling of bots and the membership of the Bots Approval Group, members of the BAG are proposing a revised bot policy (with the help of a number of other concerned editors). This proposed wording addresses (a) community selection of BAG members, (b) a process by which the community can arrange for revisiting previous approvals in case of problems and (c) some of the weaker points of current bot policy that have been expressed in the past weeks.

Please read the proposed policy over and feel free to comment on the talk page. — Coren ^(talk) 12:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 15:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Generation2

In response to the deletion of Generation2 (sword replicas) I have tried to not make it an advertising page.

It is no more advertising than the Hanwei, or Albion or Arms and Armor pages. I looked. In fact the Hanwei is for the Hanwei Shop a retiler of Hanwei products. Please take a look at this.

This sword manufacturer is well know for their historical accurateness among collectors. So this sword manufacturer deserves to be included alongside these sword makers above.

In 2004 Generation2 did receive a call and talked to Mr. Hank Reinhardt (well known sword historian and martial artist) to make swords for him and to his specifications.

This is history being made right now.

I ask you to reconsider.

Sincerely,

Clyde Hollis —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClydeHollis (talk • contribs) 19:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

this isn't the right venue, but user has a point. Generation2 should at least be a redirect to list of sword manufacturers. The company may also have sufficient notability for a standalone article. But the burden to establish this is of course on the article author. dab (𒁳) 20:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, pretty much all of the companies listed here are spammy. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mystery category

In editing Portal:Trains today, I noticed a redlink for Category:Pages with too many expensive parser function calls at the bottom. The subpages for this portal, as far as I know, are all on my watchlist, and I don't see any edits to those pages that would have added this category; furthermore, when I go to that category page, Portal:Trains is not listed there. Has any other admin been working on one or more of the higher-level protected templates behind the portals? Slambo (Speak) 12:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that a change was made to MediaWiki sometime yesterday or today that adds pages to this category if there are more than 100 parser function calls on a page. With the complexity of some infoboxes and succession boxes, it seems that this category will have quite a few more pages in it before the end of the day. I'm updating Portal:Trains to remove the category from that page, but I'm a bit disappointed as the parser functions there were being used to automate many of the updates to the page. Further discussion should take place on WP:VPT. Slambo (Speak) 13:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone see about removing the parser function from {{User5}}? It's apparently transcluded too many times on WP:SSP, causing that page to be in the category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The template shows a link to a RFCU with the user's name if there is a case page. There are two choices: always show it (as a redlink if it doesn't exist) or never show it. Any preference? --Random832 (contribs) 19:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

When looking for sockpuppets, there should ever only be one case name (hopefully the master). Sometimes there are multiple cases if they were misfiled. I'd suggest taking it out altogether as it was added only recently, although the redlink would not bother me. There are other user templates that link to RFCU. Maybe use one of those for the master and user5 (without RFCU) for the socks. Best to ask at talk:SSP though. Thatcher 20:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A few fully protected double redirects

Wasn't sure where to post this, so I'll do it here. An administrator should take care of these double-redirects as I wasn't able to fix them due to the pages being fully protected and there were too many of them to post a notice on the respective talk pages. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm on it. 52 Pickup (deal) 14:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. By the way, shouldn't these new CSD templates be protected? 52 Pickup (deal) 14:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I did :D ! Consensus was against protection for all except {{db-meta}}, so I unprotected them. Admittedly, they're not really vandalism targets because the pages they're put on keep getting deleted for some reason... Happy‑melon 19:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re-do AfD close

Hey, will someone re-close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pixelh8? I did it earlier today, but I realized it looked a little off since I was keeping it based on work that I had done, even though the half the votes were to delete. It's a pretty clear keep now that I've made improvements; the two delete votes were from the article's original state, which was poor. Thanks in advance. :) GlassCobra 18:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Business Continuity Maturity Model

The Business Continuity Maturity Model article was deleted a few moments ago after submitting it as an article. This is a open access model and free for public use. Over 40 countries have used this model and it has been viewed by over 3,000 business continuity professionals. Whereas, you currently have the BS2599 listed as an article and the company that promotes this model charges a signficant fee for its usage.

Please reconsider and repost the Business Continuity Maturity Model and delete the BS25999 article. --Dotcomvc (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not to be used for marketing. Please see WP:BFAQ. --Yamla (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ionas68224 / User:Iambus requesting review of his ban

Just as a general notice, the above banned user is requesting to be reinstated. It should be noted that this request was ONLY made after User:Iambus was blocked for sock puppeteering. I have no knowledge or experience with the initial case, but am only posting this here to see what the general feeling is out there. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I had already declined the unblock, telling him to contact WP:ARBCOM. Given the facts outlined above, I think it is clearly inappropriate to lift the ban at this time. --Yamla (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom already declined reviewing the ban during his last foray back onto the site.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Someone missing a sock?

Onetwentyfive-60-twofortyeight-onethirtynine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been engaging in some strange behavior, including taking over User talk:125.60.248.139, moving comments around, and generally displaying far more knowledge of Wikipedia than a new editor should. The block log of the anon. shows one block for sockpuppetry along with a string of blocks going back almost a year for incivility and attacks, indicating an apparent static IP, but I can't figure out who they, or the associated Onetwentyfive, belong to. --jonny-mt 04:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

See AN/I Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; should've probably checked there first >.< --jonny-mt 05:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Before I Go

I may not be an admin, but whatever. It has been fun, but I have made a tough decision and left. I may return but not this year. Love you guys. I hope you all live long and prosper. Rgoodermote  04:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Needs the knife

Can a sysop look at Patrick Sherry. He certainly doesn't need an article. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to request this. Please visit Wikipedia:Articles for creation. — Κaiba 23:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what they were doing; they were reporting an article in need of deletion (and, minutes later, CambridgeBayWeather obliged). Kaiwhakahaere, in future, see WP:DEL for various ways to recommend deletion. --barneca (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn dyslexia T.T — Κaiba 00:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Me too, and wilco. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

But I should have reverted rather than outright deleting it. Thanks to Seresin for fixing it. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm not sure the article is notable as written now either. We don't have articles on every person who died, and his band is redlinked as well. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sent to Afd --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forced to Delete Text

I point you here. I tried to edit the page and it complained that I cannot save because the weblink in the deleted portion was included. Black List. Now, I am unsure whether that should be deleted outright or if Wikipedia's ettiquette policy should be obeyed, but I could not do that edit without deleting the text. So if an admin could either note that it's okay or restore the text I was forced to delete. Thanks. KV(Talk) 03:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In the case of a spam link being added to Wikipedia and it is blacklisted, a filter while go through and lock pages that still have a link until they are removed. If the link is for spam reports or warnings, etc. it is better to add <nowiki> tags to make the filter disappear and keep the link for historical accuracy. In your case, it was an editor saying 'come look at this site', blatant spamming, which in that case, a wholesale removal of that link is proper. You handled the situation just fine. — Κaiba 06:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. KV(Talk) 16:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Kentucky/On this day.../April 9 protected?

Why can I not start Portal:Kentucky/On this day.../April 9; it says it is protected. As the one who runs this portal, I see no reason why it is protected. It also won't let me start the one for April 11; I haven't tried the others.--Bedford 06:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't show as protected for me. Maybe you weren't logged in? 74.131.36.225 (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm... not showing as protected for me, either. Try again? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Message popped up for me when I went as if I was going to start the page, a special page titled "Unauthortized" pops up. A brief exceprt: "Unfortunately the page you attempted to edit/create cannot be created or edited, because the title has been forbidden from being used due to abuse." — Κaiba 07:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am getting the same error message: "Unfortunately the page you attempted to edit/create cannot be created or edited, because the title has been forbidden from being used due to abuse. If you have a good reason for creating a page with this title, or an existing page has been caught in error, please let us know at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, as well as a brief explanation of what you were trying to do. Thank you." No logs for the page, no links to it either for protected titles. Cascading maybe? I'm stumped. ➪HiDrNick! 07:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I also tried to click on several other red links at Portal:Kentucky/On this day..., as if I was going to create the page and I run into this message there too. — Κaiba 07:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Slight update. I popped open IE (effectively logging out) and got the error trying to create Portal:Kentucky/On this day.../April 9, but the error message wasn't the sort I usually see for protected pages. I don't see anything in MediaWiki:Titleblacklist that would obviously come into play, here. Asked around on IRC, others were able to create the page. Strange. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't recreate this problem, perhaps you might want to raise a bugzilla or drop by Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)? Stifle (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's working on IE now. Rudget (review) 15:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I was able to edit it now, but now I can't do it for Portal:Indianapolis/On this day.../April 9. Maybe it is a bug. I'll go report.--Bedford 16:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copying user pages?

How is it handled when a user duplicates another user's page, part and parcel? LASurfer, whose short history suggests his account may have been created specifically to express frustration at an unrelated user, has duplicated the page at User:Jorobeq, right down to the opening sentence of "My name is José R. Quintanilla and I was born September 13, 1987)." I have brought this up to LASurfer twice. He removed the first question without responding. I asked again, and though he has edited Wikipedia and communicated with me since in response to an NPA notice, he has not responded to this question. I would ask Jorobeq about it, but he has not actively edited since March 22. Language patterns (contrast this with this) make it seem pretty unlikely that this is the same user. The editor who is the recipient of his ire has suggested that User:LASurfer may be a sockpuppet of User:US - Jimmy Slade, with whom he has been involved in a recent dispute at Major League Soccer. I do not know the strength of his evidence and have pointed out to him the proper forum for addressing that. I mention it here only for the sake of complete context.

I brought this here instead of ANI because I'm perfectly prepared to handle it myself (though I have no objections to somebody else doing it, either). I'm just not entirely sure whether the page should be deleted under WP:CSD#G12 (it does not give authorship credit; on the other hand, wikilinking in edit summary would satisfy that), nominated for deletion at MFD, blanked, left alone or what. I'd like to know what precedent is, as I doubt this is a unique situation. :) And even if you don't know precedent, I more than welcome your thoughts. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that's Wikipedia:Harassment. Kingturtle (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User page deleted. Editor blocked as an obvious sockpuppet of US - Jimmy Slade (talk · contribs) created only to harass other users. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 12:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll consider that one resolved then. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] block log and rename user

Does this mean that my block logs could be merged? If so, I'd appreciate if someone could do it. Dorftrottel (complain) 15:04, April 9, 2008

Oh boy oh boy, I have been waiting for that bug to get fixed! _(1 == 2)^Until 15:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it only applies going forward. I'm not sure if logs can be merged. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It is possible, it would just require a manual running the the SQL query in the bug report, or a special page to run it. A tool could even slowly crawl over all names in the rename log and migrate the block logs on by one. There have only been a few thousand renames and block logs don't contain that much data so this is very doable. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Then you'll need to flag down a developer to run it. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

So, if I understand it correctly, this would be done as part of a mass merger of block logs according to all past renames rather than case-by-case? What about multiple renames (I had 2), would it still work? Dorftrottel (troll) 15:49, April 9, 2008

if the developer has half a brian (which I know all of ours do) they would start with the oldest rename and move forward. A ==> B ==> C and there should be no problems with multiple re-names. β^{_{command 2}} 16:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Would that be half a Vibber or half a Brain? :-) (Yes, I know it's Brion, but the pun on Beta's typo still works). Carcharoth (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Community ban proposal on Fredrick day

Per rampages of the last few days (most recently documented yesterday at WP:ANI#Edit warring by blocked User:Fredrick day, I propose that the indefinite block on Fredrick day (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) be endorsed as a ban. It is evident that he has degenerated into vandalism and trolling, and the indefinite block hasn't stopped him. It is highly unlikely he will ever be unblocked, yet I make this proposal to support block/revert on sight of all of his edits. Blueboy96 20:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, he's already banned; I can't fathom any admin proposing unblocking him, and certainly none has. Regardless, I endorse the proposal. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In that edits by socks of a banned user may be reverted without discussion, I agree that Fredrick day should be considered banned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's make something clear ... I'm of the mind that among the VERY FEW circumstances that a banned user's edits shouldn't be reverted on sight are instances of very egregious BLP violations and copyvios. However, the fact that Fredrick day is hiding behind the need to enforce BLP in order to rationalize his other actions is not acceptable to me at all. Blueboy96 21:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, he may be trying to entrap editors into getting in trouble for blanket reverting his edits. (Or it might be just a coincidence, and he just happens to have gone on the crusade against BLP violations in the wake of his recent indefinite block and Abd's attempts to revert all his edits.) Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Abd has been indiscriminately reverting his edits despite me saying five hours ago that BLP violations do not get reverted, such as this edit for example. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that such content should not remain unless reliably sourced. And in fact I was going to look for some sources but the kind of websites you run into trying to find it tend to be somewhat unsavory, and I'd rather not have that recorded in my access log. Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would support understanding the indefinite block to be a community ban. My proviso is that reverting his edits should not be done en masse without checking the content. Since he has recently been playing games with BLP, we should avoid getting into a tangle there. EdJohnston (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would support a community ban. It's almost like the user is trying to entrap people by tricking them into reverting legitimate edits, which then enables him to get up on a soapbox and rail against... Enigma ^message Review 06:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Enigmaman, this user looks like he's trying to get editors into situations where he's playing wiki-polcies against each other, and trying to disrupt the system. Comunity ban, revert any stray edits, then double-check the content to make sure no WP:BLP violations sneaked in there. Redrocket (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Went ahead and tagged as banned per this discussion. There appears to be no opposition or any administrator who is willing to unblock for another chance. Feel free to revert if you like. — Κaiba 07:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I oppose a ban, and will revert. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Frederick day may be a bad character, but so far the only bad behavior that I've seen in this whole debacle has come from parties other than him. Assume all kinds of bad faith about his reasons for doing so, but he has been making legitimate edits to remove BLP. Why on earth would we ban someone for doing that. Have you all gone mad? He's indefinitely blocked. Leave him at that. Block his sockpuppets. But there is no reason for a ban. That is simply excessive, punitive, and detrimental to the encyclopedia.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, have you even read the SSP report? [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] (he's right about this one it seems) [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] and uh, the list continues for quite a long time. I see no reason not to ban, he's made it perfectly clear that he's only interested in trolling our contributors and reviewing his IPs I see endless examples of attempts to wind people up. We're not banning him for making BLP edits. We're banning him because he keeps harassing people. -- Naerii 19:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And we're not banning him because there is an administrator willing to unblock. None of you are assuming even the slightest amount of good faith. Why on earth would we ban someone for making valid, helpful contributions, EVEN IF THEY WERE BLOCKED? That's not at all helpful to the encyclopedia, and I would oppose that under any circumstance. Fact is, none of us know what the IP's motivation is, and attributing those edits as harassment or attempts to trap someone is simply failing to assume good faith and predisposing him of guilt. He is being helpful, and as long as he continues to do so, I oppose a ban. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets point out that the only difference right now between an indef block (which he already has) and a ban, is the ability to revert all of the IP's edits on sight. Since the edits are at the moment perfectly fine, there is no legitimate reason for the ban. He should stay at an indefinite block.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Swatjester, I have to disagree. While I don't doubt he's being helpful, I believe he's doing so to cover up his actions of the past--borders on gaming the system. Blueboy96 22:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe he's turning over a new leaf. Since you admit that he's making helpful edits, then why would we ban him (thus giving us a duty to revert those edits) instead of leaving him indefinitely blocked? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The only reason he is making 'good' edits it to game the system and watch editors fight over reverting all his edits or not, etc. This user has no place here. — Κaiba 00:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Good edits have no place here? Once again, you don't know what his intentions are. What you do know is that his edits are good. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt for a second the disruptive intent behind choosing BLP violations as a target while making it glaringly obvious who he is. I do think it needs to be clear that even if he's banned, people still need to be accountable for reverting edits that introduce unsourced contentious material into BLPs. --Onorem♠Dil 00:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems like if his goal was to improve the encyclopedia, he would just quietly do that- as he points out, he does know how to avoid blocks. Posting each change at the BLP board seems to indicate that his primary goal is disruption, not improvement. Maybe I'm wrong. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

He's a poster boy for WP:POINT, but that doesn't mean that the edits are incorrect. "R", "B", but don't automatically "I" his talk page comments...and take a moment to review the article edits when good, clear reasons are being given for why they're being made. --Onorem♠Dil 00:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me the jester is joking. The bad behavior is from others and not from him? What? Enigma ^message Review 02:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Since this BLP debacle began (I'm not talking about events before that), all of the IP's edits that I have seen have been good, and at the same time I've seen User:Abd deliberately disrupting the encyclopedia to ensure that this IP's edits are reverted. Fredrick Day may have been a bad editor, he may have been a serial killer for all I care. But he's currently making good edits, and we simply don't ban people for that. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I was originally neutral on this, but Swatjester has convinced me this user should not be banned, at least not yet. Kelly ^hi! 03:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to pay more attention then Jester, [79] [80] [81] are just a few of the edits he's made since the BLP mess began -- Naerii 14:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Swatjester here. Is this what we've come to? People are complaining that edits of a user are being mass reverted, inserting potential libel back into articles, so now we're trying to ban the user to get a better reason to revert all his edits? Have we lost all common sense? Revert the disruptive edits, then block the IP once it becomes disruptive (it seems he's used only 1 sock account and all but one of the IPs have been in the same range, so its not like he's going to great lengths to evade) but other then that, just leave it be. The encyclopedia comes first, before rules that are not necessarily binding and silly drama. Mr.Z-man 03:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The only "silly drama" being caused is by people that assume banning also means restoring negative content to BLPs. And as for, "the edits he's making now are perfectly fine" Swatjester - [82]. -- Naerii 14:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not me - I write in English which means that the expression "p'wnd" appears on my special list marked "phrases/words I'd rather cut off my fingers than use". --Fredrick Night (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And what about [83] [84] which are pretty obviously you considering the later edit [85]? -- Naerii 16:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Different IP's. Perhaps had you all not been condemning him, he wouldn't have made those edits. I still don't see behavior rising to the level of a ban. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Coincidentally from the range that Fredrick is known to use and with edits later made that had edit summaries the lines of edits he'd previously made... also note that Kurt has not been involved in these ban discussions and has not been condemning him since the BLP issues began. People condemned him in the first place because he'd been harassing Kurt, and he is still harassing Kurt in an unacceptable manner with no justification whatsoever. Also note that throughout this mess he has not made a single apology, indeed he has openly admitted to be trying to play people. Please stop enabling trolls. -- Naerii 17:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

So by not agreeing to a ban, we're enabling trolls? Are we saying not to block him when he trolls? No. A ban isn't some magic device where if we put a {{banned user}} tag on his talk page he'll just go away. Very little will change from what we're doing now, the only difference is that people will be further emboldened to revert all his edits without checking for quality. Revert the unhelpful edits, leave the good ones, block for disruption. Why is that so freaking hard to do if the user isn't "banned"? Mr.Z-man 17:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Because people keep complaining about his edits being reverted as he's not banned. Jeez. It's like people walk along to these discussions and don't bother to review the history at all. Oh wait. -- Naerii 17:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I know the history, don't patronize me. Mr.Z-man 18:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)So he's made some disruptive edits. Since when do we initiate a community ban discussion for userpage vandalism? "The only "silly drama" being caused is by people that assume banning also means restoring negative content to BLPs" - And for some unknown reason, people seem to think that's perfectly acceptable. The stated reason for this ban is so we can revert all his edits and block his IPs on sight. That is a terrible reason. Mr.Z-man 16:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Quote from the originator of this discussion... "Let's make something clear ... I'm of the mind that among the VERY FEW circumstances that a banned user's edits shouldn't be reverted on sight are instances of very egregious BLP violations and copyvios. .... Blueboy96 21:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)" I support a ban because he has engaged in unacceptable behaviour towards our editors (and is still engaging it) and is abusively sockpuppeting. Should we allow someone to edit people's pages with intolerable abuse 50% of the time just because the other 50% they remove BLP violations? I would support a community ban for any other vandal that went out of his way to antagonise people as much as this one does. -- Naerii 17:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the point? Is this just symbolism? Mr.Z-man 17:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's because people were complaining about the more obnoxious of his non-mainspace edits being reverted as he's "not banned". -- Naerii 17:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Good grief! Why is this so difficult for people to understand?! We revert things that are disruptive, leave the things that aren't! If people disagree with the reverting, maybe it wasn't so disruptive or they're just process wonking and need a good slap upside the head. Being banned should should not change that at all, and banning someone just so his edits can be reverted is an absolutely terrible reason to do so. Mr.Z-man 18:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to your proposals to unblock every banned user. 22:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naerii (talk • contribs)

Naerii, I'll ask you to stop the strawman arguments. It's not helpful, and is borderline trolling. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break 1

WP:BAN specifically states:

Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of core policies such as Neutrality, Verifiability, and Biographies of Living Persons.

Even without that to consider, it's simple common sense. No matter who finds them, egregious BLP violations and copyvios must not stay in an article a minute longer than when it's obvious what they are. Period, end of discussion. This doesn't change the basic fact--there is no reason that a user who has engaged in the kind of harassment Fredrick day has engaged in should be allowed formal editing privileges. If I'm reading this right, not even those opposing a ban are willing to unblock him.

I do agree, though, that Abd's actions in this border on disruption, and he should be given at least 48 hours to cool his heels next time. Blueboy96 20:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There ain't gonna be a next time. I stopped two days ago. Here is the sequence of events:

I was reverting User:Fredrick day, on sight, and was indeed not making sure that edits were improper before reverting them, he was making lots of edits, using many different IPs, and I was trying to keep up. I had taken a cue from User:Sarcasticidealist who was doing (and continues to do) the same with User:Sarsaparilla. (But BLP issues were not involved.)

I had stated to the community that I would stop, quickly, if the community asked me; to this point there were only isolated objections and a fair amount of support. I am not claiming that my actions were proper, indeed they were in conflict with policy. By the way, nobody told me about this discussion. Here is what happened at the critical point:

23:32, 7 April 2008 I made the last unresearched edit to articles touched by Fredrick day. [86]

23:42, 7 April 2008 Swatjester asked me to stop.[87]

23:45, 7 April 2008 He made it a formal warning.[88]

I had not before been warned, though there had been some level of disagreement.

23:55, 7 April 2008 As soon as I saw it, I responded to Swatjester's comment that I was done.[89]

That was it. I did not continue. I had said I'd come to a screeching halt if the community asked, and administrators, acting to warn, representing the community pending further discussion, did warn me and I did stop.

I made one more edit to a pornstar article, and it's remarkable, because what has been asserted, for example by Swatjester, as being so dangerous was, in fact, easy to source, and the source was already in the article, already being used, and is still there. The references hadn't been made explicit. So I did that. It was taken out by Fredrick day again.[90]. And so it stands. A block-evading user has been allowed to remove sourced material. His edit summary was this: (1) you have linked to a general frontpage 2) you have added "alleged" to a BLP - this doesn't cover you from comitting libel 3) the source you use is not considered a Reliable source.). Now, I have no particular interest in that article, no axe to grind about it. My purpose here is not to resolve a content dispute, but to raise the question of allowing a blocked user, quite willing to edit war, to decide what content stands. I did not link to a front page, I did not add "alleged" -- this was simply the prior language, and it is harmless --, I haven't libeled anyone, but have restored to the article material which can be found easily on the net, including what appear to me to be reliable sources, apparently not controversial, and the source is actually the same source as for the information that was left in, that the actress contracted AIDS. I added the sources, Fd reverted it again. Because of the flap, I've left it alone. However, notice the first reason, about "you have linked to a general frontpage." From what I've seen of him, he said this simply to waste my time rechecking the sources. That's his point, to make it tedious and difficult to revert his contributions. And he wasn't blocked for making good edits....

One more point. Some writers above seem not to be aware of the extent of Fds socking. I haven't kept up with the last two days, but I was logging all the IP he's used at Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day. *Most* of his edits come from a single range, but if you want to see what he was up to, you can look at the links provided there. He has been logging in, occasionally, through ISPs from all over the world. His claim is that he cannot be blocked, and that he is freer as an IP editor. Is he? It somewhat looks like it.--Abd (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming Abd knows that he did the wrong thing, and won't do it again in the future, than he's good to go. I have to admit, I'm less than 100% certain that's the case, but I'll assume good faith on that. However, the purpose of this AN section is done. There are now at least 3 admins who oppose a ban, so there is no ban. Arguing further about it is pointless, and won't help nor solve anything. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)