Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive148

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 User:Purbo T 2 Proposed topic ban - User:MickMacNee regarding User:Betacommand 2.1 Point of order: Can admins issue topic bans? 2.2 Exact wording re topic ban of User:MickMacNee regarding User:Betacommand 2.3 Duration 3 Blocked user using anon to evade block 4 Ran (film) 5 Thank you 6 Undeletion request 7 Request For Deletion of Article Criticism Of Christianity 8 Acts of Union 1707 9 Michael Jackson talk page archives - BLP violations 10 The FritzpollBot 11 Inappropriate User talk page protection 12 An administrator is needed to edit the sidebar 13 Assistance required 2 14 User talk:198.99.32.5 15 MascotGuy 16 User:Jaakko Sivonen 17 Unblock Request 18 No idea how to do this... 19 "Vandalism" wrongly attributed to me 20 AutoWikiBrowser Backlog 21 Al-Azhar University vandal 22 Renaming some Wikipedia positions 23 Account Creator Group 24 Huge backlog at CAT:CSD 25 Request for unbanning by User:Iamandrewrice 25.1 Motion to amend the ban and close 26 Talk page blocked 27 Zap these please! 28 Admin input needed to close discussion. 29 Ratification vote on {{C-Class}} started 30 Concerning Image:Ac.delphi1.jpg 31 Grawp account? 32 Shamsheer abbas 33 3RR should be changed 34 Just to make sure no one objects 35 Keep a close eye on User:Lemmey 35.1 User:Lemmey blocked 35.2 I have blocked the bot 36 Unblock of User:Sarah777? 37 What to do about Category:Copy to Wiktionary 38 Notable music by not notable musicians? 39 Liz Wilde 40 New global userright 41 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3 42 Images as refs 43 Double standards for tennis players 44 Montessori School of Westfield‎ 45 Suspected AFD meatpuppetry 46 Edit warring at WP:BAG 47 Page Move assistance 48 Heads up 49 WP:RFPP entry untouched for 7-8 hours 50 New activity by banned user Jvolkblum 51 Possible Blatant Copyright Infringement by User:Reezy

[edit] User:Purbo T

This account popped up on my watchlist and appears to be an unapproved bot with almost 50,000 edits that has been active since April, 2007. I have little familiarity with the ins and outs of bot policy, so I'm here to pass the buck.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Its manual, it does not require approval. Account is fine. --Lemmey talk 16:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Needs further review, per a couple of sections above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed topic ban - User:MickMacNee regarding User:Betacommand

I'd like to propose a topic ban by MickMacNee (talk · contribs) in regards to actions by Betacommand (talk · contribs). It's apparent that Mick has a real animus toward Betacommand, as demonstrated by comments in the recently-archived massive thread about Betacommand and in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Betacommand/Edit count, as well as all of its predecessor threads in various forums. I'm not saying that Mick's concerns are without basis, but his obvious animosity, forum-shopping, and refusal to heed the advice of others is disruptive. Betacommand is under close community scrutiny, and I don't think that Mick's particular close attention on Betacommand's contribs is required. I, and others (including Until 1==2 and AuburnPilot) have tried to discuss this with him (most recently here) but I'm afraid the advice is falling on deaf ears. Would appreciate the community's opinion on this. Kelly ^hi! 16:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support My patience has been exhausted, as has a lot of peoples I suspect at that MFD. It is clear that Mick is blinded when it comes to Beta. Perhaps a forced withdrawal will help. Woody ([[User talk:Woody|tal16:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support a topic ban on MickMacNee towards issues relating to Betacommand. In my past experience with Mick I have noticed 3 things: 1) He perceives people disagreeing with him as a form of attack, 2) He will never stand down when he is sure he is right and 3) He has his own way of interpreting policy and no amount of consensus to the contrary will change that.

I think it is in the interest of the community to ask Mick to not deal with Betacommand. Other people who don't have an ax to grind can handle that situation. _{1 != 2} 16:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support a topic ban. --Conti|✉ 16:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - seems to always be around alleging conspiracy. —TreasuryTag—t | c 16:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not forum shopped. Please expand this claim if you want it to stand. And it is demonstrably clear that that an Mfd of that page was the next logical step (and only valid step), as identified by many other editors who followed the events surrounding that page. As for 1==2, 1) is wrong, please prove, 2) and you would? 3) Again wrong, please prove. Yes, other people are dealing with the larger situation (you will note I had no hand in the initiation or voting on that solution), so please demonstrate what you hope to achieve going forward by this action? (bar plain censorship of legitimate actions such as commenting at an Mfd) MickMacNee (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

proof for 1 and 3(your behavior on this page), and proof for 2. _{1 != 2} 16:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please show exactly where "I perceive people who disaree with me as a personal attack". Please show an exact diff where I accuse someone of a personal attack without justification. A link to an entire page is frankly insufficient if you want to make such claims, and shows this issue for what it is. MickMacNee (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I am tired of arguing with you, I never get anywhere because you don't seem to take anyone else's opinion into account. I will let others decide if my links are enough or not. _{1 != 2} 17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop wikilawyering. It's really annoying and part of the reason why we're discussing a topic ban. Maxim_(talk) 17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You want the truth then? 1==2 and Kelly can't accept that an Mfd of a page owned by Beta is acceptable, despite numerous independant calls for one, so they come here, because they can't convince me that what happens at an Mfd in user space overrides what happens in wikispace, and they think they don't have to argue their point because my past history with Beta is enough for their views to count by default, because they can't reconcile the fact that the highlighted inconsistencies in their arguments go against the accepted principles of how wikipedia works. MickMacNee (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would we resort to conspiracy and backended attacks when it is clear that the MfD is not going to have any effect? Pretty much nobody agrees with the MfD and it will be closed as Kept. No this is about the way you are presenting yourself, and it goes well beyond just the MfD a quick look at your talk page shows that this is about you going after Beta for anything you can find. _{1 != 2} 17:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As if you even know what the last issue was about (or would even take a side that doesn't support your current one). MickMacNee (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"He perceives people disagreeing with him as a form of attack"... I actually did follow the original discussion and I do know what it was about. It was about something unrelated, yet there you were going after beta. _{1 != 2} 17:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Beta cannot be wrong in two separate issues. Impossible. MickMacNee (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support the topic ban as proposed above, Alex Muller 17:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT springs to mind. EJF (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but 21 keep voter in an Mfd does not override the stated wishes of 31 editors in wikispace, whether they were made a day ago, or in this case a few months ago. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you asked for more proof, "has his own way of interpreting policy and no amount of consensus to the contrary will change that" describes that last post of yours very well. _{1 != 2} 17:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

God was this response ever ironic... Resolute 17:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

To 1==2, You are incessantly backflipping, one minute you think 21 keep votes is consensus, now you don't. It is obvious that the Mfd is not the place to discuss a previous wikispace arrangement, despite the fact you really want it to because the diversion and subversion suits the current agenda. You haven't got the balls or the integrity to take the issue to the correct venue. MickMacNee (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything about the MfD not having consensus, it clearly does. "He will never stand down when he is sure he is right"... You are actually re-enacting each of the reasons I supported this topic ban. This is tragic. _{1 != 2} 17:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• yes, I fully support this proposal. We clearly have issues to sort out with Beta's behaviour but we aren't going to be able to do it in the background of constant harping on about previous events from MickMacNee. I personally feel that this is a sanction that should be used more frequently to take the heat out of other disputes that are fuelled by personal animus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - A definite need for this. asenine ^{say what?} 17:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• I've blocked MickMacNee for 24 hours for incivility, provocation and personal attacks. I've, with a note, listed three examples of such in the last 2-3 hours on his talkpage. Maxim_(talk) 17:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Extended to 48 hours for repeating the same behaviour on his talkpage. Maxim_(talk) 18:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sceptre ^(talk) 17:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Just becaue he's sometimes right about Betacommand doesn't mean he's allowed to act the way he does. --Carnildo (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• My point of view precisely. —TreasuryTag—t | c 18:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support - (ec) There are definite issues regarding BetaCommand's behaviour. However, constantly prodding and poking involved parties and then attacking them when they reply is probably the worst way of going about resolving them. He is complaining about BC's incivility, and then goes around doing the same [and arguably worse] things himself. The words kettle, pot and black spring to mind! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:06, May 25, 2008 (UTC)
• Support - if there's any evidence to support it, a reciprocal ban would be appropriate... however every incident in which the two came to blows that I've experienced has been precipitated by MickMackNee. Happy‑melon 18:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support I sympathize with some of Mack's views, but I think he has gotten so burnt out and frustrated on Beta related topics that he can't effectively contribute to discussion surrounding it. Maybe he is right in how upset he is with the community's actions on these issues, but simply acting upset time and time again over it in a incivil manner isn't helping his cause, only disrupting things. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - MMN is entirely unable to stay civil in matters related to Betacommand. His participation in discussions almost always has the effect of inflaming the dispute and increasing the drama. However, given the combative attitude he often displays, I'm unsure how effective this will be in avoiding more drama and blocks. Mr.Z-man 18:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with this, if anything, I imagine banning Mack on this will result in him just leaving the project, where, outside of a lot of this drama, he does good work. Of course, this is not to say that topic/ban or a block of incivility shouldn't happen if the community demands it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that barring any sudden influx of contrary opinions that it has been decided that MickMackNee is banned from topics related to Betacommand due to past behavior. _{1 != 2} 18:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose MickMacNee has been a much needed balance to the "BetaCommand Can Do No Wrong Cabal". - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 18:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"1) He perceives people disagreeing with him as a form of attack, 2) He will never stand down when he is sure he is right and 3) He has his own way of interpreting policy and no amount of consensus to the contrary will change that" would apply at least as well to Betacommand. If MickMacNee has become burnt out because of the ongoing problems with BC, then perhaps those who have done so much to defend BC from criticism should examine their consciences. DuncanHill (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

While I certainly agree that Betacommand needs attention, I don't think what Mick brings is "balance". _{1 != 2} 19:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The protection of his talk page just looks vindictive, in my opinion. DuncanHill (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I would support unprotecting his talk page and making some kind of transclusion so his comments there can be seen here. Kelly ^hi! 19:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

To be completely frank I think that unprotecting his talk page will lead to him saying something that will get him in more trouble, see [1]. Give a guy enough rope... But I don't oppose the unprotection because he may surprise me and act appropriately. _{1 != 2} 19:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I am by no means a member of the "BetaCommand Can Do No Wrong Cabal" (as Allstarecho put it), but MickMackNee's actions are bordering on harassment. It's time we force a separation between these two editors. - auburnpilot talk 20:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support The way MMN is making his points has been more than unhelpful, and his argumentative behavior only make it harder for everyone to take seriously the other "BC opponents". -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Especially after the latest 48 hour block. Will also support a reciprocal ban, if needed. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The 34 comments Mick made on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Betacommand/Edit count were excessive and, IMO, badgering. Couple that with the 30+ comments that he made about BC on this page the other day, and it's clear he just can't stop at this point. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. About time too. MMN's hounding of Betacommand, pushing BC beyond human endurance and then shouting loudly when BC snaps has been some of the worst behaviour I've seen on Wikipedia. MMN's trolling and similar behaviour toward anyone who speaks up for BC or takes issue with him (MMN) is also appaling. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 21:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• This has been a long time coming. naerii - talk 21:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support I think this is an appropriate restriction. MBisanz ^talk 21:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• I have no problem with this proposed topic-ban. MickMacNee has gone far beyond the bounds of acceptable decorum and is simply inflaming an already inflammable situation. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose Whilst I also get irritated by the number of people who bring up complaints regarding Betacommand and his bots, I am absolutely against the principle of silencing them by topic banning. Topic banning a complainant is not going to encourage anyone else with a legitimate (or even nor so legitimate - but something that can be resolved) issue with BC to use the admin boards as resolution process, and may permit BC to believe that they can continue in the contentious style as they have previously. Betacommand has serious issues regarding his communication skills with both the use of his bots and his reaction to criticism of them. If we wish to reduce the number and variety of complainants in respect of BC I suggest that BC is the party that needs to be actioned. If MickMacNee has violated WP policy/guidelines then pursue that avenue, but lets not sanction the malcontent for simply bringing up the issue. If exasperation and irritation were the basis of considering sanction then Betacommand would not now be editing WP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, Betacommand has already been sanctioned. --Conti|✉ 23:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I am aware of that. However, my point is that removing the critic is not the way to deal with the issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If this were a case of somebody "simply bringing up the issue," that would be perfectly fine, but Mick has taken his opposition to Beta to a level that can only be described as stalking and harassment. Mick doesn't just bring up the issue, but badgers Beta and anyone else who disagrees with his (Mick's) stance on the issue. Civil discourse is fantastic; Mick's obsession is not. - auburnpilot talk 00:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support: This has been a long time coming; there are enough issues dealing with Betacommand already; MMN doesn't help things and has a tendency to make things a lot worse. I feel that taking him out of the picture will help the overall situation. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• This situation needs to deescalate, and Beta has enough critics to keep him sober. I'm not convinced MMN's presence here helps, and I'm quite certain it hinders. --Haemo (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose BC has been out of control forever and if he'd displayed half a lick of sense or self control over the past year the reaction to him wouldn't be so extreme. He's slipped the noose more times than he deserves and there needs to be critics on him and challenging his supporters. I'm looking forward to seeing if sanctions on BC actually stick. Wiggy! (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Mick made several excellent points during the previous discussion and although he could have presented them better, he was more civil than Betacommand. Why do Betacommand supporters single Mick out, while failing to acknowledge Betacommand's misconduct and communication problems? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Mild support. MickMacNee's frequent and relentless criticisms of Betacommand often seem to hold back productive discussion. Yes, Betacommand has earned the criticism in many ways, but MickMacNee has the tendency to keep hounding Betacommand about something long after the point has been made. Mick has been quite adept at finding problems, but now we all know about the problems and need to find solutions. That said, it will be a shame if a topic ban is successfully applied to MickMacNee but Betacommand's sanctions fail to stick, just because Betacommand has more friends in high places than MickMacNee. So it is very important that community consensus works both ways. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. When the way in which a user expresses his very very good points, and the frequency with which he expresses them, begins to annoy people more than the original problem he was attempting to solve, then the "solution" has become a separate, yet equally vexatious, problem. Mick has been asked repeatedly to slow down, to cool off, to disengage, and to back away from Betacommand--in fact, he's been asked, begged, cajoled, warned, and threatened (and topic-banned once before, IIRC)--and yet he persists in the behaviors the community has requested to end. A topic-ban would allow the Beta conversations to continue with a little less heat and a little more light, and would free Mick up to contribute to the encyclopedia--which is the whole point of this endeavor, after all. I find myself in agreement with Mick more than otherwise, but if he can't moderate his own modes of expression (and regrettably, that seems to be the case) then a topic ban will have to serve the same purpose. Sorry, Mick. Well, I was regretful, until I read this; now all I am is curious, as to why people insist on shooting themselves in the feet. Jeebus. Gladys J Cortez 03:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. User's contributions in regard to this area have become unhelpful to the point of disruption. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support, Mick left us no other choice. Whenever I see him posting here or to ANI, I know it will be about Betacommand or bots in general. He had been disuptive in this topic for the last half year. Several blocks din't help, so another measure needs to be taken. Topic ban is the kind of restriction that allows the user to concentrate on contributing to encyclopedia, instead of harassing Betacommand. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 04:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, per all above. Note that Mick is on a 48-hour ban for incivility and might not be back here to respond for a while. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, fails to address the cause of the disruption, which is the behaviour of BC - all of the behaviours criticized in Mick are directly comparable to behaviours of BC, which certain editors and admins have been enabling and even encouraging for a long time. Smacks of "shoot the messenger", and may have a "chilling effect" on other editors seeking to raise concerns about the behaviour of prominent editors. DuncanHill (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• He's been over-the-top sometimes. However, BC's behavior is an ongoing problem that has yet to be solved. Someone pointing this out isn't a bad thing, and Mick (sometimes) makes valid points. Friday (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose This is a blatant attempt to silence someone who has done possibly more than anyone else to bring Betacommand's misbehaviour and bad conduct to the attention of the community. The fact that some people are even talking about bans for him clearly proves this. Jtrainor (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Whenever an issue regarding Betacommand crops up, Mick has to throw in his two cents. We all understand that he doesn't like BC, but his dislike is rather extreme and often crosses the boundary of WP:NPA. Horologium (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose While I agree he can be excessive in his commentary, he performs a useful role in keeping the thing honest and I really don't feel censorship is the answer here, especially given Betacommand's woeful standard of conduct and a certain very loud section of the community's willingness to let him away with anything on principle. Orderinchaos 08:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Point of order: Can admins issue topic bans?

I'm having trouble finding mention that the creation of a topic ban is something which Administrators should do. At the top of this page is stated Administrators are not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. Wikipedia has a dispute resolution procedure editors should follow where possible. Assorted Administrator instructions do not mention topic bans except as enforcement of ArbCom decisions. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrators acting alone can't issue topic bans unless an arbitration remedy allows them to (eg. the remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia), but the support of community consensus can. See the bottom section of Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editing restrictions only states that ArbCom can issue topic bans, and at the bottom is tacked on a list of non-ArbCom restrictions. There is no explanation there of the authority under which Admins can impose restrictions. Have the dispute resolution procedures been followed? -- 03:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on this specific case, and responding solely to this "point of order," it's been done before. The community is able to completely ban a user from the project, should consensus emerge to do so; it stands to reason that lighter but similar remedies fall within that remit and will sometimes be preferred. If need be, treat the partial ban as a community declaration of a final line that will trigger a ban or block with teeth if crossed. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you'd really like to see it in black and white, Wikipedia:Banning policy contains some relevant text. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It would seem entirely bizarre, and even a bit irrational, if admins can impose a full prohibition from the wiki without expiration (an indef block) but cannot impose a prohibition from a single area of the wiki (a topic ban). Just a thought. Vassyana (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as one is not attacking content pages or deleting people's comments , I don't see that any of us has a right to silence him in the discussion space . Our decision ( which , judging from some of the content on this page , is not assured ) that BetacommandBot performs in a perfectly reasonable fashion does not void the opposition's right to expression . As long as the language is not abusive or threatening or specifically engineered for the suppression of others' expression , I don't think that we ought to have any right to limit a person's posts on talk pages . --Frank.trampe (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exact wording re topic ban of User:MickMacNee regarding User:Betacommand

I propose:

MickMacNee shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Betacommand, on any page in Wikipedia. Should MickMacNee do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week.

Taken from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar and various other cases. Daniel (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I would propose a caveat; that MickMacNee may contact an admin in instances of policy violations against themselves where the above wording might otherwise restrict their ability to bring such notice. If it is to be a topic ban, let it be a topic ban and not a shooting gallery for any individual(s) with a score to settle. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's needed. If something's bad enough, another user will take it up. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I second LHVU's suggestion; as rspeer noted above he has been good as spotting problems, not so good as helping to solve them though. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Dreadful. Should at the very least add "Nothing in this sanction is to be taken as in any way implying that BC's behaviour is acceptable, nor may it be taken as in any way dismissing the substance of Mick's (or any other editor's) concerns about BC's behaviour", as well as adding LHvU's suggestion. DuncanHill (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If we're to do this, a caveat to the caveat: one of the topic ban's functions is to try to wean MMN off from closely watching BC's every move to find small errors and blow them up. The topic ban will work less well if he can keep doing this by reporting every small error to a passing admin. Thus I would add that he only make such reports where the perceived error impacts directly upon him (ie, his image uploads or articles where he has made significant contributions). Although actually I agree with Stifle: if it's serious, others will notice. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 11:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree; I specified that it would be for policy violations against himself relating to BC, not policy violations by BC generally. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, agree it should only apply to stuff directly affecting him. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This proviso sounds good to me. Kelly ^hi! 17:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The wording is fine. If Beta needs attention then he will get it, we don't need Mick to point it out to us. _{1 != 2} 18:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I am going to have to be blunt; if, during this topic ban, MickMacNee get BC related related harassment from anyone, then he should be able to contact an admin without fear of the consequences and without anyone needing to dog MMN's contribution history. As much as MMN is judged oversensitive about BC's actions, there is also an element within BC's supporters that are more intolerant of BC related criticism than may be considered as being appropriate. I should love to AGF to all parties in this recent series of events, but I am unable to do so for a small minority under certain circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this topic ban notice going to be on MMN's talk page? If so, then it should also prohibit other users from discussing BC or BC-related issues on MMN's talk page. MMN should also be allowed to contact an admin if he notices uncivil comments about himself re:BC elsewhere on wikipedia. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 20:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent cuz I can't keep track of how many ":"s to type) LHvU, your bluntness is apparently falling on a yet-blunter object, to wit: my head today, because I still feel the need to ask this question: does this caveat also cover baiting from BC himself? IIRC most offenses on BC's part have been in response to things started by MMN, but in this conflict, as you said, I've seen so little good faith on all sides as to send AGF flying squarely out the window, and necessitating an explicit wording for even the most common-sense notions. Mick should have recourse if Beta chooses to interact with him. Mick may be irritating, but he's irritating about legitimate concerns, and we shouldn't lose sight of that as we attempt to influence his future behavior. Thanks...Gladys J Cortez 21:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It goes without saying that, when MMN is topic-banned from the whole BC subject, anybody - anybody - who uses that ban to taunt MMN will be subject to sanctions to protect Wikipedia from such behaviour. The topic ban is not an endorsement of either side and is certainly not a weapon for anyone to use against anyone else. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 21:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

We are not planning on putting common sense on the shelf. This is a measure to diffuse the situation, and if someone tries to twist that to a contrary end then that can be dealt with as we always do. _{1 != 2} 03:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Gladys j cortez) By, or on behalf of, BC. I suspect that it is the latter parties that need reminding - since BC is already on a civility parole and even a civil appearance on MMN's would raise eyebrows. In reply to Redvers and Until, it is not the appropriate response to any taunting, which is assumed, but that the editor concerned may bring it to an admins attention without violating the terms of the topic ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay that makes sense. So barring any objection I am going to post to Mick's page "MickMacNee shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Betacommand, on any page in Wikipedia. Should MickMacNee do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week." as well as add "If you feel you are being taunted, baited, or otherwise placed in a position where such sanctions would create an unreasonable position, you can make a report of the situation to an admin you trust and let that admin handle the situation without being in violation of the terms of this ban". _{1 != 2} 15:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, this meets my concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Was a limit suggested? I don't like open-ended bans, as sometimes just a period of quiet is all that is needed. Open-ended stuff can get dragged up years later, even when some of the people are no longer around. It also wastes time when people insist years later that an appeal is needed to overturn the stale topic ban. The length can still be appealed of course, but not setting a length is sometimes just being lazy on the part of those imposing the topic ban (this would apply to whatever topic ban was imposed on Betacommand as well - I was just leaving when that started, and was mildly surprised to come back and find a consensus had been reached). Carcharoth (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree that a limit seems to be needed, for any remedy of this nature. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well we can continue this discussion to determine any duration. I agree leaving it forever is not productive. _{1 != 2} 16:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duration

I suggest 2 months as a duration to start with, we can re-apply the ban if it is needed again after that. I don't think leaving the topic ban in place forever is the best idea. Any other opinions? _{1 != 2} 16:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Two months sounds fine. I looked up the Betacommand one and saw that it says "These restrictions are in place until the community decide that the remedies are no longer appropriate." That doesn't seem entirely right to me, but I'm not really prepared to start that up again. Betacommand is perfectly capable of appealing at the right time himself, though I must admit that limits of blocks, bans and suchlike are rather arbitrary. There is a well-known civility restriction of a year, and other lengths of various bans and blocks seem rather arbitrary as well. I just normally like to see a specific length mentioned if at all possible. Makes thing simpler at the other end. Carcharoth (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as a point of clarification - of course Betacommand can appeal the restrictions himself, the wording simply says that the community has to agree, and until they do, they stay in place. Nothing in that wording states that he's banned from appealing. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Postlethwaite, have the dispute resolution procedures been followed? -- SEWilco (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, for who? Ryan Postlethwaite 10:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Two months is a funny period, the block templated tariffs go from one to three months and - since one month might be considered too short - I would suggest three months. Again, the period is not written in stone and MMN would be free to appeal a lifting within that time frame. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that three months would be a sensible duration - two seems too short and four too long - hopefully after that MMN will have improved and we won't have to be back here discussing extending it. Of course he could appeal it, although I don't think it would be a good idea to appeal within at least the next few weeks (as consensus is unlikely to change in a short timeframe). I'm glad that we reached consensus for a topic ban without too much mudslinging and drama. I like Until's wording too. As two days have passed without objection to the duration, can we assume there is consensus for that also? naerii - talk 22:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Three months sounds good to me. _{1 != 2} 16:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully by then the community will have assumed a more productive approach towards Betacommand's excesses and MMN's commentary will not be necessary. I have seen some positive signs in that direction in recent weeks. Orderinchaos 08:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked user using anon to evade block

Spinoza1111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinitely for evading a prior block [2] He has been edit-warring for some time on the Ayn Rand article and talk pages using anon IPs. Currently, he seems to be using a static IP: [3][4][5], so I believe that we may be able to indefinitely block that with minimum effect on other innocent users of that IP. Idag (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ran (film)

I placed a semi-protect on this article, despite being today's featured article, because of a spat of vandalism from a variety of IP addresses. If a consensus is reached to remove the protection, please feel free to do so. Brianga (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Quick thank you to the person who answered my question about Image Removed, that solved my problem. Many thanks Blueturtle01 (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undeletion request

Could an admin please undelete Image:HarringtonNSW.jpg per this note on my talk page? Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 12:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request For Deletion of Article Criticism Of Christianity

I wanted to bring this article to the attenion of the admins for not following NPOV rules. This article is very offensive to Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyhmrp (talk • contribs) 13:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You are looking for Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion and almost certainly a very speedy keep. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and includes articles upon encyclopedia merit and not individual sensitivities. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acts of Union 1707

A couple of users are engaging in original research by using quotes from English MPs to support the statement that there were "many concerns that England was using the Union to dominate Scotland". This conclusion is not supported by any references that are given - the argument is synthesising material and coming to a conclusion itself. This is, of course, orignal research, and I thus placed a tag on the section. However, this tag is keep being removed. Can someone please have a look at this and deal with the people involved? 213.131.125.34 (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

there are also cited references to some standard histories to that effect, so I see no reason to exclude accurate contemporary quotations. DGG (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, that's not the point. The point is that those quotations are being used to infer a further statement that is not supported by any other source given. This is original research. It has stopped now anyway: the tag has remained. 88.107.18.5 (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Jackson talk page archives - BLP violations

I left a message on the BLP noticeboard which got no reaction so im bringing it here instead. A number of the earlier MJ talk page archives have a lot of BLP violations. The more recent ones are clean thanx to a small army of editers that watch over them. Can some of the earlier ones be purged or something. They dont hold anything of any importance, half of it is a war over having the "King of Pop" or "Wacko Jacko" in the lead, theres nothing of any importance there. Alternatively someone could read through all of the 18 archives removing the offending pieces but that is time consuming. Thoughts. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could "sanitize" the archive pages, then one of us admins could delete the earlier revisions to remove the offending comments. Any other ideas from admins? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, english isnt my first language, could you clarify what your suggesting by "Sanitize" the archives, sorry i cant understand. Please dont take offense Jayron ;-) --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he means to just remove the BLP violations from the archives (as in, blank them, replace them with "((BLP vio removed))", or whatever), and then leave a note here so the pages can be deleted and selectively restored (removing the vios from the page history). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My watery friend has it correct there. Just go through the archives, remove the BLP vios (with a note explaining you have done so) and then an admin such as myself, or someone else, can go through and remove the old versions from the history, so they are no longer accessable to the general public. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, i understand, sorry for being a retard, ill get to it and show you my handy work when done. I just have to read through all those archives lol. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 00:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ive done 3 archives, it takes a long time to read each one, when i have finshed all 18 ill bring all links to Jayron, cheers. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A friendly word of warning; the MJ talk page is too big for a normal admin to remove content through deletion and selective restore. You will crash wikipedia if you try it. I know because I have done it. Please ask an oversight to handle this because they have the ability to do selective history deletion which doesn;t crash the wikipedia database. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The FritzpollBot

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) about the User:FritzpollBot, which would automatically generate over 1 millon more articles on settlements across the world. I suppose this may be a better place to continue discussion. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 01:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been addressed specifically by the Bot Approvals Group here ->Wikipedia talk:BAG#FritzpollBot --Samuel Pepys (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And yet several users (myself not included) wanted to continue to discuss the issue, and that is why I opened the thread. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 01:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The scope of this is big enough that the community in general should be involved, not just BAG. --Rory096 04:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It has also just appeared as a notice in the header of the watchlist. I assume everyone gets these. It would be better to centralize discussion at the village pump link provided, since people are being herded that direction. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Link for anyone using external editors. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It might actually be better to create a new place to discuss it (perhaps its own page), as a simple VP section is going to get rather unwieldy and difficult to edit. --Rory096 04:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Invite everyone to a tea party, don't be surprised when the girls get noisy. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Would help to let editors and wikiprojects dealing with settlements and geography know, too - I handle most of the geographic articles for my state, for example, and would be concerned if the bot started creating articles we couldn't fill. Also, what sources are being used for the information, will it create a massive cleanup task for wikiprojects? Orderinchaos 16:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate User talk page protection

User:The undertow left the project. But now he's back, and has been using his account, participating at RfA. I was happy to see him active again, so I clicked on the "talk" portion of his sig to leave him a message, only to discover that his talk page was blanked and protected, while his user page was deleted and salted.

If a user is here, then other users should be able to contact him on his talk page.

Otherwise, users are faced with the choice of foregoing contact, or posting off-topic to wherever the user happens to be participating.

That would be pretty awkward.

Please unprotect User talk:The undertow while he is active in the project.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    12:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the account is only participating in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3 (as ip accounts are not permitted to participate). I don't know if this is a full "return" to contributing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd request again after June 5th (ending date for DHMO's RfA). Rudget (Help?) 13:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What I get out of this is that sowing the seeds of discord is OK (and being able to hide after doing so is even better). It seems like a drive-by shooting ... ah, but maybe I'm bitter. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I unprotected the talk page since the account is no longer inactive. El_C 16:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An administrator is needed to edit the sidebar

A consensus has been reached at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Move the search box directly beneath the puzzle globe.

It will take an administrator to make the change.

The Transhumanist    14:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

First, there doesn't appear to be consensus to do this. Second, I could be wrong, but I don't know that we (as in admins; not being sysadmins) can do this, technically. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I just missed it, but was this advertised anywhere? I would think a discussion about moving the search bar from its current location, where I believe it is located on all other projects, would need a wider audience. - auburnpilot talk 15:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If the change gathers consensus then it can be done in MediaWiki:Common.js, but I wasn't aware that a consensus had been reached. Happy‑melon 15:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Rereading the discussion it is abundantly clear to me that the only consensus is no consensus :D Happy‑melon 15:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assistance required 2

There's this one really persistent anonymous vandal on the Al-Azhar University page. He keeps trying to insert a potentially inflammatory phrase into the article, but for the longest wouldn't even bother providing a source to back it up. Another wiki editor promptly reverted his first edit. But he was right back at it, so I started removing that unsourced statement myself, and explained to him that he would have to provide a reference for it if he intended to reinsert it. He came back with what he claimed were five legitimate references. I looked into each one of these sources, and not one of them supported his statement. I explained to him on the talk page in some detail why none of his sources were relevant and why his edit was therefore inadmissible. To make a long story short, he has been trying to salvage a slightly modified version of that same assertion, but he's still trying to back it up with those same irrelevant sources. We've been in an editing war since. The guy doesn't even bother justifying his edits anymore and has gotten pretty belligerent ("you're pushing it"; "get a life", that sort of thing). As I write, his bogus unsourced edit still stands. Can someone please have a look? Causteau (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've checked this one out and all I will say is that you shouldn't believe the registered user simply because they have an account.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.142.44 (talk • contribs) 19:26, May 30, 2008

There's an old saying... something about glass houses... — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment The Hand That Feeds You and for exposing user 195.189.142.44. I've just re-edited the Al-Azhar University page. The vandal is bound to return, and I want him to know that he can't just post any 'ol thing with a bunch of unrelated sources, insult fellow editors, and get away with it just because Al-Azhar is a small page that not many editors visit. I forgot to mention that there were edits to the Al-Azhar Shia Fatwa by yet another anonymous IP that bear a striking resemblance to this user's handiwork. I suspect it's the same person because the edits are virtually identical and because he also edited the Al-Azhar University page during the same period under this other IP. Causteau (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This thread is being continued at #Al-Azhar University vandal. --Elonka 04:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:198.99.32.5

User talk:198.99.32.5 is fully protected so that only administrators can edit it. I'm not going to challenge that; I really don't care whether it is protected or not, but I do want to add the sharedip template to it; the IP belongs to MedStar Health. Can someone add the sharedip template to the userpage? GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MascotGuy

I don't really know this troll, but looking at his edits here, I feel like he is looking for fame and he practically edits his own sock list, I would like the admins to stop this from happening and completely DENY his existence, delete that list and don't give him what he wants or he'll keep coming back, this also applies to other "Big" vandals like Grawp as well, vandals aren't born, wikipedia makes them and the policy of Revert, block, Ignore should be given a higher priority in cases like these rather than socking one...--Cometstyles 02:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that. -Pilotguy contact tower 03:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

MascotGuy isn't a vandal. He's just an autistic boy with nothing better to do than try and improve our articles in ways that end up doing more harm than good. The two situations are nothing alike.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the essay "E pluribus unum" in my sig links to. With Grawp, it's a damned-if-ya-do-damned-if-ya-don't thing. MascotGuy, on the other hand, is autistic and is more likely than not trying to be helpful by editing his own sock list. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 05:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jaakko Sivonen

Last year, Jaakko Sivonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was indefblocked after 12 distinct blocks for edit warring and personal attacks. Earlier today, he apologized and asked to be unblocked, promising to behave constructively. Given his history, I couldn't unblock him in good conscience, so I left {{2nd chance}} to see if he really was willing. Well, he's proposed substantial improvements to Finnish parliamentary election, 1907, and I have to say that his proposals would make it a Good Article in waiting. I would therefore ask that we extend a little good faith and unblock him, with the proviso that this is indeed his last chance to behave properly. Thoughts? Blueboy96 22:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I think we should give him a second chance. Just make sure he knows that any further edit warring will be dealt with quickly and decisively. J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I might suggest that required adoption be in order, but that a 2nd chance be allowed. Bstone (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined just to let him back. He seems honestly abashed by his bad behavior, and perhaps is properly rehabilitated. It will be pretty obvious if he acts up again. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Bible tells us to forgive and forget. I'm not an administrator, but I say we should perhaps give him a second chance, but we do need to keep a very close eye on his actions. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's his clean block log from the Finnish WP: [6] (three blocks in 2006, can't tell why, but it hardly matters now). I think a second chance is in order. Darkspots (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Jpgordon may have forgotten to actually unblock, but I've done it.[7] - auburnpilot talk 02:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As a procedural note for those here who don't read Finnish, the block log on fiwiki reads "personal attacks", "personal attack, again" and "for repeated personal attacks". No idea about the circumstances beyond that. Oh, and I added "&uselang=en" to the link. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I would forgive and forget, if Jaakko hadn't been evading his block the entire year ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]) He gave a convincing argument on his talk page, where he said "I have been civil and constructive in my edits in the Finnish Wikipedia" However, from looking at his IPs, I see edit summaries as recent as last month saying, "Reverting total bullshit. Finnish Karelians are Finns and it is offensive and wrong to talk of "slow integration". No one calls them "Livvi"., It wasn't "given"... It had been part of Finland continuosly for over a 100 years in 1917. Learn history., and Learn English too." Looking further back I see comments such as Your motive seems to be Swedish Nationalism. This makes me believe that Jaako still has the same battleground mentality that he was originally blocked for. Indeed, roughly half a day before he was unblocked I find him saying "I care deeply of the Karelian people, as you are our closest relatives ethnically, but it insults me that by your false claims you are trying to strike a wedge inside the Finnish people." At User talk:88.114.235.214, he says "I think I have more credibility than you do - at least I cite real sources while you edit war without them." If I had read his argument on his talk page without knowing all of this, I would indeed be convinced as well, but because I know he has been evading his block, edit warring on Karelians among many other pages, and still being incivil (all of these were the reasons he was originally blocked), I have to disagree with his unblocking. Khoikhoi 05:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• So if he acts up, it's easy enough to block him again. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock Request

Hi,

I am a member of Dot Com Infoway and its hard to find that my IP was blocked from any usage on the website due to spam. I accept the mistake and request your help on the procedure that I have to follow to remove the ban.

Chrisdru (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Chris Drum

I've asked the user for further information on their talk page and we'll deal with it there. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 11:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And, having got the information (see User talk:59.145.89.17), I've declined the unblock. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 12:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with decline, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive133#Seeking_Community_ban_of_Dot_Com_Infoway_company_Adsense_marketing_and_Spamming. --Hu12 (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No idea how to do this...

I need to change the text appearing in everyone's watchlist about FritzpollBot to something like "There is a proposal to allow a bot to help human editors create stub articles for places not yet covered in Wikipedia, please comment here" with the wikilink already in the text. The Watchlist text doesn't represent the proposal, and people may judge it based on that first impression. No idea how to do that! Can someone do it for me? Fritzpoll (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You can change the message by editing Template:Watchlist-notice. --ais523 15:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, excellent - cheers for the pointer Fritzpoll (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Vandalism" wrongly attributed to me

Hello, I have gotten lots of messages saying I have been vandalising, but the articles concerned are about things I've never even heard of before! Are you sure you don't have an IP address mix-up? Apparently I have been blocked several times for edits I haven't made and I only hear of the blocks now! Please help me, the only changes I make at the moment are: correcting spelling and grammar errors, or obvious logical/chronological mistakes. Also, these messages disappear when I log on. I am the only user of this computer so nobody else on this IP could have done these changes. I'd appreciate any feedback, I am very confused. I am neither a vandal nor a spammer and I hate being called so. Thanks. Khilsati (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What account are you seeing that has the vandalism warnings? Corvus cornix_talk 17:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP address's user talk, here [15]. When I log in, the warnings are gone but it's tiring to have to log in every time. Khilsati (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your internet service provider (Telkom South Africa) apparently uses a rotating IP pool. Your computer will be on a different IP very regularly (likely every time you disconnect from the internet you will be on a new IP the next time). You will see messages, warnings, et cetera that were generated for whoever has had that IP previously. Only by logging in can you avoid the warnings. GRBerry 17:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

When you log in, there is a box beneath your login and password that says "Remember me". If you check that box, you should be logged in every time you come to Wikipedia. Just be sure not to stay logged in at public computers. Corvus cornix_talk 17:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, basically what's happening is that your ISP gives one IP address to more than one person. Then when other people who previously used the IP address you are using vandalise, the warnings get sent to you by mistake. Apart from logging in, there isn't much that can be done about this; when people aren't logged in IP is the best way we have to try to send messages like vandalism warnings to people. --ais523 19:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your kindness. I'll keep that in mind and make sure nobody I know ever vandalises this very valuable web site! Kenavo. Khilsati (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AutoWikiBrowser Backlog

Hi there just thought that I would mention that there is a small backlog at AutoWikiBrowser approval page. ChristopherJames2008 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleared. - auburnpilot talk 21:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Al-Azhar University vandal

The Al-Azhar University vandal is back, pushing his POV and bogus sources again. The guy just doesn't get it. Arbitration is definitely warranted; please have a look at the article. He is now in an editing war with both me and another editor. Causteau (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The most recent edit by the ip (made 2 hours after the above report) seems to be satisfactory as regards the other editors concerns. However, a review of the previous edits and the ip's contribution history does tend to indicate a partisan bias in relation to Sunni and Shia Muslim viewpoints. Can this account be related to other (blocked?) accounts? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't think this anonymous user has been blocked yet. However, administrators should definitely consider doing so because this is a guy with an agenda, if I've ever seen one. Here are some random examples of his handiwork:

1)Inserting inflammatory POV material without bothering to support it with any reference(s).

2)Tacking on a bunch of unrelated, dummy references behind a slanderous POV phrase to lend an air of credibility to said POV phrase (see my analysis on how I know those sources are bogus here).

3)Mocking fellow editors.

4)Altering sourced material so that it reads differently but still looks sourced, and reverting subsequent edits other editors have made to those initial changes -- all with no explanation.

And that's just the half of it. There's more info on this user's shenanigans on the Al-Azhar University talk page. The guy has gotta be stopped now because he edits literally all the time and under a ton of different IPs. The longer we wait, the more time it will take to undo all of the damage he has done. Causteau (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been taking a look at this, and I'm not seeing vandalism. There's definitely edit-warring, a content dispute, and incivility and personal attacks around. There also appears to be some POV pushing and possible misinterpretation of sources, but of course that's always a tougher call to make. I recommend that everyone calm down, since it looks like there's incivility going from both sides, which always complicates the situation. --Elonka 04:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a more serious issue at hand here. Via the several IP addresses, this user has been engaging in edits on articles relating to terrorism that are quite startling. The latest examples are removing known terrorists from categories relating to terrorism. While this might seem like a simple POV issue at first glance, as a graduate student in counter terrorist studies and coming from a family with a law enforcement and military background, I will say with no exaggeration that this could be dangerous for anyone who interacts with this user. Even something as small as edits like that on Wikipedia are a legitimate security concern; this should not be a platform to promote extremist and/or violent agendas. I don't think it's something that should be left as a content dispute. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are problematic edits from the anon. However, just because someone may be pushing a POV on one set of articles, doesn't mean we should revert all their edits on all articles. For example, it's a common thing to see editors make vandalistic edits to history articles, but when they're editing videogame articles, they get very serious and thorough. If there are inappropriate edits being made to the terrorist articles, we can deal with them, and the accounts. But as far as the Al-Azhar University article, I am still not seeing vandalism. So the best bet is to focus on the most egregious edits by the anon, and do your best to assume good faith in some of the other topic areas. --Elonka 05:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You're 100% correct, in fact i'm sure most disruptive editors at some point make good edits on non-controversial articles. My thing isn't so much Al Azhar at this point, it's what i've seen on other articles that I find disturbing. Look, this is a big deal. We're on the internet here; we don't know who this kid is or what else he's doing. It's one thing to try to posit a reasonable source disputing that a person is a terrorist; what this guy has done is beyond suspicious. Per WP:NLT I won't sit here and throw out threats, but this is something that warrants attention even outside Wikipedia (and may gain it whether we try or not). This is noteworthy enough to contact the FBI about, even seemingly small things like this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to contact the FBI, no one is stopping you. However, speaking as someone who has made FBI reports myself in the past (you may wish to Google my name and "Steganography"), I'm just not seeing a major problem here. We have an IP from Lebanon that is removing "terrorist" categories from a few pages, seems to have a bit of an anti-Shia bias, and has been a bit uncivil when challenged. But this kind of opinion could easily apply to countless non-terrorist individuals. People can be anti-Sunni or anti-Shia, and still be able to present their opinions in a civil and non-violent way. People can also have good faith disagreements about who is or isn't defined as a terrorist. Some of the edits by the anon I actually agree with, such as removing the "terrorist" category from biographies of living people where the sources are a bit thin. We shouldn't be putting that kind of a provocative category onto any biography, especially that of a living person, unless we have solid reliable sources that specifically call that person a "terrorist". As for the places where the anon is removing the category from biographies where we do have such sources, well, we put the category back, we warn the anon for blanking sourced information, and if they keep doing it, we block them. But that's still not something that I'd want to contact the FBI about. I'd be more inclined to write off the activities of this anon as "over-eager student" than "criminal". Now, if we have an anon who is making threats of violence, then that is something I'd be more concerned about. But just disagreeing on some content issues? Nah, we get that all the time. --Elonka 15:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A related SSP report has been filed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Klaksonn. --Elonka 17:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming some Wikipedia positions

There is a proposal here that would retitle positions like administrator and bureaucrat. Since this the administrator noticeboard, I thought it'd be a good idea to notify all of you. Please comment and discuss on the talk page. Thanks! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made a mistake and contributed on the proposal page instead. Good faith error! No decimations! SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless you are a group account, it would be hard to kill one in ten of you! DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how often the meaning of 'decimate' is misinterpreted to mean 'annihilate' or similar. Exxolon (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Surprised, no; appalled, yes. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems Princeton considers 'annihilate' and 'decimate' to be synonyms.[16] - auburnpilot talk 21:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I pity tha uncultured foos. For the record, I was thinking of losing digits, in a cross-cultural Yakuza/Roman mashup kinda way. Never mind :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, the word you're looking for is sansdigititus. - auburnpilot talk 21:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

HM forgot to give Jimbo his proper title: Caesar! Or would that be Co-Caesar? Hmmm... --SimpleParadox 22:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hummm... then who is Brutus? DuncanHill (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Grawp? J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 22:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, he'd be Romulus, which gives an obvious parallel for a Remus. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So from now on instead of RfA, there'll be RfQ? And instead of AN, QN? ;) Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was funny, until I realised it wasn't in the humour category. Then when I realised someone actually thought this was a good idea (rather than deliberately and exceptionally dorky), it becamse less funny. Neıl 龱 09:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Holy mama, that made my brain hurt. Bad freshman-Latin flashbacks to 1985--run for cover! Frankie say WTF?--Hide Yourself! Gladys J Cortez 10:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Time for another Larry Sanger joke. — CharlotteWebb 17:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Account Creator Group

Hi,

I recently made an "account creators" login that has now been approved, I have also registered on the accounts list. The issue is I have not been assigned to the "Account Creators" group as of yet, can someone rectify this please :) Prom3th3an (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the admin interface and you've been approved for [17]. You are now able to create accounts using that system; accountcreator (which puts users in the Account Creator group) is not a requirement, it just helps if you're going fast. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• thanks Prom3th3an (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just realised your not an admin, the idea of this notice board is to get admins attention, do not get to far ahead of yourself Dihydrogen Monoxide your not an admin yet and by the looks your current RFA isnt going to well. Can an admin please comment or rectify, thanks Prom3th3an (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC):::I'm pretty sure non-administrators are allowed to reply. --Tombomp (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Prom3th3an, I would try to help you, but instead I think I'll go look for someone who needs help and isn't acting like a snot about it. --barneca (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC) How childish of me. --barneca (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Forgive me if I came across as a snot as it was not my intention, I am very direct sometimes and I do apologise :) Prom3th3an (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, was trying to be a snot, sorry. I don't know enough about that interface to help, but someone will likely come along soon who does. And, for the record, anyone can help anyone on this board; yuo certainly don't need to be an admin if you have something useful to say. And since DHMO was trying to help you, I was reacting to your tone; I generally save my snide comments for people who aren't trying to help. --barneca (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I should rephrase my initial response, its not that DHMO is not an admin that im re-requesting the group permission. Its just I have now hit my upper limit of rego's per day from a single IP. So now I need that group permission to work effectivly :) Prom3th3an (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; I've added you to the accountcreator group. And since Barneca's said everything that I would, I'll just leave it at that. --jonny-mt 13:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help and I again I do apologise for my stuffup Prom3th3an (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Huge backlog at CAT:CSD

Any admins with a bit of extra time on their hands might want to hop over to CAT:CSD and help clear the backlog. Thanks —Travis^talk 17:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for unbanning by User:Iamandrewrice

Ban not lifted per strong consensus. Iamandrewrice and friends must appeal directly to ArbCom. EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Post-close comment here, to anon editor in particular and others in general. If you are being stalked and harassed off-wiki and you are getting phone calls and threats, then Wikipedia is not the place to report this in the hope of obtaining justice; the local police department is. Personally, I've found that to be quite effective, and recommend you do the same. Making vague accusations on-wiki is unproductive in the extreme and may actually work against you, so don't do it - Alison ^❤ 21:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Don't jump to conclusions about who the calls/e-mails are coming from either. --Gwib (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! - Alison ^❤ 22:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page blocked

It says my talk page i protected to prevent me making disruptive edits. Can an admin undo this now I'm not blocked kthxbai.193.120.116.177 (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nipped this one before it spiralled out of control again. seicer | talk | contribs 23:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zap these please!

I've marked for speedy deletion some images that I uploaded that I discovered violate copyrights.

They are listed at Category:Copyright violations for speedy deletion

They've been up there for quite awhile, and it appears other items are getting deleted while these are being avoided for some reason.

Would someone mind zapping them please?

The Transhumanist    23:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

All killed by Bencherlite, per {{resolved}} note above. Hope that satisfies your enquiry. Anthøny 23:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admin input needed to close discussion.

_TalkIslander 13:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin, have a look at Template_talk:Infobox_Television#Proposal:_Flags_should_no_longer_be_used_in_Television_Infoboxes.2C_per_WP:FLAG please Gnevin (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To expand: we need an admin to close this discussion and determin consensus - said admin should, if possible, be completely uninvolved in both Wikiproject Television and related matters, and the MoS Flag Guidlines. Thanks in advance. _TalkIslander 12:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ratification vote on {{C-Class}} started

Hi. The ratification vote to add {{C-Class}} to the assessment scale has started. The poll will run for two weeks, until 0300 UTC June 18, 2008, and you can find the poll here, where we ask for your comment.

On behalf of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning Image:Ac.delphi1.jpg

Hi! I'm a sysop from Commons. This picture was first uploaded here, then transferred on Commons and deleted here. The author seems to be User:Adam Carr. Can one of you please check the original description? Thanks in advance. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Original description (Adam Carr, April 15, 2004): completely blank. Quadell tagged it as {{GFDL}} January 26, 2005, with no explanation of what connection he might have to Carr and/or the photographer: the edit summary was merely "tagged". Finally on 21 September 2005 JesseW added a quote from Carr: "taken by me but never added to the Delphi article, which i was going to rewrite but never got round to it." (with this diff as evidence it was said by Carr). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to contact Adam directly to check the license. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I vaguely recall Quadell's 2005 image tagging activities, and the 'problem' of Adam Carr. In short, Adam did not buy into the need to tag images, and got quite testy with repeated requests made to him to tag his images. IIRC, he issued a blanket proclamation that any of his self-made photos were GFDL, hence Quadell's tagging. (However I don't have a diff supporting this assertion). Maybe he's calmed down by now; good luck with contacting him. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grawp account?

See here. Is that GRAWP? He just posted something big on the unblock template, it didn't crash my browser or anything but wouldn't recommend checking the diffs. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 09:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 09:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not Grawp, but a Grawp-a-like, a wannabe :) One other account, already blocked now - Alison ^❤ 09:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A Grawp Groupie? Fab. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 10:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Charming Prom3th3an (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Bah it happened with WOW it is to be expected.Geni 12:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shamsheer abbas

Shamsheer abbas (talk · contribs) The above user has repeatedly uploaded copyrighted images, despite warnings. I have issued them with a last warning, but there are a large number of (blatantly stolen) images awaiting deletion, as seen here. Could an admin with a few minutes please go through these, and keep an eye on the user for a little while (as his last upload was only minutes ago). I would do it myself, but I have to leave for a couple of hours now, and I would like someone else to make sure I've not made a mistake here. I have notified the user of this thread. J Milburn (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to speedy his entire contribution list to the image namespace. But would welcome other suggestions. Stifle (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur that speedying all would be the best way to proceed. We should have limited patience with users who will not cooperate on this most basic of levels. We need copyvios much less than we need cleared images, if you see what I mean. The risk of a false positive speedy is less than a failure to remove a copyvio. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(My real-world commitment resolved itself quicker than expected.) Ok, thanks for the input, that was what I thought. I'll get deleting now. J Milburn (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted all of them, but now I have come across Shamsheer naqvi 14 (talk · contribs), an editor working on similar subjects. Though they have uploaded far fewer images, they all appear to be copyvios. I will delete them now. J Milburn (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

All deleted and warned. Ok, I'm calling this resolved. J Milburn (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR should be changed

Please note before I continue. I do not disagree with or am complaing about this block. The block was fine but i think something regarding 3rr needs changing, i just used this block as an example.

OK, ive noticed this a lot recently. People think that as long as the dont actually go over the 3RR limit they have done nothing wrong, an example is this very fair block,Seen here. I submit that the title 3RR is very misleading and many new editers believe its arbitary and are therefore not breaking a rule (or so they believe). I suggest that the title should be simply called "Edit War", the 3RR idea is completely misleading to newbies. Do we honestly expect them to be able to find and understand the policy before they get blocked? They usually only read it after they've been blocked, hoping somehow to disprove an admin. I know how conservative wikipedia is regarding policy change but this is due a change. The title should reflect the crime. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It has. Disruptively Editing is what blocks should be issued for, if 3 reverts hasn't been reached. SirFozzie (talk) 04:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It just seems like a policy to catch anything 3RR doesnt cover, still 3RR needs changing, cheers. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I disagree. WP:3RR serves as a sort of line in the sand, something that we can point both new and old editors to and say, "Look, we've agreed that this is the limit. Please stop." It's much easier for new users to understand that they can't revert more than three times in a day than it is for them to grasp what exactly constitutes an edit war (a nebulous concept at best, as illustrated by that unblock decline), and its presence serves as a failsafe to ensure that edit wars don't get too heated. And finally, while we do extend a little more leeway to newbies, they are ultimately responsible for their behavior. We don't allow them to make personal attacks or be uncivil simply because they haven't read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, nor do we leave their unsuitable articles alone simply because they haven't read WP:CSD. To put it simply, I don't see why WP:3RR should be any different. --jonny-mt 04:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The title lacks clarity and is misleading, thats my concern. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

While it's true that blocks have been made for 3RR when the user has violated the spirit of the law rather than the letter, it's still the most descriptive term we have for it. More to the point, if your argument is with the title rather than its use, it seems that this could be better taken up on WT:3RR.... --jonny-mt 05:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with the change. The three revert rule is pretty much what it says on the tin- you're allowed to make only three reverts. Perhaps it could be made clear that that policy is not the be-all and end-all of edit warring, but I think people realise that if they're edit warring and refusing to stop, they're going to find themselves blocked eventually, whether they make three reverts or not. In any case, this discussion would be better on the village pump or the 3RR talk page, as it does not require immediate admin attention. J Milburn (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Wikipedia:Edit war is also a policy; there was at one point a merge proposal, but I believe it was turned down amidst fears a merger would "de-tooth" one of the few no-nonsense policies we've managed to put together. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont think it would be a bad idea for use to word things to emphasise that you can be blocked even if you do not go over the count of 3. Too many people are, unfortunately, reading that very literally. the policy makes it very clear that is is not a license, but it would help decrease the wikilawyering around here if it were made much clearer. Very much clearer. As it, it seems to encourage playing games with the limit. DGG (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR already says that it's not a right to 3 reverts, it's an electric fence. Perhaps if that wording were made much clearer - I think the "not an entitlement" section should mention the electric fence line, and maybe make it clearer that there are other reasons you can be blocked even if you never cross the 3R line. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 00:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the {{uw-3rr}} warning template clearly states that editors can be blocked for edit-warring even if they don't exceed 3RR. In my experience, people who spend a lot of time arguing that they made 2.5 reverts instead of 3 are usually exactly the ones who Don't Get It, who will continue to edit-war after the block expires, who will game the system by reverting 4 times in 25 hours, and so forth. I sometimes try to leave a clear indication, along with {{uw-3rr}}, that editors can be blocked for edit-warring even if they don't violate the letter of 3RR. It's also useful to emphasize that 3RR applies to any reverts on a page, not just reverting the same material 3 times - I think this is a much bigger point of confusion for many editors who get caught violating it. MastCell ^Talk 16:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just to make sure no one objects

I was going to add Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain to ClueBot's AngryOptin list, but I just wanted to make sure no one thinks it will be a problem. J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 01:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, don't know why I asked to do that, I guess it's because it's past my beddy-bye time. Cya tommorrow, and sorry for messing with all your watchlists... J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 03:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a good thing Cluebot can't identify POV edits at those articles, else we'd have nothing to do. Fully support all three additions. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Keep a close eye on User:Lemmey

A note was posted at Portal talk:Current events#User Lemmey , its more appropriate here. Gosh I sure hope I'm learning. --Lemmey talk 22:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this area, but I'm fairly sure you're misinterpreting the policy - the setting the context simply refers to the introduction to a piece. For example, on yesterday's entry the context being set for the opening of the first entry is

• 2008 Sichuan earthquake:

Just that. Nothing to do with the context in the sentence. The policy states nothing about removing wikilinks in the text on the subject, regardless of whether they're on the context or not. The wikilinks are fine being included. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 01:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yesterdays entry is fine, I'm talking about links on todays crane collapse and Kentucky murder stories that had links to crane and convenience store. The policy is listed under context on Wikipedia:How the Current events page works --Lemmey talk 01:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You missed my point -- I'm pretty sure you've misunderstood what the context is in the policy. It's not talking about the context of the sentence, it's talking about the context of the entry -- as it calls it, the context string -- which is the introduction to each individual piece. Not all of them have it. On the example the policy page gives, it's this bit:

• Saskatchewan general election, 2003: The NDP government of Lorne Calvert is returned to power with a majority government.

It has nothing to do with the context of the sentence itself. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 01:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the policy, I followed it. Either address the edits I made or don't but please refrain from repeating yourself when your not exactly saying anything at all. You're just giving me non relevant examples of the introduction. I'm not talking about the introduction, I'm talking about the rest of the sentence. Current Events is over linked and as a result of the ITN trail it acts as a sole nesting bed for ITN candidates. Events may only exist for a short while before posing to the main page, with little or no review from other users. As such the links in current events will be links posted on the main page. There is no reason for the article convenience store to appear in a blurb for a article on a double murder / suicide. --Lemmey talk 01:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I addressed the edits in my first response: the links should be included, according to the policy you're citing, but I'm not going to revert as I don't want to involve myself in what is a borderline edit war and is based on a poorly-worded piece of policy. I agree that convenience store is too trivial to need mentioning, but a link to location is entirely relevent.

The policy states:

• It is customary, if possible, to indicate the context for a story at the start of the line.

It does not mention anything about removing wikilinks in the blurb for the story.

I can't explain it any better than I have in the previous two replies, but I'm certain you've misunderstood the point the policy is making... Could someone more eloquent than me try and explain the point I'm trying to make? AllynJ (talk | contribs) 01:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lemmey blocked

I have blocked Lemmey (talk · contribs) for one week given a pattern (with history, first edit was February, blocked almost 48 hours later) of very uncivil, editwar-like, pointy (very pointy...and just to prove a point), offensive, disruptive, offtopic, pointless and POV comments across the board. Having been warned several occasions (by more than one user, and on 3RR), it is clear that he is not willing to tone down his behavior and act civilly with other editors. I am open to comment on this block.

I have specifically not blocked LemmeyBOT (talk · contribs), as it has been doing good work in and of itself as far as I can tell. As long as the bot's edits remain bot-related only, I am planning to leave this unblocked.

Finally, I also open the discussion of a topic ban for this user. His primary point of conflict seems to be around the ITN entries. Given his heated statements and oftentimes offensive comments, I believe a 3-6 month enforced break from ITN might help him calm down.^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection for the execution of the block, although I am uncertain what 7 days will achieve that 3 wouldn't, given the diffs provided. I would suggest, however, that the discussion regarding a topic ban should be held until the effect of this block is known. If the block provides the impetus for Lemmey to generally re-appraise their relationship to WP positively then the topic ban might be superfluous (and its existence when the block expires counter productive). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

And now for something from the clear blue... Lemmey is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user, and continues to abuse multiple accounts. I've known this for some time, but intentionally neglected to bring it to light because of the good work they've been doing, but it appears that Lemmey's been sliding back into disruption. Lemmey is a pretty transparent reincarnation of Mitrebox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), whom I indefinitely blocked in February for running a vandalbot against a new user, who apparently became so shellshocked that they've rarely edited since. Immediately, he came back with several disruptive sockpuppets, which earned a lockdown of their user talk page. I first noticed Lemmey, who started editing as soon as Mitrebox's unblocks got declined, when they began inserting themselves into conversations about me in a snide manner and referencing Mitrebox's block; they also edit the same topics (cf. the results of Betacommand's tool). Here's the ace though: Lemmey's IP address is 68.209.2.187 - this is not particularly private as he logs on to Wikimedia IRC channels without a hostmask - and he's used it in the past to evade blocks and is still logging out to avoid scrutiny of their main account(s) with edits such as these. (Apologies for the dense run-on comment, but I need sleep. :]) east.718 at 23:29, May 31, 2008

Vandal bot you say? And why is Lemmey Bot not blocked? —Wknight94 (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well... support upping block to indef, per East718's evidence. Kudos also to East for staying quiet about Lemmey's past while they were contributing positively; as this account did eventually slip into old habits I would suggest, however, that the next sock is tagged before it gets the opportunity to go sour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose. OTOH, it would have been more above board to have the original MitreBox account request an unblock instead. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Based on the above info, I would endorse an indefinite block. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• About bloody time, endorse current block, care not about indefinite block, do it if the evidence is there, but either way, it'll be nice to not have his stench steaming up WT:ITN for a while. (OMG COMMAS) But also, additional kudos to east718; redemption is available for all, and there's no reason to bump a good editor simply because they used to be a bad editor on another account. But, if they then become a bad editor, it just bodes the worse for them and lessens future chances. I suggest that, if the link is proven, that any future accounts be exposed immediately. --Golbez (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

While I frequently get sick of Lemmey's comments, i feel that what you've said here isn't really fair. As a "regular" at ITN, I disagree with him more often than not, but despite his acerbic and sarcastic commentary, he does help get stuff done, if you avoid taking his bait. Since he apparently does good work in other areas as well, I would suggest a mid-length topic ban from ITN instead of a full block. As long as his behaviour this time around is ok, I don't see the relevance of his previous actions. Random89 06:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it was the rest of the community's duty to avoid taking the bait; I thought it was the individual's responsibility not to dangle it. Furthermore, the evidence is far more than simple acerbic editing; responding to a civil statement with "You might want to avoid gay people in California. They might compliment on your 'perrty mouth'" is good grounds for a civility block. --Golbez (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I too don't agree with a full block. He does help get things done. I cannot speak for any other page, but he is one of ITN's best contributors. I think what good he does outweighs the bad. A small topic-ban on ITN would be sufficient, as that seems to be where he gets into trouble. --PlasmaTwa2 06:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I too would like to endorse the view that Lemmey is more of a positive influence than a negative one. I strongly disagree with his more caustic comments, but most of what he says is harmless comic relief. When he crosses the line there are more than enough reasonable people to put him back in step with the rules for him to cause too much trouble. I can't speak to his other contributions or the socking allegations, but for what I've known of him he is a mostly harmless contributor to ITN/C that keeps things lively and helps make positive contributions when he gets around to them. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the two previous posts. From my observation over the past week and half of the ITN trial format, I'm observed Lemney habitually veering into gratuitous personal digs, which some other users find funny. He may do much of the work over at ITN, but that appears to be largely a result of the fact that a miniscule amount of productive activity is going on at ITN, which in my opinion is the result that nobody wants to hang around and be insulted continuously. In my experience, the recent atmosphere at ITN and its subpages is the most poisonous I've seen since before the Reference Desk was cleaned up. Lemney is certainly not the only one contributing to that, but he a major and perhaps key component. It's hard to claim a single case unarguably qualifying under NPA, but I would prefer to not to drag this all the way through dispute resolution given the background. I had recently considered trying to arrange a consensus ban but, now that I'm aware of the background, I feel no qualms about pulling the trigger unilaterally. If anyone is interested in keeping him from being blocked for extended periods (assuming that the decision isn't for an indefinite block), a topic ban may be in order. - BanyanTree 00:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about whether this account has been good or not. You are not supposed to have good hands, bad hands accounts, which is what might be happening here. If he wanted to be allowed to edit, he should have asked and gotten permission. If not, a one-second block indicating his prior history should have been noted. Nobody would have allowed him to have a bot if he had been running a vandalbot in the past until a sufficient time had passed. It may be fine now but this is not the way we should proceed. The most important thing here is that everyone is informed, above all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I have blocked the bot

I don't know if the operator could use it or not while blocked but I didn't want to take the chance. I also have no idea what now happens to the bot. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ayup. Keegan^talk 07:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good block. I am also concerned, about the previously having run a vandalbot, and, presently being flagged so that it's contribs are hidden from recentchanges. However, the bot's edits thusfar have been normal and good. I suppose my concerns are, "If he's going back to his old ways on his main account, will this happen with the bot too?". This is compounded by the fact that the bot's edits are presently hidden from the RC. SQL^{Query me!} 08:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we should take away the bot flag... no harm in keeping it since it's blocked, but at the same time it's not doing any good (and he could abuse it by flooding his talk page, I guess...). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Although the block says indef, I presume it will be unblocked when the main account is. The bot was doing something useful; we should support users trying to turn around and make positive contributions. There is one issue I see with its operation that might need correcting. If there are other concerns, the task doesn't need to run fast and it could run without the bot flag so everyone can see what it's doing. Gimmetrow 01:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Since I couldn't know the conclusion of the Lemmey situation I indef'd while it was being resolved. If the operator is unblocked, with bot privileges intact, then they should request unblocking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock of User:Sarah777?

User:Sarah777 was blocked indefinitely for disruption (reverting a series of page merges which resulted from an AFD discussion). Following this, a series of discussions have taken place on her talk page, to find a remedy that would be acceptable to all parties and allow Sarah777 to edit again. The user has now accepted that there was a good reason for the block, and agreed not to continue with the disruptive behaviour she was blocked for. With that in mind, I suggest we unblock her.

Normally, of course, this conversation would take place on the talk page of the blocking admin (SirFozzie) but since there was a fair amount of discussion at WP:AN/I about this issue, I thought it would be better to bring this suggestion to everyone's attention. (I will of course notify SirFozzie of this thread). Waggers (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to endorse this, on the caveat of no more drama, please? :) Sarah has recognized her previous behavior was... less then stellar (I think she called it bolshie behavior on her page). So lesson learned, she has also stated that she was going to leave off editing the "(Year) In Ireland" articles, that caused this block, although I would definitely like to get her thoughts in an RfC on the whole thing down the road (articles on individual years, or if it would be better served to have them in decade long articles or century long articles.) So definitely, endorse an unblock with the caveats above, and hope that the community will give her another chance. SirFozzie (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I was initially in favour of mentorship for Sarah, but as the thread progressed (with her continuing to argue the problems are with anyone but herself) I change3d completely to be in favour of a block. I'm all for redemption and forgiveness, but this is just too soon to even consider an unblock under any restrictions. My advice to Sarah would be to wait a while, have a think about her actions and then consider asking again in 3 months time. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I understand her reason for refusing to use the request-unblock template. I'm not gonna say yay or nay on this, because I am unsure, but is the community still OK with her not admitting what she did was edit warring? reviewing it, I'm not that nitpicky. She is de facto admitting to it. Reading everything on her talk, it seems like the only committment she is really making is that she won't be involved with those specific year articles. I thought we were looking for more than that. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

She also said that she'd abide by the ArbCom ruling (not that she can really stop herself from being blocked... but hopefully it means that she'll not engage in the disruptive editing in the first place). I agree with some of the above sentiments that she doesn't seem to place the same wrongness on what she did that the community does. However, if the discussion on her talk page is truthful (and I'm willing to assume good faith, at least now), she seems to be saying that she will not disrupt, even if she doesn't agree. We can't necessarily change what people think, and agreeing to not be disruptive seems like all we can ask for. -- Natalya 12:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why can't she use the unblock template at her page? Wouldn't that be simplier? GoodDay (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

She actually gives the reason that it will invite continued scrutiny of her that of course she is unable to defend because of being blocked. Thinking about that more, and giving the nature and scope of this block, that's actually not an untrue statement (despite saying above myself that I didnt understand it). Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah should make the request though. It would be like asking for forgiveness & acknowledging mistakes. By other editors unblocking her (without her request)? it would be like other editors are admiting making a mistake. GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be rubbing salt in the wound. WP:BLOCK doesn't require that an unblock request is made before a user is unblocked. Sarah777 has already admitted that she was edit warring and that this was "bolshie behaviour", which I think is as close to "I made a mistake, please forgive me" as we're going to get. Waggers (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

We need to stop wasting time on this. Bad editors can't generally be reformed. Yet, we never seem to run out of editors who want to be that miracle worker who reforms them. She's already adequately demonstrated that she has a temperament which is incompatible with a collaborative project. Time to let this one go, folks. Friday (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I support unblocking Sarah. PS- she can call me an Anglo-American Nationalist anytime she wants (it doesn't bug me; actually humours me). PS- Although, that's not why she was blocked. GoodDay (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs provided in Can someone block Sarah777?, I found such monstrous comments as This is simply outrageous, In the meantime, someone is deleting all the articles again. Would someone please warn him to stop?, It isn't merging anyway because all content has not been preserved and lastly there's this inexcusable effort. [Yes, that was sarcasm.] Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not very convinced after looking through those. There's nothing there that would cause me to bat an eyelid, never mind issue a block. As for the mass reverting, while WP:BRD - one revert - would have been better, that's not typically indefinite block-worthy either, not on its own, and not in combination with the non-incivility and non-attacks. I would be happy enough to see Sarah777 unblocked. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, you don't have to answer. Have any of the admins or others taking part in the fate of Sarah777 ever been blocked? Jack forbes (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Some have, some haven't. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 14:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope those like Friday and any others who want to throw Sarah to the wolves are not one of those who have! Would'nt want to check their history and have to tell them they are not really reformed and it's "time to let this one go folks". Jack forbes (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As somebody with a lot of sympathy for Sarah's predicament I would suggest letting her ask for an unblock in her own time. A premature unblock would potentially be disastrous. When the time comes, I will support an unblock. I don't think that time has come yet. --John (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I would really like to see some more explicit concern for Wikipedia rather simply that individual acts were wrong. "I won't mass revert or remove AfD tags" isn't the same as "I understand and respect the rules and processes of the Wikipedia community". Sarah is much smarter than to not understand the difference between deletion and merging, or between vandalism and a content dispute, and yet she has consistently taken positions in this situation that indicate she doesn't. I'd like to see a solid commitment to thoroughly familiarising herself and complying with Wikipedia rules and standards. I'm also still a little disturbed by this comment. I won't oppose an unblock, but I think the community should demand impeccable behavior from her and not just focused apologies. - Revolving Bugbear 16:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Has she pledged to stop the personal attacks and the claims of pro-British POV in every article she edits? Corvus cornix_talk 16:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone is showing quite obvious signs of pro-British POV then surely it is far too restrictive to tell her not to mention it, whilst people like myself are accused of pro-nationalist POV! Seems to me it's fine to have her back with the provisio that she wears a straitjacket. Jack forbes (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that this short time after an indef-block is far too soon to be seriously considering reversing it, given Sarah's absurd insistence of a conspiracy, digging herself into a deeper hole during the last discussion, and asking what policy prohibits the deletion of AfD-tags. I strongly oppose any unblock at this stage unless it's to set an expiry time, minimum 3 months. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative. This one was indefinite to stop Sarah just waiting it out, and instead to ensure she addresses the reason for the block. If she has done that, and it appears she has, there is no good reason to maintain it. Sarah has given her word to be civil, which I think we should accept it. The only concern I have is that what Sarah considers civil may not exactly equate to what the community expectation is. If that is the case, Sarah should be aware, now, of what the consequences would be. In short, I support an unblock, but would prefer there to be some discretely stated conditions with specific consequences for violation, rather than a general be nice or else... unblocking. Rockpocket 17:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the unblock, followed by an immediate discussion on the articles in question. I think Sarah777 might have achieved better results by being a little more restrained, but I also believe those who connected the AfD decision (one article) to a consensus on "let's roll up all the articles" decision (many many articles) as flawed and incorrect procedurally. As such, Sarah777 was only as guilty as the admins incorrectly interpreting that she was in breach of the AfD ruling, which she was not. Reverting so many articles, by itself, was an act of frustration, and I am still incredulous at this behaviour meriting of an indefinite block. --Bardcom (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on this discussion with Sarah777,[21] I do not support an unblock at this time. Her view of what is and isn't civil, does not seem in accordance with the rest of the community. --Elonka 23:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I consider myself new to all this, and I honestly can't believe some of these discussions, it reads like a courtmartial. Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Jack forbes (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That is generally an issue between the State and individuals, and does not apply in a private context, which is where we are, and is therefore governed by the rules and conventions of the community. --Rodhullandemu 00:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)</lawyer>

Don't see the point of opening this discussion in this manner. Besides the moral supports who as is normal turn up at these places for their friends, there was a rough "consensus" that Sarah should only be unblocked after some time and only with some restrictions. So, what restrictions are envisaged? Since the argument that restrictions aren't necessary hasn't really been made, if this is a widely held view, I would like to know what evidence is there that restrictions are no longer necessary. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As a completely outside view, I agrew with Deacon here. Nothing has been presented to warrant an unblock. The editor in question is contentious, biased, and unwilling to change. Support indef block/ban of Sarah777. We've got much better things to do as editors than babysit this particular POV warrior. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are we still continuing the drama of Sarah777 with a third thread? There was strong consensus for a block, and all attempts at reform have failed. Sarah refuses to abide by the ArbCom ruling, refuses any sort of mentorship -- even though two administrators stepped up to the plate to help her, has not acknolwedged her faults -- although she said she would stay away from the xxx in Ireland articles, which does nothing to solve the root issue. I'm all for kiss-and-make up, but it's just too soon, and her lack of willingness to reform is point enough that the block should remain. seicer | talk | contribs 02:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't help but agree; I normally steer clear of participating in such dramas, but that doesn't mean I'm not aware of what's going on, and this vague commitment to improve doesn't convince me. I think sometimes we waste far too much time on contentious editors who are good in small ways but overall cause so much disruption that on balance their presence is not constructive. Nobody is irreplaceable in the long term, and we shouldn't be blinded by superficialities. The content could easily be provided by an less argumentative editor with more regard for policy and cooperation. End of. </rant> --Rodhullandemu 02:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I swear Rodhullandemu, in some of your posts it is like you're reading my mind. This certainly isn't the first occasion. To the matter at hand, I in summary agree with the last half dozen posts. I don't participate much these days because of work, but I'm still reading and have been following this as an uninvolved third party. The block should remain until their will be no further disruption. Sarah continues to insist that her articles (with continued sarcastic reference to WP:OWN) were deleted without her permission, when instead the whole bundle was merged into a cohesive collection. Additionally, she says that she doesn't consent to the arbitration decision. Well, that's not what arbitration is about. In legal terms (which we actually follow here quite well), arbitration is when there cannot be an agreed compromise through negotiations or mediation and a decision is required. Arbitration decisions are binding and are not subject to consent. Unblock when Sarah learns about collaboration. Keegan^talk 05:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the consensus seems to be against an unblock for now; thanks everyone for your input and sorry to those of you who feel I was wrong to bring this up again. What would be helpful is if we could agree under what circumstances (if any) she can be unblocked. Now might be too soon and there might be agreement for an unblock subject to certain conditions, but how long is long enough? What conditions? Or does this need to be an ArbCom decision? Waggers (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have become worried that over the last few months this page is becoming a star chamber and the above does not diminish my concerns. The emphasis should not be if there is a consensus to take the block off but if there is a consensus to continue with an indefinite block. I do not think that there is.

In the longer term there needs to be a formal system in place to deal with issues like this, preferably -- as natural justice demands (Audi alteram partem) -- with the discussion taking place on the talk page of the user id under discussion (similar to the way we deal with article RfCs), or at the very least a devils advocate on this page. -- but this is another issue for another time.

However in this case of user:Sarah777], I think that either she should be unblocked immediately or a fixed time limit should be imposed. Otherwise what is she to do? Poll every few weeks/months asking if the block can be removed? I do not think that that is either fair or reasonable. Personally I favour an immediate unblocking and during the following month a restriction whereby she can only revert once per week per article (with no use of the move tab). This will limit the disruption she can cause and give the community a chance to see if see has learnt to be less caustic on talk pages with other editors. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't want to overstate my case, because my experiences with Sarah are somewhat limited. However, my experiences with her have led me to the view that she is not here to help create a credible encyclopedia but rather to peddle her own simplistic black hat/white hat view of Anglo-Irish history. She appears to me to be very much in the "nationalist zealot" mould, and highly unlikely to reform in my opinion.

I personally don't need to see her indef banned altogether, but indef banning her from Anglo-Irish pages is unlikely to do the project much harm. Possibly she can be allowed to edit in other areas, and on talk pages related to Anglo-Irish topics where she could make suggestions. If she can manage to behave herself under those restrictions for a sufficient period of time, then I suppose she might eventually be given another chance, but quite frankly I have my doubts that she can ever become a net contributor on the topic in question. There's just too much animus there. Gatoclass (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Maybe it's just me. I don't understand the logic of what's going on here, so with respect, this post is not intended to offend, or to hurt Sarah777's chances for unblocking, or to point a finger at a particular admin or editor. Someone above equated this with a legal process and that Wikipedia is good at this. I disagree. I'll try to keep this short, and my intention is to ask people to really think about the process being used here, and to be fair.

• Sarah777 was blocked for being disruptive because she reverted a number of edits to articles being merged. The blocking admin stated that a consensus had been reached to merge the articles, and therefore Sarah777 should not have merged.

• There was no such consensus tested or formed.

Even if there was, an AfD about a single article should not be used to form/test consensus affecting other articles as it does not give all the interested editors the opportunity to comment, never mind realize that their article might be affected by an AfD on a completely different article.

• The original admin, SirFozzie, has stated that he is happy to open an RfC to ensure that a consensus is tested and formed for the merge.
• The point is that, having retrospectively examined Sarah777's reversions and the AfD, there is a question over whether the block for disruptive behaviour was justified in the first place. In the interests of fairness, keep this in mind.

• Many editors and admins have commented that Sarah777 has breached WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, and made ad hominen attacks.

• This has nothing to do with a blocking decision for reverting articles. Any complaints not related to the article reversions are separate, and should therefore be dealt with separately. There are processes and procedures available to deal with this. I would fully endorse the usual and normal process of placing warnings for ad hominen attacks, and policy breaches such as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF on any editors Talk page to mark the fact of specific incidents. It too easy to be vague. There is also the process of RfC on an editors behaviour where the discussions held here would be more appropriate. But this is not the correct place, and Sarah's alleged policy breaches should not form part of this unblocking decision.
• I used the term alleged above because there are no warnings on her Talk page.... Some editors have provided diffs on occasion, but if they truly wanted to take action, the first step is to issue a warning. Some editors provided diffs on incidents where they weren't even involved. It is not fair to trawl through an editors comments and hand-pick some incidents spread over some time to paint a particular picture. In a legal setting, this would be thrown out. If you truly have a problem, then issue a warning or open an RfC. Be fair.

• Finally, some editors have stated that an unblock should only occur if Sarah777 agrees to certain terms and conditions.

• In my opinon, there should be no requirement to ask Sarah777 to be civil, or to not participate in ad hominen attacks. We already have a perfectly working set of procedures and processes for this. If she breaches policy, issue a warning. If she gets enough warnings for the same behaviour, ask an admin to review and block if necessary. If she continues with disruptive behaviour, she gets more warnings, and the blocks get longer. With respect, if admins and editors alike followed this process, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If that is in fact the correct process and procedure, then the one here is invalid and unfair.

• This process no longer appears to be about the appropriateness of the block, or the length of the block for the incident in question. Instead we are talking about attitude and incivility. But processes and procedures exist for a reason. In the absence of warnings on her Talk page, I do not accept handpicked comments as evidence of inappropriate behavior - nor should you as it is not fair.

Apologies - I hoped it would be shorter. --Bardcom (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you read her ArbCom restrictions and discussions relating to that? Or her continued incivility? Or consensus (as previously found elsewhere) towards the merge, although it may not have been explicit? seicer | talk | contribs 13:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I read the ArbCom restrictions and discussions - are you saying this block is related? Ans if so, why wasn't it stated when the block was made? Or are you merely trying to justify this block? I've already made the points about the continued incivility - have you read the points above about the correct procedure to follow, why you shouldn't handpick specific incidents to retrospectively make the point especially if you're an uninvolved editor, and to ask why there are no warnings on her Talk page (even today) for alleged incivility. Finally, please point to where the concensus was formed for the merge - your point about is may not have been explicit is exactly my point too. There was no consensus....and therefore the block of Sarah777 should never have taken place! --Bardcom (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason people are, to some extent, talking across each other is because the proximate cause for Sarah's block was the reversion disruption. However, in what can kindly be described a remarkable misjudgment, she did this at the same time a discussion was ongoing about the weight of Sarah's incivility and politicizing. So while the former, immediate concern has largely been resolved, the latter underlying concern remains.

In addition, Bardcom, I would invite you to peruse the entire history of Sarah's talk page. There has been many, many warnings about incivility and disruptive behaviour (I have given a good many myself) on the lead up to her previous blocks. Instead of heeding them, though, Sarah sees them as an opportunity to debate the issue (which usually leads to an accusation that the admin involved is editing from a pro-Anglo-American agenda.) This I believe is the crux of the problem: despite all these warnings and short blocks, we don't seem to be making progress. So, while I don't support keeping Sarah blocked indefinitely, I do feel than any unblock needs to have defined boundaries, and defined restrictions for exceeding them. Because is Sarah is cut loose with a general "don't be uncivil" mandate, I guarantee you we will be back here again in weeks or months, and next time the odds of her being unblocked will be much longer. Rockpocket 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rockpocket, thank you for the response. I admit I haven't had time to peruse the entire history of Sarah's Talk page - there's a lot of it. But I'm looking at her current page (which more than spans this period in question, and more besides) and I can't find a single warning, etc. Can I be cheeky and ask for a diff?  :-) --Bardcom (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to be cheeky right back, but take a look at her block history:

• "Attempting to harass other users: Derogatory comments after extensive warnings" (28 Feb 08)
• "Gross incivility" (23 Feb 08)
• "Attempting to harass other users: Multiple violations of civility on User Talk:Alison and User talk:Ioeth" (25 Jan 08)
• "Disruption: 3RR; POV pushing; tendentious editing" (22 Dec 07)

That seems to me like it ought to be a sufficient warning. - Revolving Bugbear 19:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have the time to go through the history and document them at the moment, Bardom, but I can do that later if you like. Having a look at the current pages a few things jump out at me, though:

• Camillus: Hi - I can understand your reaction to the anon remark, but please try not to bring in the old Rangers/Celtic stuff into the debate...Just a friendly word, which you can heed or not, as you see fit :)
• Sarah:I've zero interest in either Celtic or Rangers; just the irony of the demonisation of Zenit by the British media...

• Deacon of Pndapetzim: Sarah, I sympathize with the fact you are frustrated with certain elements of wikipedia. I in the past have had similar frustrations. But English football's small problem with racism and the bigger Hiberno-Scottish problem with sectarianism have absolutely no bearing on Zenit
• Sarah: If certain people conditioned by a lifetime of living the Anglo-American paradigm choose to interpret elimination of British pov as anti-Britishness rather than anti-pov and support for WP:NPOV then all I can do is try to educate them...Your downplaying of British racism signals to me that you are not really able to adopt a neutral position in this case

• John:Why would you add an old AfD tag to an article rather than to its talk page, and why would you mention vandalism in the summary? Let me know if you need any help or advice; I'd hate to see you getting blocked for incivility again, but it definitely looks like you're heading in that direction. Please take this as a friendly comment rather than a threat.
• Sarah I refuse to treat each article in isolation when they are linked to the same British/Irish dispute with much the same British pov-pushers pushers of British pov involved in each case.

• John: Sarah, please stop digging yourself deeper at AN/I. At least consider that you may be wrong. If nothing else, just step away from the computer for a few minutes. Note that I have never blocked you and have no plans to. But if you continue to flout policy like this, it's likely that someone else will.
• Myself: Arguing the toss is not going to get you anywhere except blocked, and then restricted from pages that you would rather not be restricted from.
• Lar: So don't do that again or you may well be blocked to prevent disruption to the project. Walk away, find another way to contribute.

These were all in the days leading up to her block. These are warnings. They many not be stop or I will block warnings (and that is because experienced admins are generally aware when those sort of blunt statements are counter-productive), but they nevertheless advise Sarah to stop editing in a problematic manner. Her response, in general, does not address her contribution to the specific incident at all, but instead turns it into a British POV issue. Rockpocket 19:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi RocketPockEt, sincere thanks for going to all that trouble. The block history shows that Sarah777 avoided a block from 28th Feb until this most recent incident. Not bad, considering the number of edits Sarah777 made during that period (irony). But it's the warnings I'm most interested in. You state that the blunt "stop or I will block" warnings can be counter-productive - but how else can an editor know or realize that they've been warned?? Advising someone to behave differently is not the same as warning someone to behave differently. The examples you picked have lots of great examples of behaviour that should have been warned (even now, some of it is very cringeworthy) - but not one warning. Hopefully I've made my point - those "with power" must be (seen to be) fair, and in my opinion this blocking did not follow procedure and was not fair. --Bardcom (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason for this is because we don't want to treat editors like children, who only respond to punishment. Sarah needs to realize that those sorts of comments are not cool. When people bring a concern to your page (or in her case, when many people bring the same concern to her page) you shouldn't just ignore it unless it is accompanied by the threat of a large stick. This is what Sarah does (she quite openly stated that she wanted people to explicitly note whether they were admins or not, presumably so she knew who to ignore and who not to ignore). So, I disagree that admins need to explictly state "do that again and I will block you". When you do that it is often perceived as a threat, and threats tend to alienate people and aggravate the situation. The last three comments I quote (from John, myself and Lar) all make clear what would happen if Sarah didn't start to listen to the community. They are clear warnings and it is equally clear that Sarah didn't heed them. My preference now is to ensure there is a system that Sarah will heed so she can edit again. Rockpocket 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Rock has said what I was going to say. Prematurely unblocking her before a framework is in place to protect her will do her no favors at all. I'm heartened that she says she will not edit-war or continue to be uncivil, but personally I am looking for demonstrable evidence that she has learned from what has happened rather than a mere statement of intent. We are heading in the right direction but we are not there yet. Maybe we should use the way Vintagekits was rehabilitated as a model for how to proceed? --John (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi John, I hold my hands up and acknowledge that there's a lot of people trying to help Sarah777. I'd just like to see the existing processes and procedures followed first, and a separation between different incidents or complaints. --Bardcom (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I did an extensive investigation of Sarah's behavior a couple months ago (multiple threads, starting around here[22], then search on "elonka" or "civil" to find the others). I was particularly looking into her claims that the civility rules were being misapplied in her case. After I spent hours looking through diffs, my realization was that she had received multiple warnings from multiple admins, but she just wasn't hearing them. Her general mode of operation is to take immediate offense to anything that anyone else says to her, but when she throws abuse back, she does not see that as a problem. It was my opinion then that I was actually surprised that she hadn't been blocked more often. She was definitely in one of the classic "revolving door" modes of Wikipedia: In other words, we have certain users who are disruptive, we block them, they wait out the block, they disrupt again, we block again, they wait out the block, they disrupt again, we block them again, they wait it out again, etc. But they never actually acknowledge that they understood what they did wrong, nor do they promise that they are going to do better. That is why I support an indefinite block at this time, because despite multiple people explaining things at Sarah777's talkpage, despite multiple Administrator threads which she is obviously reading, she still refuses to acknowledge that she was ever uncivil, while at the same time she still continues to accuse other people of being uncivil towards her. This kind of double standard behavior is extremely disruptive. If Sarah777 can ever acknowledge this discrepancy in terms of how she defines civility, and promise to be civil as defined by the Wikipedia community, then I might be willing to support an unblock. But until then, no, she should be kept out of the community. We've already spent enough time trying to convince the unconvinceable. It's time to just move on. --Elonka 20:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"she still refuses to acknowledge that she was ever uncivil," When I asked her to apologise to me she did so. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, she said "OK Philip; in your case and in your case only it appears I was utterly totally and abysmally wrong in both cases". She's capable of being very nice and has apologized to me on occasion too. I would still question whether this shows real understanding of how off-putting her continual accusations of bias can be. Being rude across the board then issuing the occasional apology and carrying on as before has been her modus operandi thus far. To unblock I would be looking not for contrition (hell, she offered to say a Hail Mary for me the last time she was apologizing for some false allegation she made, and me an atheist!) but for genuine evidence of growth and learning. So far, I do not see this, though if it happens I promise to be the first to acknowledge it. This is to protect her, not to punish her. --John (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What to do about Category:Copy to Wiktionary

CopyToWiktionaryBot has not been functioning for some time. The category includes articles tagged for transfer from at least as far back as May 10, here. (There may be older; I only looked at a couple.) I wrote to the bot's operator, User:Connel MacKenzie, about it on May 24th and got a prompt reply, but it wasn't really encouraging that the bot would be up and running again any time soon as there is evidently an issue with "false positives" in Special:Import. (Note: I am technologically pretty clueless. I am reporting it, but I don't know what he meant by it. :)) Currently there are 56 pages in the category. He suggested that an admin may be found on Wiktionary in the event of an emergency transfer; I don't know that there are any emergencies in this list, but am concerned that they are stacking up. Are there perhaps any admins here who also are admins on Wiktionary who might be able to help out with clearing this? Any other ideas? If not, I may wander over to find some AN noticeboard on Wiktionary and ask for ideas there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Try asking at Village Pump (technical), you should get better answers than at ANI --Enric Naval (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I might wind up giving it a shot, although I really have no clue what the problem with the bot might be or what technical alternatives there might be. Evidently Connel has been aware of it for some time. I am hoping to find an admin who works on both sites who might be able to figure out how to proceed. :) I'd be happy to import the articles to Wiktionary myself, but, alas, my adminship extends only here. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

All right. I'm moving this on to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) (more general than technical; not sure a technical response is what's needed. But, then, I really have no idea what is. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(I'm not an administrator)Hi. Is it possible to manually copy it to Wiktionary or are there too many in the category to do so? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notable music by not notable musicians?

Question. When there's an article created about Artist X, a completely unknown 14 year old rapper from Denmark, it gets a {{db-band}} tag and will be speedy deleted within minutes. But when Artist X (or his friend) creates an article about his upcoming, not even recorded let alone released, debut album, there's no speedy tag to deal with it. The {{db-band}} tag specifically says it doesn't apply to albums, WP:CRYSTALBALL doesn't do speedies, and the article isn't really spam either. Yet we're dealing with an unreleased album ("will probably be recorded in spring 2009") by a musician that is considered to be not notable and/or insignificant.

I come across these kind of 'releases' quite regularly and I simply don't know how to tag them. Should {{db-band}} perhaps be extended to include unreleased albums? Can a 'not notable' musician make 'notable' music? Or am I completely missing an obvious solution to this tagging problem?  Channel ®   23:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really the place- try the village pump or a speedy deletion talk page. However, as someone who has done a lot of new page patrol, I find prod almost always works, and, otherwise, a quick, painless AfD (sometimes with a snowball close) works fine. J Milburn (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This comes up a lot. The most recent detailed discussion on WT:CSD is here; as you can see if you read it, there is really no good consensus for when an album could be speedied. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. I'll go to CSD, read and ask.  Channel ®   23:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Worded just a little more exactly, there is very clear consensus that it does not fit the present criteria. There continues to be disagreement whether the criteria should be changed in this regard. DGG (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If both are there, I redirect the album to the artist (usually not enough for a separate article), including all relevant information and then db-band the artist. That way, the album isn't left hanging. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liz Wilde

I thought some additional admin eyes might be good on this article, which is currently in some turmoil. The article subject has created an account and is running into many of the usual new user pitfalls, in addition to COI concerns. She asked for help on one of her edit summaries, and I've reached out to her regarding an image she posted (which is up for speedy delete). Dppowell (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for 24 hours and would welcome a review of that decision. Dppowell (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Because of ongoing COI issues (the account is autoconfirmed), I've upgrade it to full protection. As per policy, the revision it was on was protected. Any admin can downgrade it once this issue is worked out. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New global userright

I have started a centralized discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#New_global_userright on how our local policy should reflect changes to the global user rights policies at Meta. Please feel free to stop by and comment. MBisanz ^talk 22:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3

Resolved tag didn't work, let's try the archiving tag and see if that does the trick. --barneca (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images as refs

Is it permissible to scan a newspaper, upload it as an image, and use the image itself as a reference? I came across this today and am not sure if this is okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

My gut feeling is no, but I'm not sure if policy currently agrees with me. What I'd do myself is source the newspaper in the normal way and then post on the talk page that you have an image of the page in question at (some off-site location). I'm assuming that you worry that using the newspaper without additional proof will be doubted? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The usual caveats on news sources aside and absent more context, Morven's suggestion seems excellent. I don't think there would be any problem with the image being linked to as a convenience, as a quote would. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, if its a newspaper scan, it must meet our image content rules. If it is before 1923, then it is ok to upload, if it is after 1923, it must have a fair use rationale and comply with WP:NFCC. MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be necessary to do so—as others have noted, you can simply cite the newspaper as a source in the normal way. If someone has challenged that citation – that is, they argue that the content of the article has been misstated or misrepresented – then I think it would be a legitimate, fair use to upload a scan for a short period of time. (On the other hand, in most cases it shouldn't be necessary to go to such lengths, and we should give such citations the benefit of the doubt.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is all pretty much what I was thinking but I wanted confirmation and you guys provided more detail. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Double standards for tennis players

Administrators, tell me please, is this game whit so called policy, where we have rule to abolish Serbian and Croatian latin letters for tennis players, but on the other side we have huge serie of Serbian, Croatian and Bosnik people (politicians, football, basketball players) whit correctly spelling letters š, đ, č, ć, and ž? Why is Wikipedia tolerating double standards? And why are tennis players special spice? (Novak Đoković to Novak Djoković; Jelena Janković - Jelena Jankovic) --Pockey (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia, not the Serbian wikipedia. So English naming conventions apply (e.g., "Vienna" not "Wien"). And somebody has to start somewhere. (PS. It is "with" not "whit"). --HJensen, talk 22:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this something that project did on its own? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a "double standard." See this on the tennis project discussion page, this on bureaucrat's Redux's talk page, and this on administrator Darwinek's talk page. See also this about Pockey's (Pokrajac's) disruptive edits on this very noticeboard. Tennis expert (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, see this and this. Tennis expert (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a fair point. This whole discussion has not been an edifying one, and has rumbled on for a very long time. Most of the "consensus" proposals on this issue have been stacked one way or another by two diametrically opposed sides. I don't see why we can't have diacritics in titles, as no policy anywhere on en.wikipedia precludes them. Orderinchaos 08:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You've called my page moves "disruptive" and threatened to block me. Isn't calling me "disruptive," threatening a block, and saying that I'm burdening administrators a little premature? Tennis expert (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the prominence of earlier discussions on the tennis arena I had incorrectly assumed you were appraised of them and had adopted a radical (and arguably ethnocentric) point of view held by some within them. I have already apologised in two different places for that assumption and my earlier remarks - it is becoming clear that the fragmentation of this discussion between different groups, each of which is unaware of the goings on at the other, is more to blame for this mess than any one editor, and in questioning your 68 moves today, I adopted a tone which was unduly harsh. WP:CSB, while definitely not policy, has always been a consideration in my editing and it pains me to see it being violated in ways which don't assist either our coverage or our editors' understanding, and which remove or designify valid information. Orderinchaos 16:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What is this talk about "double standards"? Frankly, this has been explained to exhaustion on the relevant discussion, which was open for more than 8 days, with notes and links added to the talk pages of most, if not all, of the articles that were to be affected. It is not acceptable to attempt to restart this by ignoring the points made by opening new forums, with no mention to the previous discussion. To make a long story short: there is no such thing as a double standard; there is such a thing as the fact that on the English-language Wikipedia we adopt the preferred spelling in the English-speaking world as long as this exists and can be verified. In the case of tennis, it exists and can be verified by using the profiles in the official websites of tennis governing bodies, which adopt English as their working language. The same may not apply to other sports or modalities, in terms of verifiability of use throughout the English-speaking world, causing any article titles to default to the spelling used in the native language. That is why something may be done concerning a specific segment (in this case, tennis) and maybe not in others: verifiability of a widely used, preferred spelling in the English-speaking world that is different fromt he native one. What the people from any given native country think of the English spelling is not a relevant point and it has no barring on which spelling the English-language Wikipedia should be using. This has been noted in the discussion mentioned. "Real spelling" is a relative term, there are countless examples of people's names which are altered and "official" in different languages, the easiest to visulize would be the names of monarchs.
I am extremely disturbed at posts such as this. First and foremost because it is making a request for an administrator to undo page moves made in observation of consensus reached, based on guidelines and policy, on the ground of there being "no real consensus" among administrators. Not agreeing with consensus is not a valid reason to claim that it is not real; And even worse is quoting consensus among administrators as a validating criterion. There is no such thing. Administrators are not empowered to overturn community consensus by reaching a different consensus amongst themselves, nor are they empowered with "validating" community consensus by "sanctioning" it in a consensus amongst themselves. That the administrator in question even granted the requests, especially given the fact that he had communicated with me previously about the page moves in question and I had explained (yet again) the grounds in which the moves had been performed, is beyond comprehension and frankly, unacceptable.
The moves were implemented in accordance with our guidelines and policies and following a discussion where consensus was reached on that regard. There will be no reverting it based on claims that the consensus "wasn't real" because it is not respecting any given alphabet, national pride or similars. Making individual requests to administrators who happen to sympathize with any given position is unacceptable. Granting such requests, and especially on the basis of the requests made, is even more unacceptable. Redux (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am extremely disturbed at seeing my request described in such a way and not just here. I requested to have those pages moved back to their original titles after a number of pages had already been moved back. These simply seemed forgotten, the way you described my "individual" request is unacceptable. Please next time don't rely on these NPOV reports about the situation (second part of the thread).

A discussion on a WikiProject's talk page is NOT real concensus regarding such a controversial issue. Squash Racket (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Montessori School of Westfield‎

The article Montessori School of Westfield‎ has been attracting persistent vandalism from a number of users who appear to be sockpuppets of User:Heyj00, who has taken a dislike to the article. I have blocked indefinitely a number of users and an IP address. The article was semiprotected for a day but that did not seem to deter. I would appreciate any help in seeing if there is a IP from which these users are all being created and if we can block account creation from that IP. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've filed a request for checkuser on this. Kevin (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser is done, User:Thatcher and User:Alison have blocked all the socks, and hard blocked the IP. We should be able to unprotect for the nexr month. Kevin (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

lol - tag-teaming checkusers :) - Alison ^❤ 04:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected AFD meatpuppetry

There appears to be some sort of slightly disruptive meatpuppetry going along at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucknell Pong. I'd like to request a fresh view from an uninvolved administrator. Thanks. —  scetoaux (T|C) 02:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Far as I can see, there's not a single Keep that isn't from an SPA. It might be an idea to collapse all the SPA commentary into collapseboxes (as per this festival of sockery) to make it at least vaguely readable. — iridescent 02:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea, and I was going to do just that, but this AfD discussion would end up with something like 5 to 7 collapse boxes. Oh, and I was an uninvolved admin, but I just couldn’t resist adding my 2¢ worth. —Travis^talk 03:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring at WP:BAG

Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)

This guy was just blocked for 24 hours on June 3, for edit warring on a related page. Now, he is back at it again, with 2 reverts of edits, from 2 different users (I being one) within the last few hours (see here). He has a personal vendetta against BAG/Bot policy and he continues to disruptively edit war. I'm too involved to take any action, so I welcome your thoughts. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly disputed just by reading all the dissenting opinions at WT:BOT. I've no idea why people keep trying to remove that tag while the issues remain unresolved... (except that that many people seem to suffer from a "sweep it under the rug" mentality). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this thread is to address your disruption, not the dispute itself. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It could be argued that you're the one being disruptive by removing a perfectly harmless tag from a page while a dispute is ongoing... —Locke Cole • t • c 05:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't endorse Locke Cole's methods, but at least he draws attention to the fact that BAG has totally dropped the ball on finding a consensus-supported way to get new members. I wish this could be done with discussion and not edit warring. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Attracting attention is fine, as you say, the edit warring is a problem though. Quite frankly, if I weren't involved, I would issue a block on Locke Cole. His block for edit warring just expired a short period ago, and he immediately chose to start edit warring again. It is disruptive. It would be different if it was just one other user revert warring with him, but it isnt; it has been several. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Several" being two, unless you count yourself. At any rate, the number of people disputing that page is much larger on the talk page, but we can ignore them because they get tired of watching you guys carry on like everything is just fine? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Heads up: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group (3rd nomination) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • While I suppose that could be considered more of the disruption, the subject at hand isn't as much the content dispute as it is the editor in question's actions. SQL^{Query me!} 05:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I recently suggested to Locke Cole on his talk page that an MfD might gauge opinion better than limited policy talk page discussions. I did say that it would be best if someone else brought the MfD, and I did urge him to stop edit warring (and that implicitly included edit warring over tags). The way in which WP:BAG is appointed is a small part of Bot policy, but it is an important part and it does no credit at all to WP:BAG members that the discussion stalled and they are reverting Locke Cole instead of trying to sort the situation out. Carcharoth (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, what's done is done. I would recommend that it not be speedily closed, at this time. If we let this one run it's course, we might get some good input on it. I know, however, that's really not what MFD's supposed to be for.... SQL^{Query me!} 06:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• I have just blocked Locke Cole for 72 hours for restarting the edit war. The MFD needs closing as a pointy bad faith nom but since I just blocked him I guess it would be better for someone else to do this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) Either way, as I said on the MFD, if LC has a problem with the process itself, (which he evidently does if he wants the page deleted) he should propose an alternative, not scrap the existing one,however flawed it may be. (I'm not going to argue that because, frankly, I know little about the process. I do know that if it has lasted this long, it is obviously FAR better than nothing) J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 05:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) Not a bad-faith nom. Naive, sure, but not bad-faith. Locke Cole has genuine concerns with the failure to address how WP:BAG members are appointed. This was part of the (unstated) reason I didn't put myself forward when I was offered a nomination to join BAG (well, that and I didn't have the time). As it is, I think the current membership of BAG is more representative than it has been for some time, but they can't just ignore the "how do we appoint new members" issue. I urge everyone involved to restart the talk page discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page Move assistance

I would like to move a page to the location of a current redirect. There are also about a half dozen redirects that need to move along with the page. Could you please help me move McCormick Tribune Ice Rink to McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Requests like this generally go to WP:RM, in the future.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a page I created and am virtually the only editor of. It is non-controversial, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Bencherlite^Talk 07:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up

I'm currently watching today's episode of The Hour on CBC Television, which is featuring an interview by Andrew Schlafly and his "students" about Conservapedia, so wait for some more action on that front..... --RFBailey (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that article has been pretty quiet (hell, quieter than I thought it would be). A vandal once every other day or so is good enough for me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFPP entry untouched for 7-8 hours

I added an article to WP:RFPP in response to a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit/Revert_War_in_progress... and it has been untouched for 7-8 hours. Anyone care to protect or deny? :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Denied it. It seems that all the IP addresses and SPA stopped once one particular user was blocked. Very interesting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New activity by banned user Jvolkblum

I've come across a new account that appears to belong to this banned user. User:ConcertoNo.888, who has not yet edited, was created on June 3 at 09:18 (a few minutes before several already-blocked socks of Jvolkblum). A user by the same name has uploaded several images of New Rochelle (all with doubtful status) at Commons (see Commons contributions log). --Orlady (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

These images have been inserted into an article by an anonymous user in Indonesia, which is 99.9% sure to be an open proxy or zombie being used by Jvolkblum to evade the block. --Orlady (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Blatant Copyright Infringement by User:Reezy

I ran across an image that this user had put up as fair use, and for source it reads: self made. When I tagged it, not only did he remove the tag, (I put it back), but he removed the warning from his talk page. I was looking at the history of his talk page, and this is not the first time this has happened. Is there anything that can be done about a user who is blatantly copyright infringing? Thanks! ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 22:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:USER, removing warnings is not a problem, and should be taken as evidence that the user is aware of them. Your reverting his addition of a fair use rationale as vandalism, however, is a problem. Did you consider that this may have been an honest mistake? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:USER does not cover reverting an image tag advising of a fair use issue, not least when the tag carries the category entry which would later get the image deleted. I've dropped Reezy a note. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough (no pun intended), but he didn't remove the CSD tag outright. He replaced it with a valid rationale. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

True. My AGF might have been a wee bit on the blink, too. I'll rectify that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at some of their other uploads, I'm a bit skeptical of the source given as self-made for Image:Briancook.jpg and Image:Jsantana.jpg. --Onorem♠Dil 00:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note asking about these two. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That is the reason why I tagged the image in the first place. Because of the source given. ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 01:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's understood. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

re: Image:Briancook.jpg, the user uploaded 3 more versions, all copyvios,before they were deleted. The current version, showing from Commons, is the same as the last version deleted from here, and sourced to a Flickr account which only houses copyvio images. I marked Image:Jsantana.jpg as a blatant copyvio, since it was taken from a newspaper blog, and the user replaced it with a picture of his fist. User:Reezy now features a middle finger and a personal attack directed at me - all of this suggests he has no interest in respecting Wikipedia's copyright policies or playing well with others. Mosmof (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)