Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive253

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Block on User:Thewinchester 2 School Block Request 3 Abusive moves by Gryffindor 4 Curtis (50 Cent album) 5 Xavier cougat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 6 User:Centrx is reverting minor format fixes 7 User:ERMD55 8 Socks puppet, simple vandalism 9 User:Alithien 10 This is a joke, right? 11 User Memeco checkuser confirned sockpuppet of user Jonathanmbaez 12 Giano blocked 12.1 My explanation 13 Block on User:Rickyrab 14 Civility of Jeffery O. Gustafson 15 User:Kaikolar_are_Thevadiyaal, User:Willow_Walker, User:Baccarat on article Mudaliar and Talk:Mudaliar 16 User:Night Gyr 16.1 Emergency desysopping 16.2 Restoration to user sandbox space? 16.3 Assuming good faith 16.4 Deleted content is rarely secret content 17 Question@User:Stevewk 18 Block evasion by SanchiTachi 19 Gon4z for the xth time 20 WP:AIV 21 Suspicous editing behaviour? 22 Seven new User:MascotGuy sockpuppets 23 Anon editing and User:Stevewk 24 Angry Sun 25 3bulletproof16 26 JB196 sockpuppet 27 Question 28 Re:New block for Hayden5650 29 Disruptive editing by Vilerocks 30 Problem With An Anonymous Creationist 31 Otane 32 Cmapm on Estonian SSR 33 User:Betacommand 33.1 An opinion of a concerned editor 34 Harassment by Tfoxworth 35 BJAODN undeleted 36 policy on reverting change? 37 MaxwellTeke's User page 38 appropriateness of POV question 39 The Anonymous One 40 Article deletion 41 Vandalism from an IP Address registered to "City of Westminster Council" 42 Taken from WP:AIV 43 EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs) 44 Migospia and racism 45 Threats by Administrator llywrch 46 Fair use image on a user page. 47 Imdanumber1

[edit] Block on User:Thewinchester

I am very concerned about the basis of the block of Thewinchester, who is one of the most active editors on the Australian wikiprojects and active in vandal-fighting, checking of company articles for verifiability and the like.

On reading WP:BLOCK I see that "persistent gross incivility or gross harassment" is the standard required to achieve a block, and under "When blocking may not be used", cool-down blocks are explicitly listed. In the case of this user, who was guilty of posting one incivil talk page post [1], no warning of any kind was issued and the block itself appears not to assume good faith. Personally I would have gone for an agf-2 warning.

Could someone who is not involved please review this block? Orderinchaos 15:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Thewinchester has been block by User:WJBscribe with the reason I have blocked you for 9 hours so that you can cool down a bit this is in violation of WP:BLOCK. the unblock request was denied by User:Riana citing gross incivility, yet the language used by Thewindchester while heated is not the most offensive language used in discussion on User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Further more there was no request for Thewindchester to reconsider/withdraw or appologise for the comments neither was any warning given prior to the block. This incident needs to be looked at by an uninvolved party. Gnangarra 15:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• The 'Oh, for fuck's sake' on Jeffrey's talk page is written by Jeffrey himself. Riana ⁂ 15:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's clearly inappropriate, I fully endorse the block there, I really can't see a reason to complain about it, we can block for obvious incivility which in this case, that's what there was. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thewinchester acted like a dick, and when he got slapped for it he started bitching about it. All he needs to do is recognise that he was out of line and apologise, and I'm sure he'll be unblocked, but the comment was indeed way out of line. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd say this comment is also uncivil also a similar comment was left on Thewinchester talk page. Gnangarra 15:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Further to what I said just then after looking at WJB's talk page, I really cannot understand why you two are making such a big deal of this, the block was clearly appropriate, it was reviewed by a neutral admin who agreed with the block and to be honest - it was a clear personal attack which an established user should know better not to do. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify. My block was not a "cool down block", though I advised the blocked user to use the opportunity to step back and cool down. His comments to Jeffrey were outrageous and unacceptable. He is clearly aware of our polices in this area and chose to trample across them. He response to the block has to been to quibble the reasons for it. He has made no undertaking to apologise or to moderate his conduct. I have made it clear on my talkpage that I would unblock if he were willing to apologise to Jeffrey and showed signs of having calmed and be more likely to behave appropriately in future. WjBscribe 15:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 9 hours so that you can cool down a bit. [2] Orderinchaos 16:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• 15:08, May 31, 2007 WJBscribe (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Thewinchester (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 9 hours (incivility at User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson) - where does it say cool down in my block summary? That was advice on his talkpage. WjBscribe 16:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me why Template talk:Coord comments by User:Pigsonthewing are acceptable conduct from a user with a past history with Arbcom and revert parole (I suggest checking contribs too) but Thewinchester with no warnings and a good history is treated so much differently? Orderinchaos 15:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As I asked on my talkpage, diffs? WjBscribe 15:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This in response to a simple (and fair) question: [3], and almost every second edit on [4] (just look at those summaries, for a starter) Orderinchaos 16:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not seeing anything that bad. He doesn't seem to be screaming that others are complete idiots. And the diff you point me to was over a week ago... Not much can be done about it now. WjBscribe 16:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The language in that edit is *less* civil than Thewinchester's in the diff in question, and consistency knows no time boundaries - if we're going to start blocking people for use of the word "idiot", we might as well start now with half the userbase. Orderinchaos 16:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As required Thewinchester has apologised he has also ask why the uncivil comments by Guy have had no response? Gnangarra 16:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where the apology is... The "I'm sorry" is being used as a figure of speech, not to mean "I apologise". "I'm sorry, but can anyone not see the irony of this." is not an apology and certainly not an undertaking to apologise to Jeffrey. WjBscribe 16:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thats not much of an apology, and I'd reckon that any from this user at this point will likely be one of those "see, I apologized, now unblock me!!1!" deals. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that's not an apology. As for the "cool down blocks," I think the point there is that users should not be blocked just because they're angry. But the policy needs clarification: It is certainly okay to block someone that's angry and has been editing inappropriately, and it's appropriate to tell them to cool off when you do so. Mangojuice^talk 16:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(Thewinchester has noted that he never claimed it was an apology.) Per "editing inappropriately", what in his contribs suggests this? All I see is a lot of reasonably positive AfD participation and article editing. I believe blocking should be preventative rather than punitive (and I believe policy is clearly on my side on this) Orderinchaos 16:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• For what it's worth at this point, I agree with both the block and with the WP:BP interpretation of Mangojuice above. Disruptive incivility should be blocked. The cooldown effect is (well, maybe not here) an added benefit, not the grounds for the block itself. Sandstein 16:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How was the incivility in the diff "disruptive"? Orderinchaos 16:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The situation here is now that whatever the discussion, however the result the damage caused by not warning first is irreparable. Continuation of the block will not result in any "cooling down" as was quest when blocking. Also it quite obvious that any/another apology will also be pointless as however its delivered it will be perceived as meaningless. Leaving Thewinchester bitter can only detremental in the long term. The question now is how do we move forward with the problem, I think that an assumption of good faith should be extended to Thewinchester by lifting the block with a condition that he doesnt enter into discussion with User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson or the blocking/reviewing editors for an agreed period of time, say the original 9 hours. Gnangarra 16:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No we don't need to unblock, WJB has made it perfectly clear the ground on which he is willing to unblock, with a firm appology, if this hasn't come yet, I see no reason to unblock. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I will not unblock on this basis as I don't see what Thewinchester has done to warrant this gesture. He does not seem to have acknowledged that his conduct was out of order (and the asked for apology has not been forthcoming - sincere or not). However, I will obviously respect any consensus that develops here than such an unblock is appropriate. WjBscribe 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have been fine with unblocking if Thewinchester had indicated any sort of remorse for his sudden attack on Jeffrey. I saw none. I'm an AGF-y person, but I can't do so with "I will go as far as calling you a complete idiot". Riana ⁂ 17:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, that's it. This is just insane. You guys let User:Joestella off with everything ([5] under "South Australian general election campaign, 2006", this AfD, my talk page for April, Joe's user page, talk comments at this user's page, this attack-dog style process, POV forking and abuse and name-calling of anyone who disagrees with him etc etc), Orderinchaos raised it at this ANI and I raised it a few days later at this ANI and he was allowed to continue to go unchecked, I was told to "assume good faith" [6] even while he continued to act that way. In the end I got sick of the abuse and chose to leave. I got five or six emails asking me to come back and in the end I have decided to. But incidents like this, where someone calls someone who happens to be an admin an idiot on their talk page possibly after having a bad day, dunno, aren't people allowed to have a bad day? Anyway, the decision above is completely unacceptable and I personally will hold you guys to account for it if or when this guy ever returns. You now have no excuse for inaction. DanielT5 21:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this is any different from Giano's block which was undone in moments, except, of course, Thewinchester isn't Giano and so this is his first offence. Valued contributor with short fuse gets a little too curt with a sensitive admin. I won't do it myself, but would urge that Thewinchester be unblocked, and we'll assume he's learnt his lesson. Neil (►) 21:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the above post. He should be unblocked. And we should have a discussion about what the block policy is, when to use it, and why cases like mine were not addressed while cases like this got immediate attention and disproportionate action. I'm thinking of opening up an RfC on this very subject. DanielT5 21:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't approve of the user's posts, but would probably have warned rather than blocked. This is an experienced, good-faith contributor. I do note, however, that the block will soon expire by time. Newyorkbrad 22:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, finally the block has finally expired it's time to provide some much-needed context and information to clarify the issue. First and foremost, had the original blocking and pile-on admins followed due process and issued a warning (such as uw-agf2), it is likely that the comments might at the very least been rectified or retracted altogether. Instead, WjBScribe (an admin with less than 6wks admin expeirence) chose not to assume good faith on the part of the editor in question, and issued a punitive block less than 10min after the comment had been made. Further to the block, the block in question was issued with the sole purpose of being a cool down block (diff), despite his assertions to the contary within this AN/I discussion, where he has used various weasel words to try and suggest otherwise in a style reminiscent of Wikilawyering. The editor in question was given no opportunity to respond let alone correct the issues they perceived with the editors actions. The problem was compounded by a pile-on vote by a large section of admins, who I am duly informed by a reliable third party source that they themselves engaged in uncivil discussion towards the editor in question within a private IRC channel, one of their number who commented that the user should be banned from wikipedia for not having a clue (This is one of the more milder comments). Now, has been raised by DanielT5 and ors, this issue has clearly highlighted a significant lack of consistency and balance on the part of involved admins in terms applying civility and no personal attack policies as they related to incidents raised here in AN/I (Evidenced by comments in other current AN/I debates since relating to these and similar matters). Including current cases and issues cited to date by those commenting on this AN/I, users who have a clear demonstrated history of incivility and personal attacks towards other editors are more often than not ignored and left unactioned. In my specific case, a user with a significant body of work including but not limited to article research and improvement, project participation (including meetup organisation), vandal patrol, categories cleanup, image fair use issues, dealing with significantly difficult WP:CORP AfD debates which nobody else is prepared to wade into (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Out Now Consulting (2nd Nomination) as the most recent example), and additionally recently opting in to help out with Mediation Cabal cases, is in comparison unfairly punished to the point where an admin who knows me personally has to recuse himself from taking action here simply to avoid being the subject of a likely admin pile-on against him which would no doubt result. Now I can understand the blocking admin and others involved not wanting to lose face over this matter, but to use a more modern interpretation of The Art of War, I would refer to the words of Kenny Rogers in The Gambler, You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em, Know when to walk away and know when to run.. Other significant respected admins including Newyorkbrad (who's RfA incidentally passed 225/2/0 ) I have not ever had dealings with, have of their own accord come out and said that the block was premature and the editor should have been warned first and given an opportunity to deal with the issue. I would strongly request that this is reviewed, and the block is overturned and removed post expiry in recognition of the premature and unjustified action, plus the lack of good faith assumption on the part of the blocking admin and ors. Thewinchester ^(talk) 00:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt my actions were harsh. I stand by my decision however - I do not think volunteers should be subject to such attacks. By the way as small correction, I have been an admin for 2 months and not 6 weeks. I note that IRC has become fashionable to raise in these discussions. I did flag up your unblock request on #wikipedia-en-admins so it could be responded to quickly, however I made no comment about the matter. Riana responded to it. Other than that this the matter was not discussed on IRC as far as I recall. I do not question the validity of your other contributions to this project and I recognised that this behaviour was out of character. But your conduct towards Jeffery O. Gustafson was nonetheless unacceptable. I still hope you will apologise to him. WjBscribe 01:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt my actions were harsh. Can you please advise where I said that in my comments above? I did neither say nor suggest that the actions were harsh, and all you're doing is trying to take my comments out of context solely for the benefit of your own position. My disagreement with the matter at hand is on two fronts, the first being an inconsistent and unbalanced application of civility and no personal attack, which has been clearly and substantively demonstrated by a number of others admins and editors passing comment on this AN/I report. The second issue in the invalid justification for the block, a matter which you and ors know full well has been covered ad nauseum on my talk page. Your comments I note that IRC has become fashionable to raise in these discussions and subsequent references to IRC comment are as I have been duly informed by reliable third-party sources, a patent misrepresentation of the facts. For you to suggest otherwise is at best dishonesty and not keeping with the same policy you sought to punitively enforce against me. You by your own admission you are a new admin, and may need to realise considering the continued and growing community consensus by those not involved in the IRC conversations and subsequent pile-on, your block was extremely hasty and well beyond what needed to be done in this instance. I would strongly suggest you need to sit down and seriously consider walking back your actions rather than continuing to disrupting Wikipedia by holding onto the vain and pointless notion that the user should apologise over what is essentially a heat of the moment comment by a known good faith editor, for which both you and Jeffrey O. Gustafson concede would be pointless at this juncture given your actions in this matter and the length of time since the block. Is it any wonder that people like DanielT5 leave WP after being subjected increasing levels of wikistress? It's not, and in these cases can be easily caused by the cabal-like actions of overheated process-based editors which drive away a sizable chunk of good contributors. You claim to want to help Wikipedia by being an admin, so how about assuming some good faith and without prejudice walking back your actions to something a little more acceptable? Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What I see here is two people who have both acted inappropriately and are too vain to be the first to admit it. Thewinchester's comment was way out of line, and he should have apologised for it by now. WJBscribe's block was a total over-reaction and a obvious violation of blocking policy, and he should have apologised for it by now. At this point, as far as I'm concerned, whoever apologises first is declared the moral victor, and we can all put the issue behind us. Hesperian 05:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As a neutral party to the dispute, I feel that Hesperian's proposed solution is really the only way to move forward. Clearly, the original comment was unsolicited (i.e. not a reply to an attack from said editor, just a response to their actions elsewhere) and it's not hard to characterise it as a personal attack, and Thewinchester should have been called to account for it. However, heat-of-the-moment comments should be given a chance, especially from a contributor with no past history of bad behaviour on a matter which many people here have such a strong opinion on (i.e. the future of BJAODN). This did not happen, and the opinions on this AN/I section appear to be evenly split. WJBscribe should recognise that there is absolutely no shame in admitting one made a mistake - no human is perfect, especially with such a short history of service one would expect the odd mistake or two. Zivko85 06:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The sooner Hesperians and Zivko's remarks are taken on as sensible as to how this issue should be resolved - the better for all concerned SatuSuro 08:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] School Block Request

I am requesting a school block on the IP I am currently using. I am a student of the school and also an active wikipedian. I have become annoyed with the constant editing of people on this IP and it is causing our school and IP to look bad in the face of wikipedia. I also want to state that you may only need a small 19 day block because school closes soon...it is your choice though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.20.123.21 (talk • contribs)

Have school officials considered subscribing to the RSS feed from the Talk page instead? It would be better for them to be proactive on this and police their own network. --Dynaflow babble 15:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The school has tried to police but they lose interest and then it all starts again, I figured a schoolblock would be the best step in ending pretty much everything...also if you did not notice they messed up putting up the "this is a school IP" warning and failed in scaring people from editing...by the way can I fix those? Just notice they have also asked for a school block.

P.S. The IT teacher here said he will be contacting you guys later. He is bound to forget but I will remind him.

Have someone in authority send an email to appropriate address from this page: Wikipedia:Contact_us ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Use an email address with the school's URL. -- Lima Golf ^{Talk | Contributions} 09:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abusive moves by Gryffindor

Gryffindor (talk · contribs) has been using his admin powers to delete and move pages. In particular,

• He has moved Elisabeth of Bohemia to Elisabeth Stuart, without any discussion, and despite a lengthy and harmonious discussion, still on the talk page, which also resulted in the present text of WP:NCNT.
• He moved Province of Trento to Trentino unilaterally and in the middle of a discussion on the talk page, in which he was deeply involved.
• He has moved Merano to Meran-Merano and to Meran. He was also deeply involved in this discussion, and the move is contrary to the agreement reached at Talk:Communes of South Tyrol and recorded at WP:NCGN.

For his log, which demonstrates that he has deleted pages to perform these unilateral and disruptive moves, see here. I request that these moves be undone, pending an RfC on his behavior. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

20 points from Gryffindor, 5 for Slytherin. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Headmaster ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curtis (50 Cent album)

User:The Black Wall Street keeps reverting the article to a version that is incorrectly formatted, there seems to be an edit war going on. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 02:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

indefblocking per username. See The Black Wall Street Records which is founded by 50 cent's arch rival. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Annnnnnd unblock request granted. The unblocking admin (can't remember nor pronounce his name anyway) likely did not notice that it is the name of a company....it IS there on his talk page, but it's kind of buried among some other bluelinks, and I would have assumed that he had read this AN/I....I left a message on his talk page, there's no need to immediately reblock before consultation even though this is a cut an dry case. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

aaaaand reblocked by aforementioned admin. Case closed, move along. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xavier cougat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

All this user has done so far is edit the Talk namespace, causing trouble and moaning about criticism sections for about every single article talk page he comments on. He said he thought Flying Spaghetti Monster wasn't notable enough (words to that effect) and then when I told him he was wrong, he asked for a criticism section. I'm sure he's just a troublemaking account. Right now, I'm thinking an indef block is appropriate but would like to see if everyone else thinks I'm being too harsh? --Deskana (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow - every single one of his edits is some criticism of the article he's replying to, requesting things which are not in line with Wikipedia guidelines, and wasting people's time with tendentious argument. I'd support some kind of block for such behavior. --Haemo 02:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I failed to AGF from the early goings with this user, and bowed out early in an attempt to AGF and let other editors convince this user that his edits seemed disruptive. I've been watching since then though, and see no reason now for any further good faith to be assumed. This user is just trying to stir up controversial topics on talk pages. --OnoremDil 02:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User's blocked. He's not here to contribute to the encyclopedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me play devil's advocate here. The guy (?) has been here for 2 days. He's not clear on how Wikipedia works, and has Wikipedia's talk pages confused with a discussion forum. Not OK, but these are common mistakes, especially for newbies. We do generally encourage people to utilize the talk page of controversial articles. We have Template:Uw-chat1 through Template:Uw-chat4 for such occasions, but I don't see anything approaching a final warning. Are we indef-blocking users who seem misguided and slow to catch on (but not out-and-out trolls or vandalism-only accounts) after only 2 days? I'm not saying this is a future FA-writer necessarily, but was the threat to the encyclopedia so great that we needed this indef-block? For the record, I disagree with the block. I don't feel strongly enough to unblock, but I'd welcome more feedback, because my sense is that we're being a bit hasty in indef-blocking misguided but harmless newbies under the "not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" umbrella. I didn't see vandalism in my skim of the user's contributions - can we really judge a non-vandal's future encyclopedic contributions in 2 days? Should we? MastCell ^Talk 03:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I really fail to see the problem. The user was told several times to stop arguing and stop using talk pages inappropriately and he continued to do so. You propose we continue to let him demand criticism sections in every article he can stumble upon and cause arguments by ignoring what everyone else says if it contradicts him? I don't think that makes sense at all. --Deskana (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I must say I'm very much opposed to this indefinite block. I've been dealing with this user on Talk:George W. Bush, and while he/she may be a bit misguided, there is nothing here that warrants a block. Especially, without being warned that discussing changes could result in a block. I'm very tempted to remove this block as nothing this user has done amounts to disruption or harm to what we're doing here. - auburnpilot talk 16:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Reality check: before you do that, you might want to actually look outside of your small corner and check out, oh, all of his OTHER attempts to stir up shit at Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales, Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster, Talk:Rush Limbaugh, Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Talk:Communism, Talk:Intelligent design, Talk:Falsifiability, Talk:John Lennon, etc. Seventy total edits; 64 to talk pages, 6 to his own talk page, bupkis to articles. He ain't here for the editing. --Calton | Talk 16:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's what I get for trying to edit before I've even gotten out of bed. I'd confused the contribs of Gonezales (talk · contribs) with those of the above indef'd user. Carry on; I'm not unblocking Xavier cougat. - auburnpilot talk 17:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Centrx is reverting minor format fixes

Why aren't archives full protected if even edits this minor aren't allowed? See: here, here, also see: Special:Whatlinkshere/User:White_Cat/sig. I feel the user is now stalking/harassing me since he had no edits on the ANB/I archive page. -- Cat ^chi? 04:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Haven't we been through all this before? It seems like you're bringing these problems upon yourself. Just stop editing archives and your problems are solved. ChazBeckett 04:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In the light of common sense. Would you mind reconsidering your position? -- Cat ^chi? 04:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Common sense would be having a sig that does not require maintenance. -- Ned Scott 04:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

My position is that you should stop editing archives and perhaps pick a signature that you'll stick with for more than a few days. That seems like common sense to me. ChazBeckett 04:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive250#User:Cool Cat -> User:White Cat signature changes. -- Ned Scott 04:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second, I'm just realizing what's new about this time around. This Cat isn't changing "Cool Cat" sigs... he's changing "White Cat" sigs, which he designed to point to User:White Cat/sig, but has decided to delete that page and then update every page that once linked to it. It was bad enough that this was attempted with the User:Cool Cat sigs, but hey, it was a name change. Why is it happening again? Wasn't your new sig only days old? How many times are you going to change your mind about your sig and go back and update them again and again and again. That's not how sigs are supposed to work. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am reorganizing my sigs, I will be signing now on by year only 2 pages link to my old "/sig". You are just opposing it without even loading the diffs. Just 7 minutes after my post here might I add. -- Cat ^chi? 04:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I saw Centrx's reverts before you posted them here (zomg, watchlist). -- Ned Scott 04:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Moby Dick also said something similar... -- Cat ^chi? 05:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Short answer, telling you "don't do this, it's stupid" is not the same thing as harassment. Long answer here. -- Ned Scott 05:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As already explained, archives are not protected because 1) it would be a large burden that is generally not necessary because few people try to change the contents of archives, and even common vandalism in archives is almost non-existent; and 2) there are legitimate edits to be made to archive pages, even outside of removing real names or potentially libellous statements, such as archiving additional sections, re-factoring, or changing headers, that would be impeded by protecting the page and likewise create additional burden if there were a scheme to have administrators protect and unprotect these pages. —Centrx→talk • 04:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes Mr. Cat, you should stop all this. Even better, linking directly to your page rather than doing subpage gimmicks would be a good idea. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What the heck? The change I made is less significant than section header corrections. The visible text is NOT affected in any way. Why is everyone being so dense!? -- Cat ^chi? 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If everyone but you appears dense, you should ask yourself if you're the one being dense. --Deskana (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool Cat, stop making stupid edits and you won't have to worry about being reverted. You're not supposed to go through and modify all of your old talk page comments. It simply isn't done. They work well enough with the redirects. Your bot to do this was already denied because it's a Wikipedia policy that working redirects shouldn't be bypassed because it uses server resources at no benefit, and now you're still out there doing it anyway on your main account? Stop it and find something better to do. --Cyde Weys 15:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:ERMD55

ERMD55 (talk · contribs) claims to be an MTV casting director, which would be a WP:COI violation since all of his/her edits are to Real World articles. But they are also repeatedly edit warring to claim first, that Real World Atlanta would air in 2014, and now is going to air in 2008. Repeatedly explaining CRYSTALBALL hasn't seemed to work. Corvus cornix 07:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Socks puppet, simple vandalism

User 87.247.189.210‎, also registered as Pejman.azadi is playing socks puppet (Good hand edits, Bad hand edits) doing repeated deleting and removing resources and text from the intro of Persian Gulf article, and do simple vandalism by inserting disputed names for geographical place that looks like trolling.

He is registerd with his name as his IP address as he can edit the semi-protected article, and has a Welcome Message in his IP username's talk page by someone interested in his works.

He has been warned many times in his Talk Page for this behaviour. Here, I seek an oversight and considering blocking for his two account. He had contributed some comments through the same IP address before in WP, but it looks he now has another account with his IP address. Ralhazzaa 11:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Alithien

Removed my notification on Zero0000's talk page that an arbitration case involving him had closed, claiming that it was "vandalism". I reinstated it, but he removed it again, leaving a rather odd message on my talk page. I don't want to get into an edit war, so perhaps someone else could take a look. David Mestel^(Talk) 08:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

31 hour block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a really odd reply—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's French for "blank". x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is a joke, right?

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryanzilla13

Created by a guy who just set up an account today. Call me a bit jumpy, but this doesn't look right.Blueboy96 14:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

He said he had a lot of IP edits. That may be why. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 15:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Memeco checkuser confirned sockpuppet of user Jonathanmbaez

Seeking the blocking of user Memeco who is a confirmed sockpuppet of indef blocked user Jonathanmbaez. Jonathanmbaez was blocked for for vandalism. He then creates another account and continues on with the same behavior. A check user was done and user ws confirmed as a sockpuppet. [7]. Consequently seeking his blocking. YoSoyGuapo 17:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giano blocked

Hemlock Martinis (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) has blocked Giano II (talk · contribs) for 'incivility'. I have requested he explain his action here, so that it might be reviewed. Please everyone stay cool. We can do this in good order.--Doc^g 14:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with the block, I can't see anything derserving one in Giano's contribs, yes he's strong with words, but he hasn't been incivil. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any good justification for this block. We're allowed to say someone's edits are bad, if that's what we think. How else would a collaborative editing project work? Friday (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with this block and invite an explanation. Given some of the things I've seen written the last few days, the term I would use is "proportionate," and even then he's hardly the worst offender. The Arbuthnot articles are a mess. Mackensen (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm giving the blocking admin 30 min to explain himself here. Let's not rush to condemn him until he does. If he's not explained by then, we unblock. Agreed?--Doc^g 14:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• While Giano's comments were perhaps a bit over the top, realistically this block isn't going to have any positive effect here (though I understand why Hemlock Martinis enacted it). Correct me if I'm wrong, but have we not gone down this road before (i.e. civility blocks on Giano) and seen this be ineffective? IMO, we don't block someone for stating an opinion no matter how blunt it is.--Isotope23 14:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Giano's comments were unfortunate, but I think it highly unproductive for the project to block Giano. I will unblock him if someone doesn't do so first.

James F. (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Err, the proper time and place for a legitimate explanation was when the block was made, on Giano's talk page. I've no objections to an unblock sometime soon, unless more information turns up which would make it justified. Friday (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(multiple e/c) I find no justification of any nature for this block and am inclined to reverse it summarily, but will join in allowing the blocking administrator an opportunity to be heard. Newyorkbrad 14:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, make it 10 min. I'm fine with an unblock though.--Doc^g 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to unblock five (?) minutes ago, but was thwarted by the instruction "Please discuss the block with the blocking administrator before unblocking." Giano has at times concisely expressed irritation with others' edits; he dispensed with polite circumlocutions but also in the edits I've seen did not lack civility; writing in this way on this matter is his, anybody else's right; and for good reason, as Friday says. So, Moreschi went ahead and unblocked, and good for Moreschi. -- Hoary 14:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with the block. Referring to another as a "menace" to the project is highly inappropriate. Further, when Hemlock Martinis approached him to cool him down (see User_talk:Giano_II#Civility) Giano attacked him, with comments such as "I wish to proceed with something more useful than time-wasting and facetious debate with you". Giano has repeatedly been blocked in the past for civility concerns. While additional blocks for civility may not produce corrective results in Giano, it must be done anyways; we don't stop blocking people just because blocking them doesn't work and thus give them a free pass to be uncivil to whomever they like whenever they like. The block was clearly warranted. --Durin 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Unblocked. I've seen a few silly blocks in my time here. That one took the biscuit. Moreschi ^Talk 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• OK, a few min of discussion would have been nice - but would certainly have arrived at he same consensus. Endorse unblock.--Doc^g 14:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Just great. Giano gets a free pass to be as uncivil as he likes. Perhaps I should make a bunch of uncivil remarks, get blocked, and keep doing it so I can keep making uncivil remarks. Afterall, blocking isn't effective. I'm sure glad we don't apply this "logic" to how we treat vandals. "Oh gosh. Blocking that vandal didn't work; they came back and vandalized. Better let them continue vandalizing!" <cough>. Unblocking was also highly premature, in the least. We only just STARTED this thread 10 minutes ago and the blocking admin hasn't even had time to explain himself. Good grief! Why even just start this thread?????? --Durin 14:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Cooldown blocks are expressly forbidden by our blocking policy. I consider it requisite for people to acquaint themselves with our guidelines before posting on this page. The noticeboard takes half an hour to download as it is. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Giano was not being especially uncivil, and if he was being blunt, I can understand why. Blocks are not there as punishment, nor are they there to prove a point. Sysops are not automata, and nor is Giano. We cannot expect perfection, especially under trying circumstances. Basically, he's right. Cleaning up COI/POV messes is a strain: I know, I've been there myself. Went to ArbCom over it. It's hard. Giano was not being evil, and even so, clemency is the virtue of the great. Durin, I have great respect for you, but just for once I think here you're wrong. How would this block really improve anything? Moreschi ^Talk 14:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Giano's a well-known, extremely producitive and highly-valued, slightly fragile user. The purpose of blocks is to prevent damage to the project. What purpose did this block serve in that context? Sysops are not meant to act as mindless automata, yet your comment seems to suggest that, somewhat. James F. (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  The block serves to draw a line in the sand, to say "this behavior is not acceptable". Hemlock was a messenger to that effect, and tried to calm Giano down. Instead, Giano flew off the handle. The block was appropriate. --Durin 14:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  You are not looking at the context. I have every sympathy for the situation Giano is in, and under such stress minor lapses can be forgiven. Nor were the comments for which he was warned for uncivil in the slightest. Blunt yes, uncivil no. His reaction may have been, but that can be forgiven. Giano is not a robot, and this Arbuthnot mess has caused everyone grief. An RfC will probably help. Irrational blocks will not. Moreschi ^Talk 15:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  And Hemlock Martinis is hung out to dry. Good grief. --Durin 15:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  An administrator is responsible for the blocks that he makes. Blocking an established contributor (or another sysop, at that) should never be done lightly. Mackensen (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  No, this is not the lynch mob. I have no intention of condemning Hemlock Martinis at all. Everyone should just calm down, walk away, and forget about it. One bad block is not the end of the world. We all do that, sometimes. Not a calamity. Not even worthy of making a fuss.

• All I would say is that calling content "a mess" is commenting on the content, not the contributor, which is what you are meant to do, and the circumstances were not taken into account. Giano is basically right. Kittybrewster's articles are problematic, to say the least. We do not block people for calling a spade a spade, whether or not they're Giano. This is not a free pass, just undoing an unjustified block. Moreschi ^Talk 15:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  If you believe Hemlock blocked Giano for calling something a mess, you haven't read the discussion. --Durin 15:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to condemn the blocking admin, by the way. It's just that under strain and stress even the best of us can be forgiven for losing his rag, and Giano has been putting in a lot of worthwhile and complicated work recently. Nor, in my opinion, was he especially incivil given the circumstances and the strain of recent wikidramas. Re Durin, blocking Giano for (dubious and limited) incivility, when this has been proven not to work, just to prove the point, will not help anyone. Moreschi ^Talk 14:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Where can I pick up my free pass? --Durin 14:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

An RfC on the whole Kittybrester fiasco might be in order.--Doc^g 14:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a very good idea.--Isotope23 15:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Moreschi ^Talk 15:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As per Mackensen, Blocking an established contributor (or another sysop, at that) should never be done lightly. In such circumstances, a thread should be started before the block, not after. I have no comment if the block or the unblock were rightful. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Here we are again. This block was clearly unjustified. Kittybrewster has indeed (perhaps unwittingly) created a mess that needs to be (and is being) dealt with. I have every faith that the wiki process will clean the "mess" up in due course, but this kind self-interested and poorly-sourced family history is indeed a "menace" to us as an encyclopedia. From Giano's talk page, it would seem that he was blocked for asking [[User:Hemlock Martinis|] to cease prolonging a "time-wasting and facetious debate". I am not sure how facetious it was, but it was certainly time-wasting. If I may caricature their exchange: "Don't be uncivil"; "I'm not being uncivil"; "Yes you are"; "No I'm not"; "I'm an admin and you are blocked. Goodnight Vienna."

An unnecessary block, now unblocked; let us all learn and move on. Remember: blocking an established editor for perceived incivility is unlikely to help. Posting on a board, such as WP:ANI and gaining some consensus for action is more likely to produce a worthwhile result. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Give it a rest already, Durin. Can you not find something better to do (in the future, too)? El_C 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of us already knew so-called "cool-down" blocks[8] never cool anybody down, but always heat them up. (If you didn't, please checkout the policy: "Cool down blocks—brief blocks solely for the purpose of "cooling down" an angry user—should not be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation.") And we knew that the blocking admin should post controversial blocks of established editors for review on ANI, preferably before pressing the button, but at the least immediately afterwards. And we knew we're not supposed to perform a block and then go incommunicado so that people are afraid to unblock for fear of accusations of wheelwarring. And still there are blocks like this. It's depressing. I don't get to mention it was a bad block, because we've all made them? I sincerely hope we haven't. And because the famous "Free Pass" rears it ugly head if I do? Bah. Admins apparently already have a Free Pass, Durin. You don't have to pick up yours anywhere in particular. Bishonen | talk 21:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC).

• Hurrah! It's weeks since we had any Giano drama. A welcome break from WP:BLP drama. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm missing the part about why we're going "hurrah", you must really be sick of BLP drama. FWIW, I consider this block very inappropriate. ALoan's Cliff notes outline the situation admirably. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's inappropriate, all Giano blocks are inappropriate. It's absurd! Guy (Help!) 22:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a free pass - long-term contributors, generally including all admins, have established a large pool of demonstrated good faith. We know they're here and working for the betterment of the encyclopedia, beyond any reasonable doubt, though that can and in a rare case has changed. Truly hostile abusive behavior (even by an admin or longtime contributor) goes beyond considerations of good faith, and sometimes requires prompt blocks anyways, but in a lot of grey area you have to wonder about it with new accounts (WP:AGF is not a suicide pact).

I cannot think of anyone, from new IP accounts up through editors, key long term editors, admins, arbcom, or Jimbo, who has not made mistakes at some point, in most cases serious mistakes. That's reality and humanity. We need to understand that it happens. That is not a free pass - that's "We all fuck up", from time to time. Georgewilliamherbert 22:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My explanation

After my initial comment to Giano about his comment on Kittybrewster's talk page, Giano replied that Kittybrewster was a menace to the project. This statement implies malicious intent on Kittybrewster's part when Kittybrewster has shown no desire to actively harm the project. I then asked that Giano use a less hostile tone when referring to other editors, and he replied that Kittybrewster and editors who support him were ignorant and "not capable of decorating a Christmas tree". This continued aggressiveness in communication after I made two requests to take it down a notch brought me to the conclusion that a short block of twenty-four hours was appropriate. The intention was that this block would be corrective and not punitive, and to indicate that incivility was not acceptable. --Hemlock Martinis 22:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My gut reaction is that this is a good-faith block, that is not irrational, and so no shame on the blocker. Cool down blocks can work, sometimes. However, in this particular case, a block was not going to help. There are wider issues of which Giano's response was just one side in a larger dispute. Again, if I were not already busy with one arbcom case, I'd suggest that an RfC on the 'arbuthnot' issue might help. There's certainly a problems here - and it is not just Giano that sees it. Let's deal with the content issues and not focus on a few regrettable words, spoken in utter frustration. Move on everyone. --Doc^g 23:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Whenever there is a repugnant block we see again this empty talk about "faith" (I wonder how long ago the FAITHers actually read the WP:FAITH policy) and also talk about "moving on". Eventually we do and, sure enough, we are soon back at where we were. Could it be just because we too often "move on" instead of addressing the problems that cause such mess time and again? --Irpen 23:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's no do this. I'm giving both Giano and Hemlock the benefit of the doubt here. The other option is we all go to the barricades shouting "let's address the problems that cause this mess". However, no one agrees what it is. One side speak of "bad blocks and abusive admins" and think that's the root, the other shouts "no, it is the free pass and the incivility". Really, having that partisan shouting match will achieve nothing for anyone. Giano please tone it down, admins please don't block Giano. And let's all go sort out the Arbuthnot issues - because that is a fixable problem.--Doc^g 01:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is out of line, but I think that perhaps an RfC or even administrative recall (at this point, perhaps on both admins) would've been highly preferable, as it would've allowed all parties to get the issues aired out. As others have noted, a block doesn't seem appropriate. --Edwin Herdman 01:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what? I'm the only admin involved, as far as I know. Nevertheless, I am curious as to why you're suggesting administrative recall for this. --Hemlock Martinis 02:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• It is entirely out of line, 100%, to go blocking people for something as vague as saying that a user is a menace to the project. That's first. Please read WP:NPA and read the civility policy. Neither of these give any room whatever for blocking a user for what you think might be imputing malice. It is simply not there. Secondly, the block showed that you had not investigated the matter. Blocking on the basis of tripwire language is absolutely inappropriate. You need to know what's going on in the situation, and, if you do not, then do not block. It's fine not to investigate everything, but then don't block. If you had investigated, you would have seen the thread just above, for example, largely on Kittybrewster and how he actually is a menace (in one sense) to the project as a user who knows the policies and flaunts them. The thread is under "Giano ignoring consensus," but you will notice that none of it is about Giano ignoring any consensus. Rather the reverse. Even if you did not believe that Giano's characterization was warranted, even if you felt that it was hyperbolic or insulting, that still gives no grounds for blocking. It is simply staggering to me the way that people are reaching for the block button over and over again, as if long standing users with thousands of edits are vandals. Trust me: blocking is not what being an administrator is about. I'll say it again, as it never gets old: consult, confer, discuss. Geogre 02:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• The block was not based off of NPA. Civility was the core issue; calling someone a menace to the project serves no constructive purpose and only damages an already sensitive subject of discussion.--Hemlock Martinis 04:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• This doesn't look too promising. The list of names provided are mostly members of the Baronetcies project as can be seen here, or other editors (Squeakbox, Waltonmonarchist) who have been pro-baronet to some extent in the past, coupled with other editors who are vaguely involved such as Mr. Darcy and Hemlock Martinis. I would suggest any such "task force" is comprised of neutral and previously uninvolved editors, and not ones handpicked by Kittybrewster. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've declined to take part. --Hemlock Martinis 03:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What a truly ridiculous explanation. More detail on Hemlock Martinis' talk page. El_C 07:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I wouldn't worry that idea of his will not get further than Kittybrewster's page and dreams. As for Hemlock Martinis, he is obviously in need of some admin guidance and training - some of these new admins - well I do wonder... Anyhow we have some happy news on the Arbuthnot front [9] so let us be glad that some of the pages, at least, are being improved. Hemlock can spend tomorrow reverting vandalism on her as penance. Giano 07:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block on User:Rickyrab

Just blocked User:Rickyrab ([10]) and an IP ([11]) he's known to use for repeated trolling requests for the histories of BJAODN. (See [12] [13] [14] and [15]) ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

• [16]

Near 3RR

• [17]

Trolling on DRV

• [18]
• [19] - Also says he's not willing to accept the closure of the DRV, and plans to reopen it.
• [20] - Which he did

Using a known anon in a debate he already commented in

• [21]

Ignoring my Declined Request, promises to go elsewhere

• [22]

Hope this clears up a bit more, in case there's any questions. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

He was certainly advised and warned. 48 hours seems fair enough. Rklawton 02:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems fair to me. Endorse block. --Coredesat 05:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for trolling. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility of Jeffery O. Gustafson

I'd hate to do this, but... Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk · contribs) has been less than civil lately, especially regarding the BJAODN issue.

I left him a message on his talk page, saying that to me, his civility has been lacking. He responds with saying that was incorrect observation. I post an example of what I mean, and he reverts my edit without reason or comment. [23]

Sincerly Whsitchy 17:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, off with his head! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Awww, I was using that... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Err... I mean, do you have any more examples? We don't really care about such a minor event if thats all there is. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff has the same rights as every other Wikipedia editor to remove additions to his talkpage at will. I personally think it is a bad practice, but he is free to do so... and I don't find that diff horribly incivil...--Isotope23 17:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at his comment above that, where he's asked to reinstate the BJAODN pages (here), and the comment at here (in the middle). I'm sure there's others. Whsitchy 17:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Found another talk revert [24]. It appears to me he's removing comments he doesn't agree with to save face. Whsitchy 17:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps you could assume good faith of his reverts? Perhaps he's entirely sick of being harassed over deleting a wretchedly unfunny copyvio? Sounds eminently plausible. Moreschi ^Talk 17:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Bingo. Plenty of stuff in my archives from folks taking issue with me over one thing or another. But trolling, personal attacks, and nonsense gets reverted on sight. The first revert noted above was trolling (I already know what I said, repeating it serves no purpose than to troll), and the second one was trolling on behalf of a blocked user using arguments that make no sense. Indeed, I say right on the top of my talk page (more or less since 2005) that "I quickly archive items nowadays, and reserve the right to revert and refactor at will." --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he tends to roll things back too much. But, what are you proposing should be done about it? I don't see how this is an administrative issue. Friday (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, using rollback on your own talk page is probably not the end of the world either. Moreschi ^Talk 17:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

To Friday: Public warning maybe, I dunno, just something to get him to calm down. I didn't know where to post this, and I thought this was the best place since he was an admin himself. To Moreschi: I'm not saying the revertings are the problem though. Whsitchy 17:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Jeffy O. Gustafson's archiving practices are a bit exentric. I think this part of the userpage policy can cover this though - "The removal of a messages is taken as evidence that the message has been read by the user." WjBscribe 17:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying the problem is his civility, not the reverts of his pages. Whsitchy 17:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the diffs, Rickyrab was blocked for trolling requests along these lines and I can't say that Jeff's response is all that out there given the "unique understanding" of the GFDL Ricky is displaying. The other stuff isn't all that incivil really. If you want Jeff to calm down, it's probably time for editors to stop asking him to restore content that he clearly is not going to restore.--Isotope23 17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, BJAODN is gone, it's pretty much unlamented, and I shouldn't think any admin will restore it. No point, none whasoever, in pestering people over the thing. Ye shall reap what ye have sown, etc. Moreschi ^Talk 18:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. It is clearly not unlamented; otherwise there would not be controversy over the deletion of most of the BJAODN. As for editors asking him to restore content that he does not want to, yeah, there's no point in doing so any further (especially when there are admins out there that are interested in restoring the BJAODN in a GFDL friendly manner, such as the Cunctator, see below for the conversations involving what was almost a wheel war about BJAODN). Furthermore, BJAODN is not completely gone. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't rule out stress for the comments, and I fully understand that part. Just that it sort of bothered me, that's all Whsitchy 18:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Complaints against Gustafson crop up pretty frequently (I discovered this after making one myself). I'm curious as to how someone like this ever became an administrator. Perhaps a request to stand for reconfirmation is in order? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 18:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Temporary unpopularity because some copyvio gets deleted does not a bad admin make. If you really think something is broken, the kind, loving gentlemen of the Arbitration Committe are that way. Moreschi ^Talk 18:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hahahahaha, reconfirmation! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, annoying red link or not, Jeffrey's a great admin. This is bordering on trolling now. -M^ask? 19:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let me set some facts straight. I am not doing this as "revenge" against Jeffery for deleting the sub-pages. I can see where he was coming from when he did that. However, I just thought some of his comment towards users weren't really civil. That's all. Whsitchy 19:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, a slap on Jeffrey's wrist is in order.

*slap*

There. Can we all go on about our business, please? Thank you! Phaedriel - 19:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, time to move on here.--Isotope23 19:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The comments may have been blunt but they certainly weren't uncivil. Now put your Spiderman pyjamas away. Nick 19:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we still increase the distance between his ears and shoulders? :p ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I find this totally amazing that an admin is let off for being uncivil particularly when he has a history of it. Even worse still, he was involved in a whole whole debate here regarding a very minor breach of WP:CIV where one admin clearly chose to overreact and despite clear community consensus against his actions (ignoring pile-on votes), refused not walk back his decision, and clearly does not wish to respond to any comments or have anyone see or hear further discussion on this matter diff. Jeffery O. Gustafson should know full well the policies and as such his actions should not go unpunished by the community, particularly since he is an admin and should be held to an even higher standard than the regular tireless contributors. This is a further demonstration in the disparate application of WP policies against certain groups of users, and quite frankly does nothing other than to weaken WP policy in these matters. I have removed the resolved tag from this AN/I report and I am asking for immediate review of this decision particularly in light of these additional facts, and a subsequent enforcable undertaking or punishment be issued to Jeffery O. Gustafson. Cheers, Thewinchester ^(talk) 04:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The demands in here for the above user to apologise to Jeffery for one single comment now ring rather hollow in my estimation given the above proceedings. I am concerned about the clear lack of balance which seems to have emerged, as was pointed out at the time by User:DanielT5, but emphasised beyond doubt in this case. Orderinchaos 04:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Jeffery is now removing Talk page edits which dare to point to where one can find the BJAODN content. Corvus cornix 04:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

OK! OFF WITH HIS HEAD! OFF WITH IT! HE COULD JOIN THE HEADLESS HUNT FOR ME INSTEAD. :) — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 05:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yawn... WP:EL: "Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked." --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Nick. We must lynch him. It is the only way the community will be satisfied. -Pilotguy hold short 13:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kaikolar_are_Thevadiyaal, User:Willow_Walker, User:Baccarat on article Mudaliar and Talk:Mudaliar

The following user IDs are making statements of extreme vulgarity. They maybe sockpuppets of the same user User:Kaikolar_are_Thevadiyaal, User:Willow_Walker, User:Baccarat. They are involved in highly uncivilized language and deleting the RFC I posted in the talk page. Please take appropriate action against these logins.

Please restore my RFC request on the talk page.

Sriramwins 20:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see evidence Baccarat (talk · contribs) is a troll, but I blocked the other 2 accounts.--Isotope23 20:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, this is interesting. I haven't taken a close look at the situation but it is definitely at risk for the arrival of sockpuppets of User:Mudaliar and User:Venki123, both blocked per the ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mudaliar-Venki123. Somebody take a look and see if we'll need some ArbCom enforcement/checkuser. The Behnam 18:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Night Gyr

Please see this diff. Admin Night Gyr has announced that s/he will be providing the press with material that was deleted as a BLP violation. Corvus cornix 20:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My comment was misinterpreted. 'her' refers to the subject of the article, not the author. This was in line with what happened in the Sean Hornbeck case and was endorsed by several other editors and administrators, including Newyorkbrad: "I endorse this approach and was actually planning to ask whether it would make sense for an OTRS volunteer to reach out to the Hornbeck Foundation and solicit their views on this matter (including the views of Shawn Hornbeck himself, specifically) as part of our overall effort to build sensitivity to the needs and rights of crime victims to our approach to this type of article. I would have no objection to temporary reinstatement of the article for a day or two so they can look it it, if that is requested. Night Gyr, I would also appreciate your drawing the attention of whomever you are in touch with to the reasons that I gave for the deletion. I think that in fairness they should know that the basis for my concern was the privacy interest of victims, especially minors, even if a given person victim might be prepared to consider waiving such privacy interest in this particular case." (quote from newyorkbrad) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I read the comment the way Night Gyr clarified above. A query, is it a BLP violation to send a copy of the article to the subject of the article? Clarification as to the community's opinion on that might assist in resolving this before it hits crisis mode. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I read it the other way, but either way, I don't know. Surely the subject has certain rights? Moreschi ^Talk 20:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Night Gyr has been desysopped. Corvus cornix 20:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[25] - I asked the stewards about this, and Guillom did an emergency desysopping while the arbcom decides this. He says: "[guillom] DavidGerard_, just tell them this was an emergency procedure, because the arbcom wasn't reachable ; now they have to take care of that and if the emergency was not justified, then a bureaucrat will sysop him without delay" - David Gerard 20:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts)

Ok this is ridiculous. I am not planning to and I never intended to say that I would release content to the press. I'm simply using the reporter as a contact to see if he can put me in touch with the article's subject, since he wrote the front page article about it. This is a practice that I have done before with wide endorsement. See the remarks in the Sean Hornbeck case. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone read your grammar wrong. Moreschi ^Talk 20:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It was quite clear to me and, presumably, a bunch of other folks who didn't de-sysop him , so 'everyone' is a bit of an overstatement.  :) Don't panic, folks. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Is an arbcom case open and if so where? If not, who's bringing it? This all seems to have happened rather hastily... -- ChrisO 20:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The numerous "her"s are certainly not a smoking gun, and given that Night Gyr has now clarified the matter, I hope a bureaucrat will resysop him promptly. CMummert · talk 20:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Corvus, I believe you may owe Night Gyr a bit of an apology. Considering the seriousness of the accusation, a critical read of the text is warranted, and it's quite clear that he was speaking of sending a copy not to the press, but to the subject of the article. A rap of the knuckles on other folks involved might be appropriate too, c'mon guys. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I may well owe Night Gyr one. I'm still running around trying to find a current arbitrator online - David Gerard 20:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you consider leaving a note on an ArbCom member's talk page and not taking action until then? It's awful when people aren't on IRC, I guess. A block would normally work a bit better than a demotion, unless the person then unblocked himself, and then you might have cause. Sheesh. How many "instant super fast" actions do we ever really need? Geogre 01:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The writer was the subject of the first clause, so it's entirely natural to assume that it's the subject of the second clause. Hence the confusion. Moreschi ^Talk 20:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

and I was pretty sure the writer was a dude, so her was unambiguous to me. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Not to me, I'm afraid :) Moreschi ^Talk 20:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that his name is "Eli", I feel that his "dudeness" was a reasonable assumption, although I suppose it could be short for "Elizabeth"? JavaTenor 20:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the first to tell Night Gyr that his/her suggestion was inappropriate. I did think, though, that it needed wider circulation, which was why I brought it here. I apologize to Night Gyr if he/she did not intend what a read of the comments would have led a reasonable person to assume that he/she meant. but I still think that this should have been addressed here. And *I* wasn't the person who did the desysopping, I don't have that ability. Corvus cornix 20:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) to be fair, my wording could have been clearer before I went back and edited it. My attempt to contact her was sparked directly by this comment on my talk page. I just figured I'd send her the text directly instead of such a biased opinion on it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So it's okay to send deleted content to other people, as long as we don't send it to the press? Sorry this won't wash. --Tony Sidaway 20:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was going on the Sean Hornbeck precedent. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, to be clear, he was talking about sending the text of the article to the person the article was about. Does your objection stand? If so, this may be a grey area of BLP that should be hashed out. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about this Sean Hornbeck precedent, and I'm not amused by the suggestion that our deleted material can be leaked. It cannot. Has Night Gyr has sent deleted material to the subjects of articles in the past? Is that why he claims a "precedent", because he got away with it? --Tony Sidaway 21:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the statement quoted from Newyorkbrad at the beginning of this section? or the Sean Hornbeck DRV? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, just to be clear : Night Gyr's statement was ambiguous enough to require an emergency procedure (that was asked by people from your wiki). I knew there was a possibility of misspelling, but there was also a possibility of disclosure. I desysopped him to let the time for the ArbCom to look into this case or for him to explain himself. If he was really about to disclose deleted bio content, risks were high and action was necessary. If it was only a misunderstanding, losing his admin tools during a few hours was no big deal, and any bureaucrat would give him his tools back without any problem. Cheers, guillom 20:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't seem ambiguous to me, he specified the person he was sending it to by name. Poor, hasty judgment from folks on this wiki may have contributed to the confusion. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not originally, I edited it after I got a message on my talk page about it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the original diff actually is clear-cut (the wrong way) if you don't know about the gender of the writer. Moreschi ^Talk 20:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

or that I was writing it in response to FCYTravis's request to email the subject of the article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the ambiguity: [26]. The steward action seems wise given the implications. If Night Gyr just expressed himself poorly he can of course be resysopped but guillom seems to have acted correctly. WjBscribe 21:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur; the desysopping was entirely appropriate as a preventative measure. The log notes it was an "emergency" desysopping. There was a serious concern that a sysop might be intending to release BLP deleted material. I suggest we drop criticism of the desysopping and focus on the issue at hand. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I am baffled as to why we would consider that it's OK to say that a bunch of guys who type with one hand drooled over this girl even if she did "approve" it in some way. And anyway, OTRS is the channel for that kind of thing. Tis was an incredibly bad idea, whatever the motivation. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If the concern was that she wouldn't want it on the internet... Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well either way, do we send the article to this lady? Is that, as it were, the proper course of action? Seems to me we might want to sort that out. Moreschi ^Talk 21:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you taken leave of your senses? No we do not. And we do not contact her at all unless and until she contacts us. --Tony Sidaway 21:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

tell that to FCYTravis. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that FCYTravis was employing a rhetorical device to get you to come to your senses, not actually advocating that you actually contact the victim here. But I suspect that if you are ethical in the way most of us are, thinking about what you would say to the victim would indeed have brought you to your senses. I hope so anyway. ++Lar: t/c 21:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Would you mind having a brief biography of you listing your records and explaining what happened in wikipedia?" or "What do you think of this article text that we're thinking about using?" Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Oh and by the way, we can't promise it will stay as that version, and anyone can come along and change it at anytime" --pgk 21:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just become aware of this situation including the fact that comments I made earlier in the week in another DRV are being referred to. What happened in that case was that I deleted two articles that referred to abductions of and sexual assaults upon two minors, out of respect for the privacy interests of the minors and their families. In one of these cases the deletion has raised relatively few eyebrows, but in the other (Shawn Hornbeck) it has been pointed out that the Hornbeck family has affirmatively sought publicity as advocates for missing children and established a website and a charitable foundation for this purpose, which led some of the commenters on the DRV to question whether my concerns were misplaced in this particular case. The DRV is still ongoing and I would welcome additional comments there (see, Wikipedia:Deletion review#Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby).

During the course of that DRV, Night Gyr indicated that if a major ethical question about our article on Shawn Hornbeck was whether the Hornbeck family would consider that it invaded their privacy rights, a reasonable step would be to contact the Shawn Hornbeck Foundation for their input. This could obviously not be the course pursued in every BLP-related deletion but under these circumstances it seemed like a reasonable thing to do. In any event, Night Gyr's statement that he had done this and my comment that I endorsed this step in this particular instance was not commented on, adversely or otherwise, by any of the dozen or more other editors, including relatively senior admins, who have participated since that time in the DRV.

Frankly, the factors present in the Shawn Hornbeck case are not equally applicable to the present situation. Extrapolating from that situation to this one was unwarranted and I would not have and certainly do not endorsed Night Gyr's proposed initiative in the case of Alison Stokke, in part because there is no evidence that this subject or her family have affirmatively sought any form of publicity and in part because the policy arguments for retaining her article are much less strong. As a general matter, we all know that we must be careful about reinstating or deleting any deleted material, even though in this case it is apparently that little harm would actually have been caused by relevation of the material (although more harm might have been caused by unsolicited contact by a perceived Wikipedia representative in general, no matter what the person had to say, given the history of the past couple of weeks). In the limited cases where outreach to an article subject is warranted, this should be undertaken only by an approved OTRS volunteer and after appropriate senior-level consultation.

The fact is, however, that if Night Gyr had actually undeleted and restored the entire Allison Stokke article, this action would have been criticized and he would probably have been added as a party to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff or a similar arbitration case, but I doubt there would have been an emergency desysopping. If reinstating the article for the entire world to read would not have warranted emergency desysopping, then it is difficult to see that suggesting an intent to disclose the content to a single individual should do so, particular where the content, although highly troublesome under BLP, does not pose an imminent danger and consists of material that was on the front page of the Washington Post last week.

I would suggest that Night Gyr's sysop bit be restored on condition that he clearly and definitively drop any plans to disclose any deleted material to anyone or to contact the subject of any article or any member of the press. Further measures, if any, can then be considered by ArbCom if anyone desires to bring a case. Newyorkbrad 21:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that makes sense. You argue that Night Gyr shouldn't have been desysopped even if he'd threatened to leak to the press (which I disagree with) but then impose conditions before his sysop bit is restored. Surely if you think he did nothing that warranted losing them, he should just get the tools back... WjBscribe 21:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The point of my post is not to finally evaluate the merits of this matter; that's ArbCom's or the community's job. I think that Night Gyr used very poor judgment in this instance. However, my purpose here was to suggest an interim solution that everyone could hopefully live with. Obviously if Night Gyr states that he will not do any of the actions that he was desysopped for fear he would do, and assuming that no one disbelieves him, my hope is that the circumstances that led to an emergency desysopping would be alleviated. (It is ironic that Night Gyr is on the other side from me in pretty much every one of these BLP debates, yet I find myself here to an extent defending him. That seems to happen to me a lot lately.) Newyorkbrad 21:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I agree with you that a few of them should be deleted/redirected/stubbed, just want to see a little more civility and respect (for process too) around here. Anyway, I thought [27] was pretty unambigious that I wasn't going to do what I got desyssopped for seeming like I was going to do. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would note in passing that there is a huge difference between contacting the Shawn Hornbeck Foundation - a charitable body - and attempting to contact an individual who has been the subject of some pretty unsavoury attention on the Internet. I would hope that this would not actually need pointing out, but apparently it does. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In neither case I did I contact the subject directly, just someone who could place me in contact with them to ask if they would forward a message or place the subject back in contact with me at their discretion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Guy is obviously right and I believe I said this above (using more words). Newyorkbrad 21:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • That's why I tried contact the news outlet that interviewed her. Obviously she's talked to someone about her fame, and I'm not trying to stalk her down at home. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, if you're suggesting that Night Gyr undertake, as all administrators have, not to disclose the contents of deleted pages, then resysopping may be merited provided he agrees to it. As suggested any decision on desysopping could be taken on due consideration by the arbitration committee, in the light of this and other problematic incidents involving that admin. --Tony Sidaway 21:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Also I'd like to note that Everyking's desysoping came after offering to reveal personal information, not article content. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyking's left me a note to say I may have misstated things here. Just going by my reading of the signpost article, so don't take my word on it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't see a problem here. NightGyr's choice of words gave the impression that he might do something undesirable, but probably not so undesirable as to warrant emergency desysopping. He has no intention to do so. The probably-unnecessary emergency desysopping should be reversed forthwith, and Ma'at shall look indly upon the world. The Land 21:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a serious over-reaction. Night Gyr should be re-sysopped at once. This is the first I've heard about any undertaking to not disclose the content of deleted pages. Things get undeleted all the time. In this case, the blp problem seems to have been the existence of the page, not its content. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Seconded, it was absolutely an overreaction. Almost Bostonian in scope. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thirded; I'd even go for Chicken Little in nature. Ninety-nine percent of people willing to release confidential information to the press would either (a) not say that in public or (b) make a copy of said confidential information before saying that in public. -- tariqabjotu 21:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourthed. I've seen a number of admins in the past state that they would provide the content of deleted pages upon request. If there has been a recent uproar, and people keep mentioning some ongoing arbcom case, it might be worth noting that not all admins spend their days following the latest development in wikipolitics, and may have no idea about the latest panic. The sheer length of this discussion is evidence that there was ambiguity. Admins are required to follow policy, not be immune to bouts of stupidity. If people are saying that the idea is stupid, but can't make an uncontroversial argument about why his idea is clearly against policy, there is no cause for an emergency desysopping. The fact that resysopping is taking so long is ridiculous. - BanyanTree 03:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was an overreaction. We don't leak info that's deleted due to BLP to the press. But given Night Gyr has clarified that this was not his intention, I propose he be resysopped without further condition. WjBscribe 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Offering to copy controversial deleted content off-site is a poor decision regardless of whether Night Gyr meant to send it to the journalist or to the article subject. Undeletion, in fact, is less of a bad decision, since it can be reversed; copying it outside Wikipedia can't be.

I also wonder at Night Gyr's reasoning for wanting to contact the article subject, who's already bothered by all the unwelcome attention, purely to send her the content of a deleted Wikipedia article. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

that, as linked earlier in the post, is why I sought her opinion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A note, he didn't threaten to leak it to the press, and the corrected confusing wording had been fixed well before the hammer dropped. It's an important distinction, and compromises one of the many missing inanimate carbon rods that are supposed to keep this type of meltdown from happening. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I corraled Fred Bauder and Morven, who are looking into the thing right this moment - David Gerard 21:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still getting a handle on this, but let's be absolutely clear about something: it would be completely and utterly improper to disclose potentially libelous/slanderous/bad revisions to the media (or anyone, really), and on reading that diff that sounds like what Night Gyr was offering to do. Text can be deleted and undeleted on-wiki, but once emailed it's gone, out of our hands and control. Imagine if we'd caught the Siegenthaler problem in time, but somebody decided to email him the article regardless. This may have been an overreaction but I cannot fault the people responsible. Mackensen (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No one has claimed that the article was inaccurate, though. It wasn't libelous like Siegenthaler, the concern was whether the subject would be harmed by existence of an article that didn't violate anything else. So I decided to ask, as I was prompted to do. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• You know something? If Night Gyr's reaction had been "Jeez, you're right, that was dumb, wasn't it. Oops", I dont think we'd be having this conversation here. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, I went to change and clarify within minutes of the first message on my talk page, but the wheels were already in motion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • like if you check this I actually changed the wording before the ani post was made. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • first I hear of it reply on his talk page, not realizing that I was misunderstood, then I fix the wording in the next three minutes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• But your follow up indicates that you have not seen why this was such a dumb idea. Which it was. I mean, I have done some abysmally stupid things and got away wiht them, there but for the grace of God and all, but really - really - the mere idea of takign this to either the press or - infinitely worse - the subject was so wrong that there is no sane response but to slap yourself on the forehead and say "duh!". Guy (Help!)

• no one had ever said anything but positive things to me about talking to the subject... Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• JZG, I've asked for clarification on the subject of sending the BLP deleted data to the subject on WT:BLP, your insight would be appreciated. I'm not sure it's as obviously abysmally dumb as you've asserted, it seems like an area of BLP that has yet to be defined. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not at all obvious to me why people are referring to this as an "overreeaction", when, in the best possible reading of events, an en: administrator intended to use their ability to read deleted content to track down the subject of unwanted internet attention in order to email them an article about their personal life and the harassing incident. Should I take the "chicken little" comments above to mean that en: administrators think that this is responsible use of adminship privileges? I'd much rather have one less en: admin than a news story about how Wikipedia's deleted content was emailed to the latest internet meme victim by one of Wikipedia's "trusted users". If we are going to say that this is okay, further thoughts here. Jkelly 22:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

yeah, you are misreading it. All I did was click this link on this article and type in a message asking if he'd let her know that there was a discussion on whether wikipedia should have an article about her and her opinion was being sought. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• This desysopping was way out of line. I've had it with BLP fascism. There is no evidence that the information in the article was not verifiable and well-sourced, and it is absolutely clear that the article was deleted out of process. So much for Wikipedia is not censored. IT IS NOT OUR JOB TO MAKE MORAL JUDGMENTS. WE'RE A GODDAMN ENCYCLOPEDIA, WE REPORT RELIABLE SOURCES, WE DON'T PASS JUDGMENT ON THEM. *** Crotalus *** 22:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Fascism as a type of government involved a merger of the public and private spheres, an assertion of economic autarky, a promotion of mass nationalism, and the rejection of the transcendental and the Enlightenment. What this has to do with BLP I can't fathom. Mackensen (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I was of course using the term in the metaphorical sense, to express my level of disgust at this witch hunt. (Oops, there's another metaphor.) *** Crotalus *** 22:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I know what you meant; I found it to be in appalling taste, and I doubt very much I'm the only one. Mackensen (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Godwin's Law, game over, you lose. Corvus cornix 23:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Admins shouldn't be misusing their tools to undelete articles in the interests of outside bodies. Articles should be deleted and undeleted in the interests of Wikipedia only. Exceptions are where someone has written an umambiguously harmless thing that was deleted because it wasn't policy-compliant and he doesn't have a copy; then okay, maybe e-mail it to him. But if in even the slightest doubt, or if there's any controversy, then definitely not. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

In this case, it was supposed to be in the interest of wikipedia to settle once and for all whether the outside party would object, given that many arguments were based on that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You were going to send it to a newspaper! We have a communications committee to decide that kind of thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

...No I wasn't. I've clarified this many times. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In my view admins contacting article subjects independently is a bad idea. If article subjects come here and involve themselves that is all well and good, and we can then communicate with them, but approaching private citizens who have not involved themselves is intrusive. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I dunno but if I were a reptilegentleman from the press I think my first reaction to this would be a folow up article on how wikipedia has decided to start asking subjects of articles what they think about them. Que 5,00 word op ed on whats wrong with wikipedia. For this reason, if no other, I do think that this wasn't the brightest idea we have had for a while. The last think we need is more wikidrama - especially with all the BLP stuff going on right now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a press handler, I shudder at the thought. But I don't think PR hypotheticals should be a consideration here - David Gerard 23:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emergency desysopping

I think the more important point about this discussion is not the rights and wrongs of NightGyr's intentions, but the emergency desysopping. As I understand it there are three levels of speed to an involuntarily desysopping

• The normal speed: Arbcom opens case, makes judgement, steward desysops
• The emergency speed: Arbcom hastily corresponds on irc/email and authorises desysopping pending review
• The 'imminent threat to the project' speed - someone convinces the first available steward that there is a really really good reason to desysop someone.

I am unclear whether anyone from ArbCom at all was involved in the decision to desysop NightGyr, so whether it's in the second or third category. In either case I do not see anything in his comments requiring desysopping right this instant. I think the speed of the desysopping, and the lack of clarity about procedure, is what makes this incident particularly concerning. The Land 22:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that you don't see anything requiring an immediate de-sysopping doesn't exclude the fact that others did. Read the comments above. The specter of an administrator emailing content not meant for publication to third parties clearly bothers a lot of people, and it sounded as though he was about to act. A series of misunderstandings perhaps, but at the end of the day he gets his bit back and no harm done. Mackensen (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I can see why Corvus got very worried when seeing the comments. I don't see why it requires the same level of action as if NightGyr's account had been compromised by Willy on Wheels. Particularly as NightGyr was promptly explaining his actions. We should not be spooked by a 'specter'. The Land 22:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Were the account compromised he would have been blocked indefinitely, which did not occur. Further, your comment fails to account for the fact that what he actually proposed, per his own clarification, was also quite inappropriate. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Nonsense. If admins act inappropriately then you talk to them, raise the matter here or with Arbcom. You don't immediately get someone to desysop them. The Land 00:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If I'd been able to find an arbitrator it would have been second; as it was I thought doing something quickly was in order, so I went to the stewards and went "WHAT ON EARTH". I'm not an arbitrator, but I'm an ex-arbitrator and a noisy bugger and so forth. So the steward who acted said "emergency desysop, resysop quickly if the arbs say so" and I immediately continued in search for them. The AC is discussing this actively and Fred has spoken on Night Gyr's talk page - David Gerard 23:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Were he about to act, he would've already had the deleted article on his hard drive anyway, and desysopping would've made no difference. As it stands, however, it appears his intentions were good even if possibly misguided. This makes no sense. I'm as much in favor of BLP as anyone, but it's being seriously overreached recently. It's a good policy, but WP:ENC is worth remembering too. There will come times when it's encyclopedic to cover bad things that happen to a good person, and while I don't think this particular case is one of them (15 minutes of fame stories belong on Wikinews), we need to be prepared for that case when it does happen, and not shy away from it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Has NightGyr been resysopped yet, now that it's been clarified, or is arbcom still reviewing? Georgewilliamherbert 23:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Still no buttons. I answered Fred Bauder a while ago back on his talk page, not sure what's left to say. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh... why do people call them buttons??? Maybe I'm using the bootleg version of Wikipedia, but they look like tabs to me. -- tariqabjotu 01:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sysops can access deleted pages for administrative/janitorial purposes. Nothing else. Transcribing and sending deleted pages is not what that access was meant for and it's an abuse of position. If an article was deleted, it should remain hidden. (Remember copyvios? wikipedia keeps them and is on the safe side since it isn't disclosing them to public, admins are expected not to make public deleted stuff) -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 01:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A number of admins openly advertise "I will hand you a copy of the contents of a deleted article" for review purposes or to see if a salvagable new version could be done using some of the old content. Presumably admins are expected to not abuse BLP deletions in that manner, and can't overcome oversight in that manner, but I think you're overstating the expected secrecy level for deleted pages... Georgewilliamherbert 01:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this whole thing was rather abusive -- the "emergency" demotion -- and shows some serious flaws in the way things are going around here. Did anyone decide to talk to the supposed dangerman? Seeing how easily this was cleared up here, why was it not cleared up first? Did anyone consider a block? If the admin were set on causing massive legal damage, then he would unblock himself, and then there might be grounds for a demotion. Finally, what makes anyone think that they were catching a rogue admin bent on world domination? If one of us really were about to go bonkers and betray the Foundation, then that one would simply do it, and not suggest that he was thinking about doing it.

This business is horrendous. How was it even possible? How was such a quick, unreasoned demotion possible? The demented decision making at the speed of light suggests that reasoning and acting were being done by some medium other than Wikipedia.

I am not blaming anyone for wanting to stop a BLP violation. I am not blaming anyone for misreading the post. I am not blaming anyone for thinking that we had a fire that needed stamping out. On the other hand a demotion and without so much as a "did you mean it?" And this happens in how much time? Bad, bad, bad. Geogre 02:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's not over-react to the over-reaction. Not everything is evidence of IRC conspiracy. David Gerard made a judgment call. There was some miscommunication, and the situation finally turned out to be less urgent than feared. It sounds like Night Gyr will be re-sysopped shortly with no prejudice. There is little damage to him or the project in his not having buttons/tabs for a few hours. If we want to discuss the procedure for emergency de-sysopping, it might be better to do that tomorrow and elsewhere. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's no different in character to a block. It's done to prevent a perceived problem. And then we can talk about it (as we are). No big deal, although I'm glad it's not me. Guy (Help!) 07:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restoration to user sandbox space?

So as a point of clarification, does this mean that restoring deleted articles to user sandbox space is also inappropriate? I have seen admins that accomodate this quite often. It now appears that this is not acceptable. --Tbeatty 06:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Depends on why it was deleted. It has never been acceptable to give away material that was deleted because of potential libel issues, or other BLP concerns. Admins need to use good judgement and the consequence of bad judgement is desysopping. In this particular case the deleted content does not appear particularly sensitive, but getting into an argument at DRV and saying, "I'm going to send the deleted article to the Washington Post" (which is what he seemed to be saying) is bound to trigger a red alert, at least until the situation can be clarified. Thatcher131 06:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assuming good faith

So I've read through all of this, and maybe I missed it, but if an admin says their going to do something that is not a good idea, isn't the best response to assume good faith and assume that the admin is operating with the best of intentions? Would it be difficult to leave the admin a message on their talk page or e-mail them saying "I don't think this is a good idea, here's why..." or "Did you know that this is against XXX policy?..." If that had happened in this case, the matter might have resolved itself very quickly with a reply that de-obfuscated the pronouns. If we can't assume the good faith of our fellow admins, Wikipedia will become a very unpleasant place to hang out! -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless the admin in question has already shown a tendency to disregard gently worded suggestions not to do things, of course. ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted content is rarely secret content

Just because something got deleted doesn't mean it's necessarily secret. In this case the Wikipedia article contained nothing not already very widely published both in online and offline sources. Anyone can cobble together an article like that in five minutes. There wouldn't have been any "leak". Haukur 09:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It is an easy and obvious act to copy a page, along with its history and the associated discussion to one's own hard drive when it looks like an interesting or useful article might be deleted. Not rocket science, does not require any admin powers. Beside any Google cache or Answers,com mirror, anyone could in fact copy any articles up for deletion to an alternate site they created for the purpose, "Deletopedia" or some such, under the GFDL license and keep it there forever, if they had the bandwidth and server space. This action made way too much of "special admin powers" and was closing the barn door after the horse departed. Edison 16:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

More like burning down the barn with the horses still inside. (if we're gonna go wrong with our metaphors let's go really wrong)Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the exact text in question was still publicly available on the Internet when Night Gyr was ostensibly "emergency" desysopped so he couldn't get his hands on it. It still is publicly available on the Internet. If Night Gyr had really set his mind on sending the text to person A or B the desysopping wouldn't even have slowed him down. It makes a mockery of the essential process of emergency-desysopping. Haukur 17:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone got a status update on the arbcom proceedings or anything? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Are there any? Fred Bauder accepted your explanation and is fine with resysopping you. Morven was fine with it too, he just asked for a confirmation that you wouldn't do "this or similar in future". It's a bit unclear what 'this' means in the context (i.e. where Morven thought you were going to hypothetically send the content of the article, the subject of the confusion) but I'd advice you to just go over to WP:BN say that you've learned whatever lessons there were to be learned and ask for your bit back, citing the arbs' posts. Haukur 23:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question@User:Stevewk

User:Stevewk seems to want to put in hard spaces into the following article ... could someone look at the situation ...

Miscellaneous Works of Edward Gibbon

The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

Edward Gibbon

... thanks ... J. D. Redding 21:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Point him in the direction of the manual of style? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block evasion by SanchiTachi

Recently, SanchiTachi was indefinitely blocked following a discussion on this board, and some related edit warring on a variety of pages. A few days afterwards, another post was made here, detailing "disruptive" edits to a number of the same pages. I noticed, as did several other users, that these edits were similar in nature, and tone, to those made by the blocked user. As a result, I filed a check user case, which was then added to by another vigilant editor. As a result, it has been confirmed that SanchiTachi has been block evading, and using sock-puppets in this content dispute.

However, that's not really my question. So far, none of the IP addresses involved have been banned - but, I can't find a sock-puppet template to put on their userpages that says as much; all of the current ones say "this user has been banned". I'm not sure what to do at this point. --Haemo 00:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Write, and document, a new one? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I could try writing a new template - it will be my first shot at it. --Haemo 01:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, this doesn't seem to be an easy fix; all of the current sockpuppet templates inherit from one which doesn't really work how you suggest - and it's editprotected. It's not worth the hassle. --Haemo 01:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Is {{IPsock}} helpful? -- Flyguy649^talk_contribs 03:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sanchi's sock-puppets have been blocked now. --GentlemanGhost 19:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gon4z for the xth time

As most of you might know User:Gon4z has an incredible history of vandalism, insulting other users, 3rr edit wars, lies, unsourced edits,… some of the former bans he got can be seen: here, here, here, here and here Now he is back and at it again: misquoting his own sources, putting in POVs and calling me racist... Anyway: I continually keep an eye on his edits to spot his sometimes outrageous edits like: "a Orthodox crusade on the Muslims of Kosova" is his reason for an increased interest in Islam in Albania today.
Users User:Sthenel, User:Bluewings, User:PANONIAN, User:Denizz and User:Reinoutr had problems with him this week, but nothing on the scale of what User:MrMacMan or I experienced. I kept an eye on his edits and they were all unsourced, POV, disruptive, erroneous and/or plain lies. Some examples from just yesterday:

• [28] He left the changed sentence unfinished and has no sources for his edit.
• [29] The source he gives has no information about the topic he writes about and every other editor disagrees with his edits- but he states that other editors additions are “vadalism”.
• [30] He deleted 10 lines without sources-just stating that the other user’s additions are “vandalism”.
• [31] He changed the number of Albanians killed from 10.000 to “tens of thousands” BUT that was after he inserted the number 10.000, which was after he had deleted the number of civilian deaths and before that the number of dead Albanians in the article was given as 4300.
• [32] He removed a very well sourced data (4 sources!) with some of his unsourced numbers and inserted the following: “The war (in Kosovo) had a big influence in the growth of Islam as the world saw that as a Orthodox crusade on the Muslims of Kosova where the Serbian Orthodox people tried to expel all Albanians from Kosova, over 550,000 were forced out of Kosova and 20,000 were murdered, also the backing of the KLA by most Muslim countries and the 3,000 Mujahideen’s who volunteered to fight in Kosova helped widen Islam to the Albanian people.” The reason he gives for his edits is “Reverted vandalism”.
• [33] With his edit the the number of Albanians in Turkey suddenly jumped from 50,000 to 5,000,000 people. This time his reason to inflate is a bit more colourful: “This stupid vandalism has to stop, I ahve sourced all of my edits…” but no source is given at all by him.
• Furthermore he has returned to reedit his “Albania is ready for war with Greece or Yugoslavia” stance into the article Military of Albania…

In my opinion Gon4z’s only purpose is to disrupt the hard and good work of Wikipedia editors and to push a nationalistic Pro-Albanian stance. I haven’t seen one useful edit by him! I.e. the edits he made in the last days to Greek diaspora, Islam in Serbia, Montenegrins, Greeks, List of countries by the number of billionaires, Muslims by nationality, Religion in Albania and Islam in Austria were all reverted by other editors.

• This morning he continued and made edits to Turkish Armed Forces and Turkish Army doubling the military expenditures and giving as source the official site of the ALBANIAN Military: a site that doesn't even mention Turkey! and in good tradition he has once more reverted every other article saved by other users to his version and calling all other edits "vandalism".
  

Here is a comment he made on April 20th that explains his insistence to insert his "Orthodox people are on a Crusade against Muslims" stance. He is also deleting paragraphs he doesn't like from talk pages! and now a bit more of his insulting stuff [34], [35], [36], [37]
I collected the worst insults here below:

• "you need to take you head out of your A** and smell the roses things are not what you like them to be just because some of you Albanians in Albania want to be European and become AMERICAS SLAVES AND PUPPETS"
• "POLITICIANS have a hand up their back sides"
• "so be quiet ignorant KID"
• "Your brain is clearly not advanced enough to comprehend the truth that's why you keep repeating you self and DENYING evidence that if served to you on a platter that's a sign of defeat"
• "these things your saying are bullshit propaganda"
• "I can see you an (scuse my language) American ASS licker"
• "But I have no intention in continuing to fight with you because you are pretty Ignorant and a Super nationalist but don't forget not all of our people are like you"
  

I believe this has to stop now- once and for all time! Anything but a indefinite ban is not enough anymore as he has learned nothing and proceeds with the behaviour he already showed in his first edits! noclador 00:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

He also has vandalized the Serbian Air Force article, posting unsourced information, and reverted all spelling corrections into incorrect english along with reverting sourced information by replacing it with biased and unsourced info. Zastavafan76 01:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have recently given him his final warning, any more and I will deal with it appropriately. Prodego ^talk 02:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have also noticed Gonz4's inappropriate actions here on Wikipedia, he does not source his claims and worse speaks of heavily biased subjects on very sensitive matters which cause offense to others. It is clear that Gonz4 is not mature enough to follow the rules of Wikipedia. I leave you to ponder and deal with this matter as best as you see fit I trust your judgment will be more than fair. Regards Bluewings 22:16 1, June 2007 (UTC)

My two cents is, to take this matter to WP:ArbCom. Mads Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 13:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to trouble ArbCom with this. This is a highly disruptive user who's been given the benefit of the doubt numerous times and has exhausted any pretense of good faith or collaborative editing. I think that the next offense (now that User:Prodego has left a warning) should result in a lengthy or potentially indefinite block. I'll keep an eye out. MastCell ^Talk 18:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the matter is to far gone. In the case that he/she won't get a permanent ban right away. Then take it to arbcom. Mads Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 18:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV

Could an admin take a look at WP:AIV? Corvus cornix 04:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? —Kurykh 04:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

At the time that I made my request, there were six names on it. Corvus cornix 04:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Having six names is quite normal. When the list goes over 10, then notification may be necessary. —Kurykh 05:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being so concerned. Are you an admin? if so, why not start doing your job? Corvus cornix 05:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, this is a volunteer position. Therefore, not our "job". (If it isn't, I really want to know where the crap my paycheck is!) As for backlogs: they do happen. Ideally it would stay lower than this, but six is really not worth worrying too much about. It happens. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I realise you (Corvus cornix) were genuinely concerned about a developing backlog at AIV. User:Kurykh was trying to be helpful; the sarcasm wasn't necessary. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Kurykh was not trying to be helpful, he/she was more interested in belittling my concerns. If you don't want to get involved at AIV, don't, but don't put me down when I'm trying to fight vandals and am not getting any help. Corvus cornix 05:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Flyguy's analysis. There is nothing belittling in Kurykh's comment. Please assume good faith. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Where's the AGF from the other side? I guess vandal fighting isn't a high priority around here. Corvus cornix 05:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Corvus cornix, for tossing WP:AGF straight out the window and start accusing me of slacking off on a thankless job. I will remember that. —Kurykh 05:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

And for your information, I don't see the absence of AGF in my initial statement. —Kurykh 05:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you feel the need to comment? If you weren't interested, you could have just not said anything, but by making the comments you made, it was clear that you were basically telling me, "go away, you are not important". I don't know what that last sentence means, either, unless it's a threat, but I will remember, too. Corvus cornix 05:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Could we please take this somewhere else? This board is not the WP complaints department, and the original issue has now been resolved. Continuing this discussion here is not helpful. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Because I will not stand by such an insult to my intentions. And I never implied that you were not important, and I apologize if you misconstrued it as such. And if you're going to blow this completely out of proportion, then be my guest, but I stand by all my statements that I have made here, minus your interpretation. And if you're going to look at everything as a threat to you, then I have nothing else to say. This will be my last statement regarding this matter. —Kurykh 05:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Corvus, you're completely out of line in your comments here. Please chill out. - Merzbow 06:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. --Dynaflow babble 06:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Since Heimstern had asked that discussion not continue here, I had decided not to post on this subject any further, but since there's a gang up on Corvus cornix going on here, I will say one thing further, then nothing more on this topic: If you don't feel the need to do anything, why comment on it? Corvus cornix 06:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

To inform you there are better things to do with your time than leave a notice here when AIV has 6 names listed? - auburnpilot talk 06:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I left a couple of notes on this on Corvus's talk page. Perhaps it can be dropped for now? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 06:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suspicous editing behaviour?

I noticed a a user I disagree with in an article has an incredible number of daily edits on countless other articles. Many edits are only 1 minute apart (in some cases the same time) even though they are on completely different articles. Is that fairly typical behaviour by a heavy Wikipedia user or am I dealing with multiple people sharing the same account? Sorry if this is not the right place to put this question. Just let me know where to if I need to move it. If it wrong to even ask the question, then I apologize in advance. Thanks!
Typical daily edits, in this case for May 30th:

Page 1
Page 2
Notice these two edits, on completely different articles but at the same time? How is that possible?
16:44, 30 May 2007 (hist) (diff) m Battle of Embudo Pass (→Battle) (top)
16:44, 30 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir Walter Synnot
Page 3
In short, 172 edits in one day... LordPathogen 17:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything suspicious here. 172 edits is nothing for lots of contributors here. Nick 17:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Non admin comment I think this user is just enthusiastic which is good, if a user is just making minor edits then you can easily get two within the space of a minute, the first edit might have been made (unintentionally) just after a minute had passed on the clock so then another minor edit which doesn't take too much time could easily be done in the same minute, I dont think their is any need to worry about his speed of editing; as long as he/she is not vandalising. Regards --The Sunshine Man 17:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me - Alison ☺ 17:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC) (wishes her edit count was that low :) )

(e.c.) Editors who "go that fast" are often using semi-automated tools to help them do what would otherwise be rather tedious maintenence tasks quickly and effortlessly. You can learn more about them at WP:TOOLS. --Dynaflow babble 17:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, looks fine. If you look at the two 16:44 diffs using popups, you can see the first was made at 16:44:14 and the other at 16:44:52 (38 seconds apart). - auburnpilot talk 18:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Editors who use a web browser which supports tabbed browsing (I am one such editor) may also appear to make a bot-like number of edits in rapid succession. Looking at my recent history, I logged eighteen edits in one minute rolling back the addition of a spam link to a series of articles—and I've never used any automated or semi-automated editing tool. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I use Safari, and have repeatedly gotten close to ten edits in a single minute. 172 edits in a single day isn't that hard, either... in looking over my editing milestones, I see that I averaged 500 edits a day for a bit (broke 11k on Nov. 23, broke 12k on Nov. 25). I have no doubt that someone with more free time than I could approach a similar number, especially if they use a semi-automated tool (which I don't). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree - anyone who's ventured into the murky world of WP:WSS can easily get their edits up to 5-600 a day without particularly trying even working manually, and easily over 1000-2000 in a day if you're doing something like mass-changing categories using AWB. As regards the simultaneous edits, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for this - if I move an article I'll submit the edits to the double-redirects simultaneously, to avoid either creating temporary links to a redlinked page, or temporarily leaving them as double-redirects, and I'm sure a lot of editors do the same — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the contributions are actually WikiProject tagging of articles, something I do all the time. It's possible to do 600-700 a day even reading each article carefully, and I've in fact had to set up a second account for those so people following my contribs as an admin and editor don't get lost in pages of tagging. Orderinchaos 02:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seven new User:MascotGuy sockpuppets

There are seven unblocked MascotGuy socks that are listed at WP:LTA/MG. They are Public vs. Private (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Coppertop Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Dream Lover Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Mr. Spoke-'em (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Wildfighters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Baxter's Glowball (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), and Zapper Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). User:Tregoweth usually blocks these types of sockpuppets, but he/she hasn't edited since 22:54, 28 May 2007. Pants^(T) 21:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anon editing and User:Stevewk

Seems similar ... could someone look @ this ...

Contributions 70.110.157.87

Special:Contributions/Stevewk

Thanks. J. D. Redding 21:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The specific pages are

• The Work of J.G.A. Pocock
• Miscellaneous Works of Edward Gibbon
• The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
• Edward Gibbon
• The Club (Literary Club)
• Outline of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

I don't want to revert them ... but 70.110.157.87 seems like Stevewk (talk · contribs) ... J. D. Redding 23:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angry Sun

He made fun of me and called me a idiotMarioman12 22:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-admin comment Could you provide some context for this? I can't really tell what's going on. --Haemo 22:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably this. Other than claiming you are psychic, it's original research to claim something that was seen in a dream, in the future, or as a weird hunch. If you want to put something in an article, especially in an article about an unreleased game, please source it. That diff and the text above wasn't a personal attack, but it was a tad uncivil. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So, who wants to write WP:PSYCHICPOWERS to cover this defense against original research. --Haemo 23:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

My ascended planar consciousness is telling me that would be needless instruction creep. Marioman12 certainly earns points for originality though. --tjstrf talk 23:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually that policy is added during april 2009. --Fredrick day 23:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, even if you are psychic it's no different than adding something because you say you saw it with your own two eyes. If it's not published in a reliable source, we can't really rely on it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You are not helping the situation and my mind is f***ed up so that's how I see into the future for once it wasn't something completly useless like the side of the building I'm sorry if this sounds ridiclous but I think its true I think he over did it by calling me names and he could of just counted it under original research not been so meanMarioman12 23:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

He never called you names, so I don't really see what the problem is here. --Haemo 23:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's because it isn't exactly nice to call someone "kid" or a "Yoshi-fan" as a response to something that goes against guidelines. Probably not a personal attack, but uncivil, and maybe warrants a nice gentle message. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

First off I got no beef with Duris Bane that link is not right this is what Angry Sun said to me:

The only people that are psychics are people in cartoons and shows like Pet Psychic. Face it kid. You are just a die-hard Yoshi Fan. Angry Sun 20:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

First off. I did. Second that was not a personal attack. I suggest you read the policy. For it to be a direct attack I would have said..."You are not freaking psychic idiot." But I did not. Therefore I didn't attack you. Also IP...Don't freaking trust everything you read. This guy is full of himself. I have dreams that I'm Godzilla. That doesn't make it true does it? Angry Sun 22:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Marioman12 00:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He mentioned what he didn't say to make it a personal attack. That doesn't make it a personal attack. I think maybe one should pull away from this issue a little - it is incivility rather than personal attacks. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He said i'm full of myself and freakin psycho idiot Marioman12 00:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Also this isn't his first time: == Please remain civil ==

Comments like this are not helpful. The uncivil behavior of other editors (even anonymous editors) is no excuse for making uncivil comments yourself. Everyone can read the comments you write, and you may give others a bad view of Wikipedia. Often, editors will behave rudely in an attempt to provoke others — do not allow yourself to fall into this trap. (This and more is discussed at Wikipedia:Civility. Please take the time to read it, if you have no already done so.)

This editor is apparently unfamiliar with our policies. There was no need to be insulting to him. Instead of an edit summary of "Go ask Nsider for god sakes. We aren't GameFAQS.", try something along the lines of "Removing discussion unrelated to article." Remember — Edit summaries are intended to give a description of your edit. User:Pagrashtak|Pagra

Look - everyone just needs to be civil and stop jumping at every little comment. Wikipedia is not a battleground. --Haemo 00:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He made me feel bad Marioman12 00:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes? And? If you have a serious problem, start a request for comment on him. Other than that, the admins are not your personal feelings police. I'm sorry you're upset, but sometimes people will do that to you, and all we can really do is ask them nicely to stop. I see you haven't decided to talk to him about this - perhaps that would be a place to start. --Haemo 00:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Marioman, I don't think from reading this that Angry Sun really meant to call you an idiot, though I can understand why you think that they have and why you feel bad about it. Sometimes people are not nice to you, and you just have to remember that they are a name on a screen and they don't know who you are or anything about you. My advice would be not to reply to or deal with Angry Sun for a while until you have both calmed down, and just edit the articles. I would also say that you should read What is a reliable source? and No Original Research for what you can and can't put in a page on Wikipedia. Orderinchaos 02:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3bulletproof16

Affected articles: Staples Center, Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena, Pontiac Silverdome.

3bulletproof16 is a prolific editor of pro wrestling articles (and not much else) who is apparently part of a small group of Wikipedia editors who feel the need to insert pro wrestling references into as many unrelated articles as possible, including articles for sports venues. Judging by his edit history, he has been flirting with violating (if not outright violating) WP:OWN for a number of months. His only response to my counsel that pro wrestling is a fringe topic and not a sporting event was to "tell that to WP:PW". Can an admin with some weight to throw around set him straight? Thanks in advance, I Always Win 23:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This looks suspiciously like a Chadbryant sockpuppet to me. In his last run before being banned he was attempting to remove the same information from various articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you must have me confused with someone else. How about addressing the issue at hand instead of throwing out the SP accusations? That seems to the the course of action when a Wikiclique feels threatened. I Always Win 23:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Chadbryant, but I'm not a member of the wrestling project. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous request - firstly, no admin can interfere in content disputes. Secondly, pro-wrestling is not a fringe topic. Thirdly, whether or not a pro-wrestling subject matter deserves mention depends on individual articles. I would recommend that you discuss these content disputes on the article talkpages and at worst, open an article RfC. And 3bulletproof16 is a respectable editor. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 23:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's clear that much of the rasslin' content on Wikipedia needs to be purged, and that WP:PW seems to not take WP:OWN very seriously. The sockpuppet junk merely reflects the immaturity often associated with fans of this pseudo-sport.I Always Win 23:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA Hypnosadist 23:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't lump together all editors of a project together, because of actions of a few. That's very rude. Just because wrestling is scripted/fake (and for whatever reason: you seem to hate it): it's still a notable subject for Wikipedia. As for sports venues: if a notable wrestling event took place at one, then it should be listed on the sports venue article. RobJ1981 23:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? --Calton | Talk 00:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Smells like socks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Try bathing. I Always Win 23:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

How about some on-wiki proof? User talk:Tv316/Archive 01#I think they were Chad.2C yea.. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Save your manic accusations for someone else. You can have your precious rasslin' back. I have no interest in having a single-purpose account. I Always Win 00:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out what his user page says now. [38] Hypnosadist 00:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

While I tend to agree with I Always Win that wrestling is an overexposed pseudo-sport, it is also highly notable, thus his arguments are baseless. Personally, I think this entire string should be added to a new and improved WP:BJAODN. Its never wise to be uncivil on an administrators noticeboard... ;o)Resolute 01:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JB196 sockpuppet

Staysswungbaby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Please block, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Can you block someone for not spelling correctly at all on talk pagesMarioman12 23:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not really - but if it becomes so persistent, and the user ignores requests repeatedly, that it becomes disruptive, then possibly. --Haemo 00:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And even then, only if the misspellings become so incoherent that it becomes disruptive. Nobody wants to spend minutes decoding "wt i ths thg u r talkin but" is. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well he says he is spelling impaired when I ask him about which is Bs is you ask meMarioman12 00:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone has perfect spelling, and some choose not to bother with spell-checking as long as the message gets across. We don't go round handing out warnings because you spelt tomorrow with too many "m"s, for example. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He spells "to" and "try" wrongMarioman12 00:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No big deal. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example: Diu you rilly want me tue fix it. Anubiz 23:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Marioman12 00:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You're complaining about spelling mistakes when your sentences suffer from a distinct lack of punctuation and separation of sentences? Pot, meet kettle.

The user is question is Anubiz (talk · contribs), with comments by Marioman here and here. Phony Saint 00:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The admins are not spelling police, and they're not going to hunt down a user on that basis. Talk to the nicely about it before seeking some kind of administrative action. --Haemo 00:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI is not an end-all for all complaints. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Spelling is *not* a matter for AN/I. In some cases, the user may have a disability (note - it seems the user in question *does* - see his user page) or very poor education, or maybe just not very good at English, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with them editing the encyclopaedia so long as they conform to our policies when editing. Wikipedia does not discriminate against anyone who wishes to edit in good faith. Orderinchaos 03:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:New block for Hayden5650

Although Desiphral began this discussion based on the above-mentioned user's edits on Romani-related articles, Romani- and Holocaust-related articles are not the only ones he has vandalized. He has also deleted Maori names under edit summaries like "rm nonsense," just because he does not speak Maori (he gave this reason here, using his IP address). Even in the article and talk page on Aquamarine (color), he attempted to change the spelling of "color" to British English "colour" with absolutely no discussion, usually through redirects [39], [40], [41]. As is clearly shown in the current version of the article, all three of the edits to the last article were reverted. --Kuaichik 00:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He has violated Wikipedia:Civil on the Marlboro talk page, using offensive language ("nanny-state PC drivel," "you really do have your head up your rear end"). He knowingly [42] removed the part of Wikipedia:Introduction that was not supposed to be removed, not once but three times [43], [44], [45]. He has vandalized the article Homosexuality as well, including one offensive edit summary [46], which was reported as vandalism on his talk page [47]. The list goes on and on (see [48] and [49]). --Kuaichik 01:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Reblocked. While some of the edit diffs above predate the first block, his editing patterns since his last block expired demonstrate no difference in behaviour from what he was originally blocked for. As it was for the same offence I bypassed the 4-level warning. Orderinchaos 02:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive editing by Vilerocks

I put it on WP:CN as I simply do not have any more patience. User:Vilerocks/User:BassxForte has been editing disruptively since January. I am very interested in getting something very, very quickly. Evidence here, here and here. - Zero1328 _Talk? 02:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem With An Anonymous Creationist

It was recommended that I post this complaint/concern here, rather than Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Anonymous user 12.214.122.176 has been making repeated edits to Behemoth in order to make its POV more creationist-friendly [here], [here] and [here], and now, in Leviathan, too, [here]. When I warned him about this back in May, he became [insulting and argumentative]. Is it possible to do something about this anonymous person?--Mr Fink 03:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's hard to argue the case on the edits as all of them were unsourced possible original research (quite likely true, but an independent source is going to need to be found to back them up. I note the other editor is guilty of the same, for the record - Dinosaurs-Unleashed is a tertiary source effectively.) The last comment on the linked talk page appears to point to a more conciliatory tone. I don't think admin action is required - it would seem the IP editor is quite young (I'm guessing < 13). If they get into edit wars over sourced content in articles or over non-RS sourced content that they are contributing, let us know. Orderinchaos 03:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Followup: I left a message on the IP's talk page. Orderinchaos 03:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Otane

I have noticed two editors creating substantially the same article Otane in the last hour. It was created by User:Tabletoptuna, deleted, and then re-created by User:Lollypop land wow. In both cases, the article was virtually empty; the latter version consists solely of the text: "hi there no info on otane." The former version was similar but added the information that "otane is a dump."

A similar article was deleted twice a few days ago [50].

This may be a case for WP:SSP but I can't determine exactly what is going on, and I don't know whether the earlier deleted versions were created by either of these editors or by other editors. --Metropolitan90 04:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a town - so, probably people from the town making test edits. --Haemo 04:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I just added a redirect to the district it's a part of, so people will no longer be inclined to make such edits. I'll watchlist it, too - that should solve the problem. --Haemo 04:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't do that. It should be a redlink so that people will see there's no article and maybe someone will make a legitimate stub. (Unless you want to open the "small towns are/are not notable" can of worms) --Random832 04:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I made a little stub, like the other ones there instead. --Haemo 04:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cmapm on Estonian SSR

Cmapm has repeatedly reverted Estonian SSR into a former, less detailed and less sourced version, making on its talk page unsubstantiated claims of WP:NPOV violation and copyright violation, but finally admitting to WP:IDONTLIKEIT regarding the longer version. Specifically, he appears to dislike its detailed description of damages caused by Soviet occupation of Estonia.

Considering that having Yet Another Edit War over this obvious partial blanking issue is certainly not the preferrable move, what should be done? Digwuren 19:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop forum shopping. This page is not part of our dispute resolution process. You know what to do when you have a content dispute. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Forum shopping!? This persons actions are seriously disrupting! It would be a content dispute if the person engaging in these actions had some content. He has not. He is just deleting stuff he does not like.--Alexia Death 19:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be reasonable concerns that you and Digwuren are the same person. Why do you always second each other, in a matter of several minutes? --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you would read the checkuser discussion to the end, you would see there's nothing reasonable about such a "concern". Digwuren 20:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Because we watch same articles of course! And I personally watch every known opponents talk page. As to us being the same person, read it. It says NO CONNECTION, when a person with networking knowhow looked on data. --Alexia Death 20:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no connection isn't at all what it said... it was more like "indeterminate"...--Isotope23 20:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I quote David Gerard: "Just looking at this. I can't nail a link with any of the first three and anyone else based on CheckUser.". Does not seem indeterminate to me.--Alexia Death 20:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I also object dragging that case, in witch all sockpuppeting accusations were proven false in the end into this debate as a weapon making me defend myself all over again. I do not see an honest reason for doing so...--Alexia Death 20:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Does someone need to pop over there and protect the wrong version?--Isotope23 19:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like protection is warranted, even to just give both sides a chance to talk it out. -M^ask? 20:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The talk page shows that Ive asked this person to present his sources and info. To that he said that he basically answered that the wasn't going to...--Alexia Death 20:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe protection is desirable, although we have a separate noticeboard for such requests. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me on my talk page. BTW, you've forgotten to give a link to our discussion in Talk:Estonian SSR, from which origins of the "incident" can easily be traced out, showing who was first to remove disliked references and "thoroughly rewrite" the article, giving overwhelming preference to Estonian source over other ones. And I agree with an experienced user whom I respect very much, Ghirlandajo, that you are believed to have chosen a wrong way for content dispute resolution. Cmapm 22:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the issue here. I see very little commitment to discussing and resolving the issue on the talk pages. Therefore I do not think the normal dispute resolution mechanisms will work in this case. The way I see it, the only way this dispute can end, is that one, or both of the editors involved in the dispute, is permanently banned from editing Wikipedia.

One of the editors here is clearly a single-purpose account, with an agenda. His contributions to Wikipedia thus far seem to be limited to WP:TE and WP:DE. I suggest that administrators closely follow the editors involved in this dispute, if for nothing else, to gather evidence for the upcoming WP:ArbCom.

As for the article. It has been neglected for a long time. I welcome the expansion, and I believe the article should be allowed to grow. As for possible POV, I believe it can be sorted out at a later date, once this round of expansion ends. -- Petri Krohn 01:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you gotta love how Petri helps to encourage discussion[51], no more comments needed.--Staberinde 06:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

May the record also indicate that Petri Krohn attempted to get rid of this link. As above, any comment I might add would be rather unnecessary. Digwuren 18:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not come here to point the finger at anyone or name either party as responsible for the incident. (Let the records speak for themselves.) With your last edit, you have hovewer managed to maneuver yourself right under the ☞ tip of this finger of blame. -- Petri Krohn 06:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

To Petri Krohn: Your attacks are becoming very tiresome. What happened to assume good faith? If theres an ArbCom coming I welcome it, if it means that after that these personal attacks and insults stop.--Alexia Death 06:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As of June 2, the page is under protection. This would appear to resolve the issue for now, but it is not a stable solution. Digwuren 08:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Betacommand

Well thanks to that sad **** BetaCommand (the username itself just sums it all really), Wikipedia has lost yet another editor. His stupid bot is just vandalising my pages. I have explained very clearly that I do not understand this rationale and asked for help, but instead of helping he is just ripping up the pages of simple low resolution Sports logos and then trying to 'boast' how many he has done with his pathetic little bot in its talk page. Try being constructive instead of attention seeking. I used to enjoy my editing but utter losers like this has finished Wikipedia for me. Now my sport I was trying to support via this project will suffer.

I have several of my own photos on Wikipedia which I will now also remove. I just don't see why I should waste my time and I know of many others who now feel the same. Good luck to all in the future. Hammer1980 09:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:FURG—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well you've licensed your own contributions under GFDL so removing them is not necessarily that simple. In an ideal world there would be no need for Betacommand to be doing what is being done, but the sheer volume of this seems to demonstrate how far we are from conforming to foundation policy (i.e. we've been relaxed, ignored one here, ignored one there - end result we now have 1000 upon 1000 of "problems"). When I notice edits of yours like this, I wonder if you read the results of your work - the page is left with just a generic tag which states quite clearly "This tag is meaningless without an accompanying fair use rationale which must be unique to the usage of THIS image in each article in which it is used. You must also give the source and copyright information for all fair-use images uploaded." this of course is not met, even you are tagging the image to specify the requirement you are apparently unable/unwilling to meet. --pgk 09:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read it before, I dont understand any of it. The bot is just a pointless ego trip. Try making a bot to replace with Sports Logo rationales. They will be more or less similar to each other. Then there are surely less violations than there are with no rationale. BetaCommand is just a stat junkie. Good luck with Wikipedia.Hammer1980 10:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There were no rationales. That's what the bot looks for. Either add them or leave.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It can't create the rationales, it can't examine the way in which the image is being used and create a suitable rationale. It certainly can't guess the source information or the copyright status of the image. (i.e. what is the real copyright status which forces us into using it unlicensed under the fair use doctrine). I can't understand how you feel that reading policy and not understanding it is a good reason to ignore it, then edit war over the proper tagging of the images. If I know there is a requirement but I don't understand it I either (a) avoid that area or (b) seek help --pgk 10:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you can also explain how having read it and "don't understand any of it", you can then conclude that "They will be more or less similar to each other". --pgk 10:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand it, hence the reason I took changed the tag was s to save images until I got some help. I have asked and better asked but all I get is robot type answers and basically get talked down to like a bloody tool. Well I am passed all that now, just do whatever you all see fit. Its this high and mighty attitude, the blatent vandalism of peoples hard work buy a bloody bot run by some plum on an ego trip and the total lack of help that is killing Wikipedia (especially here in the UK). I can conclude that they will be more or less the same as sports team logos ARE the same. Not rocket science is it. I have previously looked at other football team logos and everything seems to have the same thing referring to not causing monetary hardship. If that is an acceptable rationale then why not make a template to that effect. Surely slightly wrongly tagged images are better than no tags. Clearly Wikipedia is center of some people's universe but it isn't mine. Good Luck to you all. Hammer1980 11:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, what Hammer1980 is saying has some legitimacy. I frequently add {{frn}} tags to images, however, if there is sufficient information already on the page to put together a rationale, then obviously that's preferable. I've added a fair use rationale template with minimal information to his images, which took me 15 minutes. I would suggest this could probably be automated, even though improving the rationales may have to be done manually. Addhoc 11:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

And the source and copyright information? Many will be similar (or the same), some won't so a bot cannot do that, items with incorrect rationales are worse than no rationale. As to it taking 15 minutes, that's great it also makes you wonder why User:Hammer1980 is making such a big deal of it, threatening to leave etc. Instead spend the 15 minutes and bring us closer to 100% compliance with our policy for fair use images. --pgk 11:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Pgk ... How about you spending 15 minutes helping instead of trolling through an admin page ! Hammer1980 11:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hammer1980, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and remember not to make personal attacks. its the responsibility of the uploader to make sure their images are compliant. so stop your complaining and make your images compliant with policy. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 11:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Beta ? What ? Does the truth hurt ? Why not try taking a leaf out of Addhoc's book. He has started to put the rationales on the items and is actually HELPING. Just do what you have to. You have now put a halt to a sporting section and you obviously get some sort of pleasure out of it. Easier to destroy than create. Each to their own. For the record.... Thank you Addhoc, shame there are not more like you.Hammer1980 12:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hammer1980, your sarcasm and personal attacks will not help you in any way. Do you know that there are close to 25000(!) images with missing fair-use rationales? Multiply that by 15 minutes and that would be nearly 250 days of work that Betacommand would have to do. There is no one here who will support you in your case that these images are not violations of policy. What this tagging is doing is alerting each and every user who have uploaded bad images that their images are in violation of policy and that now is the time to do something about it. If nothing is done, then the images will be deleted. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That is out of line. BetaCommand is doing a humonguous task that simply NEEDS to be done because we were not careful enough in the past. Unfortunatly we cannot wait for all of this to be corrected by the editors. It simply would not happen. As such, whenever Betacommand tags your image, see if you can correct the rationales, and if not, let them be deleted and upload new images that can have a proper rationale. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Another thing. A message left to you about by a bot is in no way belittling you or your contributions to wikipedia. If anything, it is a reflection on us as a community that we had not enforced our image policies in the past. But now things are changing for the good. If you choose to leave wikipedia as a result of this, it would be unfortunate. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This bot is a hellish bureaucracy at work. I've had a few corporate logos tagged. The license says it all "fair use, corporate logo." It's obvious from the "where this is used" link that the logo is decorating a page about the corporation. It's clearly fair use. Asking me to go back to each page and type "Duh, it's the company's logo and it's being used on the company's page" is pedantic. Jehochman ^Talk 12:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So it's a complete and total pain in the ass for you to follow our policies here. I've never heard that one for as long as I've been here. -Pilotguy hold short 12:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was following policy, but thank you for cursing at me in the edit summary. I think you need to have a quick read through WP:CIVIL, speaking of policy. Jehochman ^Talk 12:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yada yada. Instead of arguing the toss, you could fix the problem: go through your images before the bot does and put the rationales in. Or go back and fix the issue on the ones identified. This reminds me of drivers who bitch about road rule enforcement cameras - they won't stand up and say they want the law changed to allow them to drive in bus lanes, jump red lights or speed, they just want enforcement to be restricted to other people so they can carry on being selfish in peace. Get with the programme! Foundation has reinforced fair use policy, policy is what it is, it has a basis in copyright law and the fundamental ethos of the project - providing a free-content encyclopaedia. Accept it. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An opinion of a concerned editor

I must admit that I am deeply concerned about what's being done here. Obviously the tagging of images is being done by the book and there's no denying that however, it contravenes the following points:

• WP:PANIC - yeah, well, it's a panic alright. A "zOMG they'll take us down!" shouting like if it was really an issue. It's like some new law was instated yesterday and suddenly half of Wikipedia became a copyright violation. No, it's simply a new interpretation of it issued by the Foundation is what pushed us in this direction. It's fine, but should be done with consideration, not haste - we don't need "deletion heroes" (and it is my completely personal opinion that Betacommand is creating himself as one) here - we need to expend some effort.
• WP:LAZY - used to be an essay about deletion being a substitute for improvement. That's exactly what's being done here - deletion is easy, improvement is difficult. The sports logos are an example of content we're losing by haste and laziness in this matter. They're obviously irreplaceable by free alternatives - that's all the more reason to actually expend some effort in providing those damn rationales (which ain't that hard - just not enough people to do it). This ties to the situation with {{spoilers}} - I used to go and remove them, but in some cases I have found it better to do some cleanup at the same time. It is trivial to write a bot that will indiscriminately remove all these tags, but it takes some effort to improve things while at it. So, having discovered that such bots are being run, I had to give up (both being merely a slow human and not having enough time to pursue the issue) - as a result, when the storm's over, we'll have a lot of articles which could be improved in the process but haven't. Back to sports logos, when the time of deletions is over, we'll find ourselves impaired by a loss of significant content the images constituted.

As final words, please don't get me wrong and refrain from throwing copyright policies at me - I know many of them all too well and by all means support the removal of excessive non-free content from Wikipedia. I am only concerned that the solution being implemented here is a lazy approach at a problem where some effort could lead to a significantly better solution. Миша13 14:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Us being sued, or not, is irrelevant. For many years it's been a free-for-all. The words "free encyclopedia" have become a joke. We've slowly turned into FairUsePedia. Half of Wikipedia may not be copyright violation, it just defeats the whole purpose of us being a free encyclopedia. Moreschi ^Talk 14:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

But then again, will what's the difference (legal-wise) whether we 1. butcher the images in one month and 2. give it a chance to do a proper cleanup in three? None. And the difference for Wikipedia is tremendous. Like it or not, some media are irreplaceable by free content - there's a golden proportion we have to seek between being free and being an encyclopedia. We won't reach that in a rush. Миша13 14:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we need a new thread on this every day? The fact is that we need to follow the law of the land that the servers sit in, Florida. So what Betacommand is doing is absolutely necessary. Do we need to make a template that we subst onto threads on ANI that complain about betacommand enforcing policy? It is getting so common we may just need to write one. ^(H) 14:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you missed my point completely here. Миша13 14:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A bot can't do a human's work. Case 1: Non-free image with bogus fair use rationale. Bot's conclusion: has fair use rationale - keep. Case 2: Non-free image with no fair use rationale stated, but the fair use rationale is obvious from the situation. e.g. a corporate logo used for a corporate article. Bot's conclusion: delete.

The bot should flag all these images and make list, preferably sorted by category, and then a human should review every one of them before deletion. Will that be a lot of work? Sure, but we have a lot of volunteers who can get involved. In the process, we can improve a lot of articles and images. Jehochman ^Talk 14:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, if I'm not mistaken, isn't that in place now? The bot isn't deleting the images, rather, just tagging them to be deleted. Metros 14:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but aren't they then deleted automatically by some other bot, or is a human going through each report to see whether the image should be deleted or not? What would be really helpful is if the creator of this bot followed good programming practices and documented what the bot does and how it functions. That would eliminate a lot of this tiresome discussion. I've look at the bot's user page and top of the talk page, but there is no clear explanation of what exactly the program does. Jehochman ^Talk 16:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, I do follow good programming procedures. Just because I dont publish the code means nothing. Ive see some really dumb people come through both WP:BRFA and WP:BOTREQ that could use my code, the issue is I want to avoid the damage that stupid people can do with the scripts. (I dont make my programs stupid proof) its the essence of WP:BEANS. if you look at the request for bot approvals that I have filed you will see how my bot operates. if you have any further questions/feature request please bring them up on my talkpage. As for deletion there is currently no bot with administrative privileges so they cannot delete images. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand, I am sure you are a very good programmer, but could you put a short list of steps on the bot's page that explains what the bot does and explain the surrounding processes, and links to the relevant discussions. We don't need to see the code, just clear documentation. You might also add a note to the bot's warning messages with a link to the documentation. I think you're catching a lot of needless flack because people don't understand what's happening and why. Jehochman ^Talk 17:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

They are all being deleted by people (at least in theory). Christopher Parham (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Misza - I do see your point, but OTOH the levels of fair abuse are IMO quite reasonable cause for someone to go "NO! WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU'RE DOING? STOP THIS SHIT! REALLY!" There's gotta be a sea change in attitude to just copying stuff onto the encyclopedia under the "I Wanna" clause, and it's hard for me to see this as a bad thing - David Gerard 15:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment by Tfoxworth

Hello;

I am being harassed, or "WikiStalked" (if there is such a term) by the user Tfoxworth. Many months ago, he was involved in creating several POV forks for articles regarding members of the previously-sovereign Russian Imperial Family and had his various articles deleted on those grounds. He would frequently verbally harass or attack me at that time, as he is doing now.

His last edit at that point was on December 1st, 2006. Recently, Mr. Foxworth has returned to editing (under this name on May 18th, 2007) and all of his edits so far have been reverts of my edits (for no reason) or unfounded and unwarranted chastisement and insults on the talk pages for some of the articles. Mr. Foxworth's first recent edit was outside of his usually "territory" and was directed at me on the talk page for Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case (an article where he has absolutely no prior involvement). Just before that edit under his username, there was an edit by the anonymous IP address 68.3.40.59. At this point, the user's only edits have been at the two pages that Mr. Foxworth has edited at. If this user is not Tim Foxworth, it is a peculiar incidence that the user's only three edits have been at the two pages where Mr. Foxworth has been attacking me.

He also edits from the IP address 12.146.101.146, as evidenced by him signing the IP address' posts. From the 68.3.32.53 IP address he edited the Maria Vladimirovna article and talk pages, even creating what is probably an unauthorized subpage. Additionally, there is a new user called I_vonH whose first edit was one in agreement with Tim Foxworth's 12.146.101.146 IP address. I have a suspicion that this user is probably also Tim Foxworth.

For what it is worth, I feel that Mr. Foxworth, who has a somewhat extensive warning history, should be dealt with in a manner in which he will no longer be able to harass me. He has not made any constructive edits and for the most part, all of the history differenced between his edits and mine are him reverting my edits ([52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59] (this last one days after an editing spree of his)), inserting his specific point of view about certain people ([60], [61]) or him running his mouth about me on talk pages ([62], [63], [64]). Many of these pages are ones where he has no previous edit history and has been stalking my edits. I hope this draws an administrator's attention to the situation so that Mr. Foxworth may be dealt with in a timely and appropriate manner. Charles 12:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try to find somewhere else to post this because it seems to not be getting any attention. Charles 17:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BJAODN undeleted

The Cunctator just undeleted the BJAODN series. I ask you all DON'T GET INTO A DAMN DELETE/UNDELETE WAR OVER THIS because that would be unutterably WP:LAME. Instead, could the BJAODN advocates please get on with fixing the credit under the GFDL? I thank you - David Gerard 16:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Gee, did I miss the DRV? ^(H) 16:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This looks like it's going to degenerate into a wheel war very, very quickly. Sean William @ 16:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Already has. Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted them again. - auburnpilot talk 16:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Just asked him on IRC, he's stopped and is leaving it now - David Gerard 16:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey just asked for a 24-hour block in contrition for his delete-warring, so I did: "16:57, 2 June 2007 David Gerard (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jeffrey O. Gustafson (contribs)" (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours (requested block in contrition for delete-warring) (Unblock)" Um, weird. But he's very sorry - David Gerard 17:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

While I certainly never like wheel-warring, even in the mildest cases, I don't believe Jeffrey needs to throw himself on the sword here. I doubt he'll continue in the same manner, and I'd support anyone who removes the block...or would we be wheel-warring? ;-) - auburnpilot talk 17:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that a compromise could be to allow a (say) 2 week period of grace. A challenge to the advocates to fix the GFDL problems - after that all non-compliant stuff gets nuked. They might want to start with the stuff that is actually funny.--Doc^g 16:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

YUO ARE TRYING TO DISTORY WIKIPEDIA WITH SENSE! - David Gerard 16:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed in my review of the lifecycles of innovation that they last about seven years (see the Augmentation Research Center and Xerox PARC) before they degenerate or calcify, so we're right on schedule for Wikipedia to become utterly humorless about itself. --The Cunctator 16:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read all of the archived discussion about BJAODN. Sean William @ 16:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You're two years too late. 2005 was it, when Process became Important - David Gerard 17:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Cunctator, I don't go to a joke book to find useful information on a subject, so why would you go to an encyclopedia to find a collection of jokes? ^(H) 17:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN wasn't really that humorous, unfortunately, and because of the GFDL issues, I don't see how we can undelete it. Cunctator, did you read any of the previous discussions before wheel warring? --Cyde Weys 17:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It is really against Wikipedia's best interest to restore so many GFDL violations, especially considering it had about 0 encyclopedic value. ^(H) 17:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't 'fix' GFDL violations. Once you screw up you are screwed, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Kotepho 00:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The undeletion will make the process we'd put in train at the BJAODN talk page much easier as more people can help us mine out the good ones for proper scrutiny (previously this could only be done by admins). I agree with you that most of them weren't funny, but some were classics and should stay - I'd guess about 1 in 60, you could probably make two pages from the good ones then rule out half on GFDL untraceability. Orderinchaos 02:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops - they're actually gone again. Oh well, still doable. (For the record I actually agree with the issues on GFDL and BLP, and am glad to see there's now going to be movement on that issue and inclusion standards for BJAODN - I just disagreed with the process by which it came about and lack of discussion beforehand.) Orderinchaos 02:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I always remember where my favorites are. Keegan^talk 03:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Anything retained must be (a) correctly referenced or history merged to comply with GFDL and (b) be compliant with WP:BLP; there are numerous examples where childish vandalism of the form "Jimmy Doe is a retard" has been added to BJAODN. Anything that references the name of a living individual should be approached with extreme caution. In addition, since there is no bar to inclusion, there should be no bar to exclusion. If any editor on good standing thinks the thing is not even slightly funny, violates WP:BEANS, glorifies childish vandalism or whatever, then they should be allowed to remove it without an edit war. The main problems with BJAODN historically are the inclusion of utterly unfunny trivial vandalism; GFDL violation; and most importantly the preservation of attacks and other defamatory content. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest that editors who want to have articles in BJAODN stop griping and wheel warring, and show instead, after three years' notice of the copyright violations here and many "I'll work on this." offers on this noticeboard dating from three months ago that have not been followed up with any action, that they are actually willing to back their talk up with effort to actually fix the problem. There's a to-do table at Wikipedia talk:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense#List of deleted articles to be undeleted and renamed to sub-pages, if they satisfy several checks. I've started you off. Work on it. Uncle G 13:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] policy on reverting change?

Has anyone tried to use the UNDO button lately? There's a new box at the top that says something like "If you are reverting someones edit, non vandalism, you MUST use a edit summary different than the default that explains why you are reverting." That sounds like an undiscussed policy change to me. It's certainly not reflected by the meta page master at WP:REVERT. It's certainly not reflected by the admin rollback button, which does not even give you the chance to change the edit sum. When did this happen? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that earlier, but didn't pay it any attention, as I was already in the middle of reverting some bad interwiki links. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know how to find out what the page for that MediaWiki template is so we can see who edited it? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's MediaWiki:Undo-success, and it was Cyde. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion on it's talk page ? It has not that much to do on the ANI i guess. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "please" rather than "you are required to", because you're not required to ... it's a courtesy. Neil (►) 21:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Appreciated. I asked Cyde on his talk page, so maybe we'll hear from him here. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

He's edited the template since, so I would imagine he's down widdit. Neil (►) 08:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MaxwellTeke's User page

Could someone (other than me) please have a kind word with MaxwellTeke? His user page doesn't seem to reflect our guidelines for user pages. I know this is pretty trivial but he has been antagonizing me so I don't think it in our mutual best interests for me to be the one to address this issue with him. Thanks! --ElKevbo 07:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And now he's labeled me a racist (twice, actually). Sigh... --ElKevbo 07:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours for multiple forms of disruption. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "resolved" template as I still think it appropriate for someone uninvolved to address this User page. It has gems like the phrase "WHO WANTS SOME NAPPY HEADED HOS?" and a list of "What I Am Against" which includes Gays and assertions that several people/organizations are racist. I'm not comfortable removing this from this editor's User page myself but it probably should be removed. --ElKevbo 07:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Before I go ahead with this, would someone give me an idea of how we usually handle this sort of thing? It seems to me these statements on MaxwellTeke's userpage are against WP:USER, which says polemical statements shouldn't appear on userpages and that they shouldn't be used for soapboxing. Do we just summarily remove these (which is what I'm leaning toward doing)? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've previously seen them just removed, so I would say that is how to proceed. --Haemo 07:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Riana ⁂ 07:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I'll keep this in mind in for the future. Thanks, folks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The user appeared to have been indefinitely blocked before; perhaps we should reset the status quo?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I would support such a gesture. Looking over his contributions, his disruptive edits far outweigh any positive input. Riana ⁂ 08:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as an aside, it might be good if Keegan (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) talks to him. Judging from MaxwellTeke's user name, they're both Tau Kappa Epsilons. Might help to bring him to his senses, might not. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 08:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no User:Teke, anymore. I have fixed your comment to reflect that.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] appropriateness of POV question

User:Fighting for Justice. Username is borderline. User page states "Always on the side of the crime victim and their loved ones." User has been blocked before for 3RR, and blocked again for BLP violations on crime victims, despite being well aware, and has a long laundry list of complaints made against him/her.

Is there action to be taken due to a) partisan/polemic name, b)Express statement that user is going to be pushing POV, c) Single Purpose Account status, and d)history of disruption, with no apparent desire to change? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 08:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard? Neil (►) 08:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Obviously being an evil bastard my first instinct is to prevent disruption by limiting the locus of this user's edits to his talk page. If you see what I mean... Guy (Help!) 13:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Neil. I'm not asking for community sanction. I'm asking whether it is appropriate to take some sort of action, if there is a username violation, or if I'm just off the wall. Not to mention, this is a BLP issue which I do not believe belongs at CSN. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Anonymous One

On 3 June 2007 The Anonymous One (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) made these [65], [66], [67], [68] peculiar additions to talk pages. They obviously have nothing to do with improving the articles, and appeared to me to be off-topic trolling, so I've reverted them and asked the user[69] to desist from disruptive editing. There seems to have been a lot of disruption from this user. ... dave souza, talk 09:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Each one of the above diffs was simply the text "Look at the pictures of these two following people. What do you think?" with the key picture of the article in question, and a picture of Adolf Hitler. One was a *coin*, not even a person. Orderinchaos 11:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so. The coin has an image of Britannia, like the other images a personification of a country. Bizarre. As of now, the last edit by the user was at 09.23 (UTC), so we can hope that the advice given is effective for a while. .. dave souza, talk 16:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article deletion

I have just had an article -- Shakti mantras -- deleted, and that's ok. I'm not complaining about that, but I am complaining about the person who listed it for deletion in violation of the Guidelines. The latter make it clear that articles should not be listed for deletion without first contacting the creator, discussing it with him and giving him a chance to fix the problems. Also, it is courteous to inform him of the article being listed.

Both these guidelines were violated completely by TheRingess when she did the listing. She never got in touch to discuss the problems with me, and definitely did not give me a "courtesy call".

This obviously does not show good faith, and Wiki should not be run this way. Someone please have a talk with her.Sardaka 09:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No need for admin intervention here. You are wrong on all counts. Shakti mantras (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) was deleted properly through AfD. You were among the first users to comment on the AfD, so notifying you was apparently not necessary. Also, deletion policy does not require notification and discussion either prior to or after initiating an AfD. Such steps are optional. You, on the other hand, should have addressed your concerns to TheRingess before coming here and it would have been polite of you to notify her of this post; see WP:DR. Sandstein 09:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not convinced TheRingess (talk · contribs) has acted out of turn. Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination certainly recommends nominators "consider sharing your reservations with the article creator" and suggests "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator." It does not insist those things be done. However, you were obviously aware of the nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shakti mantras, since you commented on the page extensively. You might consider politely informing TheRingess that you would appreciate being notified prior to an AfD in future, and suggesting others might also. Rockpocket 09:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism from an IP Address registered to "City of Westminster Council"

I might just be being paranoid here, but I'm fairly new and I'm sure I read somewhere that vandalism coming from government IP addresses needs to be reported. I reverted an edit by this IP and I decided to do a lookup on it. The lookup said it is registered to the City of Westminster Council. I'm not sure if this may just be a library or something, but I'm posting this here to be on the safe side. — Taggard (Complain) 15:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• User_talk:195.110.75.89
• IP Lookup

UK parliament range is 194.60.0.0 – 194.60.63.255, so it's probably just a library. --ais523 15:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably just a library. Any old council isn't very exciting anyway - and most people wouldn't be working on a Sunday afternoon. Secretlondon 15:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taken from WP:AIV

Well, I am not sure if this is the right place to post for a troll but here goes. SteakNShake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was being disruptive and generally rude at Talk:General_relativity. I posted a message on his talk page User_talk:SteakNShake that asked him to cool his jets and find some sources. He replied and asked me to point out where he was being pejorative. I pointed out those instances, he replied in a fashion that would lead me to believe he is a troll or a crank of some sort. Also User_talk:Ems57fcva contains another instance of his rudeness. Oh and he just started vandalizing again at GR. He just threatened User:DVdm.--Cronholm144 14:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his contributions, I think there isnt any uncivil remarks, also WP:BITE is worth reading. I would recommend that you ask for page protection to stop the revert waring while the issue is discussed. Gnangarra 15:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a clear case of Cronholm144 trying to ban people who disagree with his beliefs. SteakNShake 22:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow up protected the article and advised of bite, agf, civil, and 3r Gnangarra 15:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Cronholm144 15:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of WP:BITE, but in this case it seems to be the newcomer doing the biting. Although too early to make a judgement, this is so far a single purpose account, that purpose being WP:POV-pushing at General relativity, so far in a very disruptive fashion. In terms of WP:CIVIL, although I would not say this is a serious case of taunting, it heads in that direction. I would like to assume good faith, but the description of one form of trolling at WP:UNCIVIL as attempting to "push others to the point of breaching civility, without seeming to commit such a breach themselves" does resonate somewhat in this instance. So I'm not convinced protecting the article is the best way forward here. Geometry guy 16:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This claim above that I am "pushing POV" is bald and without merit. What I am pushing is a necessary change to this one article that seems to be guarded by some self-appointed experts who refuse to allow any changes at all. SteakNShake 22:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, his username could be summarily blocked as per WP:U... that would be dumping a major amount of gas on the fire, but I thought I'd point that out. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs)

• EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Multiple references of personal attacks [70] "Do you think i give an F*** about the no Personal Attack policy" [71] "This Annonymous User is so stuped." [72] "Where the fuk did i said that...you stupid idiot..."(keep it short). As well as on user talk pages, [73] ,[74]. He has been warned numerous times [75], [76], [77] . As well as uses multiple IP's and usernames [78] . A block due to these multiple and flagrant violations is believed to be in order.

New issues include going onto checkuser cases and making personal attacks [79] YA ARE LIARS!LIARS!LIARS , [80] stating his extreme anger for the checkuser "I'm angry because is unfair that already two people are banned for wrong acussations...memeco, and platanogenius..ya are being to narrowminded over here" and his amazement of his own listing [81] "WHy am i relisted in the top???Why is my name written on top?I'm going to be acussed a sock puppet too???this is crazy here!are ya going to block the whole wiki Population jut to get what ya want?" . He has continued with non-civil behavior referring to people as "dumb ass" [82] refering to other users as idiots [83] and telling banned members (platanogenius) to get a new account [84] . He has continued on with uncivil behavior by stating that talk page convo and sockpuppet issues were "dumb shit" [85] . He has been given a final warning concerning his behavior but continued with this [86].. He has had at least 8 previous warnings on his talk page for this behavior. [87] Please take a look at this and consider that this user should be blocked. This is his second major report of unruly behavior on wikipedia. [88] [89] YoSoyGuapo 02:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Please adjust, agree, disagree, discuss. Grandmasterka 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

After you blocked EdwinCasadoBaez He came back under another IP address 69.120.74.120 and 69.119.127.181 . Less than 2 hours later. [90] [91] . He has admitted to this and basically refuses to abide by the block. YoSoyGuapo 07:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet blocked, original block extended, firm explanatory response e-mail sent. Let's keep all future discussion in one place. Grandmasterka 16:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This is probably the same editor as User:EdwinCasado, who was indef blocked as a vandal in October. Natalie 21:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Migospia and racism

Speaking of accusations of racism, could an admin other than I warn Migospia (talk · contribs) that just because someone templates an image of a black artist, or !votes in a *FD about a black individual, it does not mean they are racist. I've tried, but i'm just a "fucker" who wishes to rid Wikipedia of any reference to black people, apparently. I'm not going to get a favorable response talking with her any further. For your attention, a choice selection of her quotes from the last two days alone:

1. "... it seems you are just going for the small time black artist." In an email to me 2 days ago.
2. "...if this is not rascit then either add that image thing to all cd/album covers here on Wikipedia or delete them"
3. "...I am starting to know why people hate Wikipedia it is because of admins like you and you were cleary awae of the race"
4. "...how can you vote to delete this and not be racist"
5. "...I am just saying a couple of people voting already hate me and oe is racist"
6. "...I suggest we find some non rascist and people who don't hate me in here"

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tangeline. Rockpocket 08:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have left Migospia a note about this discussion. I suggest dropping her a strong {{uw-agf3}} - if she persists in the ad hominem attacks, further action can be taken. Riana ⁂ 08:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I posted a similar comment about this user on the noticeboard. I had already warned her in the AfD about throwing around charges of racism, and yet she continued. When I left a message on her talk page about leaving defamatory comments, she deleted my warning from her talk page and replied "Ah! I can't believe this another editor!" on mine. DarkAudit 08:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A number of warnings from friendly to stern have been offered, e.g. [92] [93]. Doesn't seem to make much difference, even when faced this the litany above she appears to think it proves her point about racist motivations. I don't feel there is anything I can say that will have a positive outcome, so I'm left with taking action. If someone else wishes to try an avoid that then be my guest. Rockpocket 08:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I really suggest you start looking into your own policies and definitions of words, because this is beyond belief and sickening, it is like that time someone broke a 3rr and got away with it and another not really breaking it got blocked, you guys have to stop twisting things around and bending policies, it really is hurting people in the process, or at least person--Migospia †♥ 09:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm attempting the old "Assault With An Olive Branch" approach, let's see if that works. I see that the initial concerns of this editor have not been referred to, so I have suggested at her talkpage that she checks out WP:CSB (once I got the link to work, ha!) to see if she can address her concerns there. Unless there is something new someone can bring to this debate I suggest we don't pile on on over there. If the folk that has already tried cannot get a result I'm not sure what more of the same will do to improve things. LessHeard vanU 09:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I've said my last, so hopefully you may have more luck than I. One note though, while I'm very aware of Wikipedia's systemic bias where it exists, I'm not convinced that is the relevant issue here. The reason I say this is because I was also accused of racial motivation of an entirely separate issue a day or so previously (a fair use query of this image.) I was genuinely flabbergasted, since I hadn't actually registered what the subject of the image was of when the allegation was made. Prior to that she was accusing those who were editing the veganism article of holding an anti-vegan agenda (despite the fact the editor she was accusing is a vegan himself and was sourcing his info from pro-vegan websites). Since Migospia edits quite heavily in these divisive issues, I'm getting the feeling that anything that she does not concur with is immediately perceived as an issue of bias or discrimination by the other editor. As I'm sure you are aware, that simply is not conducive to constructive editing. I felt that should be made clear. Rockpocket 10:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The perception of bias (which can include any subject where there is more than one opinion) is as important as the actuality. If Migospia can address her concerns as it relates to WP:CSB then at least her interactions should be more civil, and better addressed according to policy/guidelines. In my brief interaction with her I think that she is responding better. Perhaps a (semi) sympathetic ear was all that she needed to calm things down. LessHeard vanU 18:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on Migospia (talk · contribs)'s talk page about all of this. As I told her, there has long been systemic bias at Wikipedia and some editors are racists (such as the skinheads who pop up here all the time and vandalize articles). But in this case, none of this applies b/c Tangeline simply isn't an article that should be kept.--Alabamaboy 13:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, her userpage indicates she is civil, so her action is contradicting her words, I guess? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 14:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Like everything else, what happens generally is an abstract. When it happens to you then it takes on a different hue. Pointing out the obvious is not always advantageous. LessHeard vanU 18:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

She is now claiming that she was not calling anyone racist, but is also not rescinding or striking out the inflammatory statements. A statement like "how can you vote to delete this and not be racist" makes it clear that she was. DarkAudit 21:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Threats by Administrator llywrch

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

Administrator llywrch (talk · contribs) made this bad faith AFD nomination, in which he admits "I'm nominating this not so much I think it should be deleted, but as a way to encourage people to think about an issue". Several editors expressed distaste for misuse of the AFD process, I suggested a speedy keep with an admonishment of the nominator for such a gross violation of WP:POINT. Llywrch made this response (which he has now reverted), and then issued this direct threat on my talk page: The next time you send a message like that, things may not end with a message on your Talk page.

Administrators should know better than to violate WP:POINT, but what's really disturbing is his willingness to threaten editors who point out such. Other than pointing out that making spurious/bad faith AFD nominations only clog the system and waste editors' time (AFD was speedily kept as a bad faith nomination) and suggesting a word of caution regarding WP:POINT, I have had no interaction with this admin nor made any other comments regarding the incident.

Instead of responding directly to his threats, I'm requesting ANI advice and/or intervention on how to deal with an admin who is making inappropriate threats. Help is appreciated. /Blaxthos 12:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• As far as I can see it wasn't WP:POINT, it was a good-faith attempt to find a way of resolving a problem. Not a particularly productive one, but there you go. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Nominating an article for deletion that one admits shouldn't be deleted simply to "encourage disccusion" on a policy/guideline is absolutely violating WP:POINT. However, as stated above, my bigger concern isn't the WP:POINT; the meat of the problem is the very blatant threat made by an administrator when it was completely unwarranted. Do you think that admins should be able to threaten editors who, as far as I can tell, did nothing wrong? /Blaxthos 13:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not disruption. It's a common mistake. And the way to handle it is not to say "nominator should be warned for disruption" but to explain things by saying Don't bring articles to AFD where an administrator hitting a delete button is not what you want. and to point out that Deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox., directing people to the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. You can also point to the notability guidelines, where merger into articles with a broader scope is given as the appropriate option. See User:Uncle G/On notability#Dealing with non-notable things for more. Uncle G 13:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I can understand how it is a common mistake for someone unfamilar with wikipolicy - but an admin? I'd also like clarification of what was meant by this remark. --Fredrick day 14:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I think the entire evolution of events is downright disturbing. I will attempt to reiterate the problems:

1. A (by his own account) seasoned admin (who is tasked with the responsibility of properly disposing AFDs) either doesn't understand the purpose of AFD, or ignores it entirely.
2. After no fewer than five editors express the inappropriate nature of the AFD, the admin makes this statement, in which he expresses his intent to take unilateral action in the future (presumably because the community forcefully rejected his malformed attempt to instigate discussion in an inappropriate manner)
3. The admin then makes a statement on my talk page that can be construed as nothing except a threat of punative action because of comments made regarding his AFD (additionally, I wasn't the only editor to point out the "abuse" of the AFD process by this admin).
4. When I bring it to ANI, it appears (note I'm not saying actually is) that other admins are circling the wagons and seem unwilling to address the significant inappropriate actions of a fellow admin.

What am I supposed to do? This could be fodder for WP:RFARB, however I'm trying to find some other avenue in which these concerns are addressed. How about addressing the points above? /Blaxthos 14:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Reads like frustration to me. HE asked for a discussion of expandable stubs, and what can be done with them. in stead, he got a long set of standard AfD arguments for Keep, and a couple of 'POINT' shouts. No one actually addressed his problem, instead, IF they reallized what he wanted, they POINT'd him. I'd be frustrated too. Heck, I'm frustrated more often than not by WP these days. I see his point, and agree, there's probably a need to figure out how to address the issue. He got blown off, ignored, and attacked by various people instead. he reacted. Not a good reaction, and a stupid thing to say. Since his nom wasn't about deletion but discussion, saying 'i'll delete what I want' is foolish. All the same, I'd chalk it up to an Admin identifying a problem and trying to get broader community consensus, picking a less than optimal method, and getting frustrated by the response. ThuranX 14:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's not brush it off as frustration... HE is an admin, HE abused the AFD process (or used it for an inappropriate purpose), then HE issued threats of unilateral inappropriate action and threats of punative action against editors who did nothing wrong. How is this appropriate or excusable for an administrator? /Blaxthos 14:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No, he looked for a resolution to a problem, but looked in the wrong place. Go away and help him find the right place, or just go away. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. ThuranX 16:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

An admin outright attempts to bully an editor who has done nothing wrong, and states his intent to completely ignore proper protocol in the future, and instead of addressing the issue (which isn't the original problem, but rather his reactions to it) and I'm told to "just go away". Unbelievable. No wonder most editors hesitate to enlist administrative assistance... you guys should be ashamed. /Blaxthos 17:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

But you did do something wrong. Being rude and unhelpful is something wrong in my book. If he actually deletes articles without consensus then that's a different matter of course. But for now, let it drop. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to follow Theresa's advice, & let the matter drop, but I only discovered a few minutes ago that I was the subject of a discussion here, & thought I tell my side of the matter.

1. I don't frequent AfD much nowadays, so I'm not up on the rules or the mood of the place. When I was there more often, it was not unusual to nominate articles like this one. (I'm still somewhat disappointed in the response I received there, because I felt this was a hard case, AfD serves best to deal with hard cases like this, & no one appeared interested in discussing why I felt it was a heard case. But at least I received some discussion.)
2. One instance of an act like this, whether or not it was intentional, is not what WP:POINT is intended to address. Sometimes one has to be bold, & push against what one perceives are unspoken rules of Wikipedia in order to learn what fellow Wikipedians currently think, then act accordingly; this should be done, I admit, in the most minimal manner possible. I don't think I am being disingenuous here in saying not every convention on Wikipedia has been debated & addressed in policy -- nor is every question about such matters met with a prompt response.
3. Much of what I do on Wikipedia, I tend to do in isolation, without direct input from other Wikipedians. Sometimes I wonder if my "Wiki compass" has drifted too far away from what the consensus is -- & asking questions from time to time is a way to check this.
4. Hmm. So if someone posts something intemperate on Wikipedia, afterwards recognizes that it was the wrong thing to say & reverts her/himself as soon as possible, it still counts as if that person left it unreverted?
5. Frankly, I am a bit surprised -- & gratified that anyone "stuck up" for me. I consider myself a lone wolf on Wikipedia, & unaffiliated with any faction or philosophy expressed here on Wikipedia. I just try to contribute useful content, & less often I express an opinion about policy; occasionally I contribute something that other Wikipedians agree is actually useful.
6. Lastly, I am unaware that telling someone that they have offended me is a threat. Blaxthos twice mentioned "WP:POINT" in this post -- once in the body, once in the comment line. I asked one question -- & he believes is I am disrupting Wikipedia to make some kind of point. (What it is, I can't fathom -- perhaps it's that "don't nominate orphan articles about historical people of borderline notability"?) -- llywrch 19:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks for popping across to explain that - I think this comes out "nothing much to see here". while you might consider yourself a lone wolf - don't be too hesitate to "howl out" if you want an independent second view about what you are upto. regards --Fredrick day 20:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use image on a user page.

Hello all. I hope I'm bringing this to the right noticeboard- these things seem a tad Byzantine at times. Anyways I deleted two fair use images from the talk page of Kingzjester (talk · contribs) diff & diff- I admit that I only left an edit summary and didn't use the {{Fuir}} template (which I didn't know about because it's not listed at WP:UTM). Kingzjester responded by undoing my last edit and restoring one image to his talk page diff. I then wrote a short note diff explaining about why I had deleted the images. Kingzjester responded by refactoring my comments diffdiffdiff and adding a rather nasty notediff- all of which he eventually erased and replaced with a URL for a websitediff that McAfee reports has a web exploit[94]. He also posted one of the images onto his user page diff, where it remains. I wrote a second note, apologizing for not writing before deleting the image and more fully explaining the wherefores of the fair use policy diff. The response was the replacement of my comments by giant image of LBJ. I notified him/her that I was bringing the discussion here. I welcome your suggestions, comments. Thank you. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 16:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fair use images are not allowed outside of article space, period. You have every right to remove them and revert them being put back in. If the user keeps re-adding them, warn and then report them for violating copyright. -N 16:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  I don't know if they are related, but Kingzjester (talk · contribs) has uploaded images and placed them on the userpage of Oh yEs itS caRly (talk · contribs). I also applied db templates to all of the images; user pages should not be used as MySpace entries. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  I'm also speedying the other images that Kingzjester (talk · contribs) has uploaded; they appear to be copyright violations, taken from [95]. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware of not biting the newbies. Fair use images in userspace is one thing, but personal photos are another. WP:NOT#myspace is not a speedy deletion reason, furthermore you need to WP:AGF. Please step back and not attack this user so much. He probably feels very threatened. I used to think the same as you, find one small thing with an editor, attack everything wrong about them. I will leave a note for the user. I encourage you to all step back a moment. -N 18:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

At least take the time to read her user page. She's a constructive editor, but her posting of 10+ images of herself, plus others that are orphaned, is just insane. This is not MySpace; none of the images are encyclopedic. If they are not speedied, then I'll apply for them to be all deleted at IFD. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And she's not a new user, FTR. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

_{And please cite where I "attacked" the "new" user. Furthermore, if these are violations, why did you not apply IFD templates for the images instead of doing plain reverts and then not assuming good faith when you sprouted up at my talk page?} Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to Kingzjester, not Carly. I'm not going to get into a fight with you over this. -N 19:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

How were applying tags for copyright violations "attacks"? Furthermore, if you go back through his edits, you can see a prior history of very crude remarks. Certaintly he was not applying good faith. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is something else that creates a question. Kingzjester (talk · contribs) uploads this at June 3 around 2:04. Oh yEs itS caRly (talk · contribs) then uploads this and this June 3, around 2:15 that are from the same set. Possible sock? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, or more probably meatpuppeting, but they aren't violating the policies on having multiple accounts, as far as I can see. -N 19:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imdanumber1

Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) continues to bypass redirects because he dislikes redirects and "a guideline...cannot be violated". The latest can be seen at User talk:NE2#Redirects, in which he urges me to "be a better contributor on Wikipedia" by allowing him to continue his redirect bypassing, and tells me to "do us a favor and leave Wikipedia, troll." Can I please have some advice? --NE2 16:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of these changes seem to be in piped links, not changing redirects TO piped links. Since they are already 'hidden' links, I don't think the changing from redirects is such a bad idea. I read the relevant section, and it says not to turn a solid redirect into a piped link, but doesn't seem nearly so clear about the changing of the destination of a piped link. I think it's better anyways. Why give people confusing information? If they see A on rollover of the link, but wind up at B, they might go check A anyway, to check against vandalism. I've done that before, and I've even found it before. Perhaps an Admin might have a better insight to the policy here, but I don't htink he's done anything wrong. ThuranX 17:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Changing the link to New Lots Line to point to IRT Eastern Parkway Line and New Lots Line makes cleanup a lot harder if the article, which talks about two lines, is split. The bypassing of Times Square–42nd Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) means that if the heading in Times Square–42nd Street (New York City Subway) is changed, changing the redirect to point to the new heading will not be enough. --NE2 17:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your point, ThuranX. This NE2 character is really starting to get on my nerves. Man, oh how I wish there was some type of anti-troll patrol on Wikipedia! –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 18:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

To NE2, then copy that reasonign to the talk, and revert those two. Imdanumber1, he's NOT being a troll,, he's got valid concerns about the links. I think that the problems aren't as big as he thinks they are, but he's not a troll. ThuranX 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You'd actually have to work with him for six months like I have to realize how disruptive he can be. He doesn't listen, he has a bad attitude towards other users, and he refuses to engage in a consensus to reach a decision that everyone may agree on, As much as I have tried to assume good faith for him, I can say no more than the fact that he is blatantly being spiteful, which I believe is and can be considered as trolling. Check his contribs and his talk archives. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 19:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have told him that repeatedly, but he only responds with claims about consensus. --NE2 19:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)